Nah, I don't really get it. Especially Mane. What kind of wage would Mane be after? Our wage structure would be all over the place. And if Man United couldn't agree to Rabiot's wage demands, how will we - without causing a revolt in the dressing room? Would be happy to be proven wrong, but I just don't see Rabiot or Mane coming or the Toon.
Depends if we pay Mane a big enough signing on fee I guess, he's on £350k a week at Bayern which we'd never pay, but signing on fees can be big these days. Mane's age is not an issue, same age as Trippier when we signed him, he can still make a big impact.
Tonali, yes. Szoboslai, yes. Young players with lower wage demands where you can spread the transfer fee to comply with FFP. But just ignore any of this mercenary heavy wage bollocks, like Mane or Rabiot. And don’t pay any attention to utter crap like. Neves joining on loan from Saudi.
So we shouldn't bother trying to sign them then? At times last season we really struggled to put teams to bed because Trippier was the only player on the wing that preferred to cross rather than cut in on his strong foot and shoot. We relied way too much on Trippier to deliver balls into the box at times. I found Murphy a breath of fresh air when Almiron got injured because he wasn't a winger that needed to cut in to use his stronger foot. It's good to have wingers that can cross rather than just cut in. I think we should have a mix. Joelinton cutting in on the left and Almiron cutting in on the right can work but we need variety. TL;DR - I don't want our wing positions full of players that need to cut in to use their stronger foot. Having wingers that can actually cross is useful. The problem with Willock/Joelinton LW and Almiron RW is our wingers can't cross.
But we don’t have the strikers for old fashioned wingers. Personally I’d rather us play the old fashioned 4-4-2 with proper wingers
"Old fashioned"? Why are wingers that can cross considered old fashioned? I know we don't play 4-4-2, but wingers in a 4-3-3 should still be able to cross rather than cut in. I get what you're saying, though.
