I'd even lump Carrick in there now. And even then, I can't see how any team can succesfully play RVP, Rooney and Mata together. Just doesn't work. Mata has to play number 10. So Moyes has to grow a pair and make RVP and Rooney battle for the striker spot. Plus I don't agree that your midfield is the weak spot. It is weak, but your defence is creaky now too and only Jones really has the potential to become United qualify (and let's face it, he's always injured anyway). Fellaini still has the ability to be a great DM however poor his form has been for United. Tell him to do nothing but the Makelele role and get a box to box runner next to him, with Mata as the AM and you'd be set. Someone like Pogba. --------------------------De Gea---------------------------- ??????----------Jones-------------???????----------????????? -----------------Fellaini----------???????-------------------- ??????-------------------Mata------------------------Januzaj ----------------------RVP/Rooney---------------------------
Ferguson's knack was to mould a team that was more than the sum of its parts. He didn't often buy superstars because he didn't need to. Moyes has so far failed to get the best from a group of good (but not great) players. They are playing a bit below the sum of their parts. But he does deserve time. Not being able to slot right in and mimic the greatest manager of all time is no crime. Ferguson's identity is all over the club, but without his unifying presence the club is a bit lost. Sack Moyes now, and his replacement has the exact same problem. Rebuild. It will take a couple of years at least.
It says A Vincent Kompany. Not literally Vincent Kompany. i.e., if I really, really need to spell it out, the best centre halves in the world, not take a punt on a non league player coming good. And yes we have. We very much have. From Bryan Robson, through to Roy Keane, Rio Ferdinand, Juan Veron and Wayne Rooney we've broken transfer records to buy much needed players in positions that needed filling. Now we buy players no one else is interested in while other clubs snap up the cream.
This. I never understood this perception some people have of United where they think Man Utds players are all homegrown and that they never spend money. 2 things: 1) The reason Chelsea, and more so City of late, had to spend vast sums of money is because their squads (again City in particular) were so far from title challenging quality that they needed a 100-200 million pound overhaul to completely rebuild the team. United were already top dogs, and its much easier (and cheaper) to maintain a team an excellent team with 1-2 signings a year than to create a whole new one from scratch with 10+ new signings. (plus people overcharged both Chelsea and City because they know they had oodles of cash) 2) For most of Romans reign at Chelsea, United have been owned by the Glazers, who, rather than pumping money IN to the club, are siphoning money OUT of the club. Hence why Fergie was not able to beat Chelsea and City to players like Hazard and probably many others who chose to play for City or Chelsea and earn higher wages. The only and I mean ONLY reason Man Utd have been winning trophies in the last 5-6 years or so is because you had an awesome manager, who made your team far greater than the sum of its parts, plus Ronaldo, who was an excellent find, didnt hurt having him either. Prior to the Glazers buying United, they would often make large purchases to buy superstars like Chief pointed out, Robson, Keane, Camel face, Veron, Rooney etc
Obviously you didn't read any of what was written there. Agree with Bodanki in the main. The Glazers tenure was always going to bite hard once standards started to slip and that would have happened under many managers not just Moyes. Ok they stumped up for Mata fair play but will they stump up big again in the summer? Even if they do will Moyes spend it well? Will it not now be a question of spending big to play catch up and hoping that Chelsea and City don't do exactly the same thing anyway? United will always have plenty of pulling power but missing CL (if that happens) makes the market much tougher...prices go up because clubs know you're desperate but the real top, top players demand CL so become out of reach.
They'll get away with that for 1 season, as they're still seen as one of the biggest clubs in Europe as of today & they can certainly still pay the going rate for the top men in the game. United will spend big in the summer, there's absolutely no doubt about that imo. The question is, will they trust Moyes to spend it?
No doubt they'd still be able to get very good players but the other question is how many will want to play for Moyes? Would a player like Ronaldo (just as an example) be happy without CL, playing for Moyes AND on less wages than PSG, Citeh or the Chavs would throw at him? There are now 3 very good reasons for the top, top boys to stay away and at least look at other options first.
Personally I don't think they'll have a problem attracting top players - see today for an example, as Fabregas is lifting his skirt to them. But if they keep Moyes, they might have a problem hanging on to a couple that they would prefer to keep though........
I just typed an epic post and hit the back button and wiped it. The gist was yes, players will give us one year grace without CL. Those with ambition will at least, seeing it also as a challenge to get us back up there. Which manager in charge is way down the list of priorities behind club/ambition/money/location/manager coming in last. Money and ambition are interchangeable of course. The truth is one poor season does not erase the pull of playing for Manchester United. Two might though, and to arrest that the Glazers have to pay. It's a decline they caused as they could have ultimately given money to keep the squad going over the last five years to avoid having to shell out about 300 million in pretty much one go. Instead we had the odd marquee signing, some decent prospects and a load of ****. That's the synopsis!
It still applies, prior to Roman, Bates was trying to get us challenging for the title. We nearly made it in 99, but it was ultimately not enough, we had newb managers like Guulitt and Vialli in charge, whilst you had SAF. And we made some pony signings like Chris Sutton for £10m which was a HUGE amount of money in 1999 (maybe even second highest signing ever at the time after Shearer's £15m move to Newcastle, though I may be wrong). Our spending was because we were trying to challenge you guys, who had a higher income, a bigger stadium and more fans. Roman essentially pulled us out the sh!t, otherwise lord knows what would have happened. (just one of the reasons Chelsea fans love him).
As I said above, weve broken numerous transfer records before and since glazer. Weve also missed out on player before the glazers because.... We refused to pay an extra million. So as far as i can see, the club operates pretty much the same way as before. Whats changed is Fergies refusal to pay agents huge sums. Many years ago united got a lot of stick for the fees we paid agents. Since then weve missed out on players for not paying agents enough to swing a deal our way. Im in no way saying im a fan of glazer but im not putting the blame entirely on them or Fergie. Sure they could have spent more and of course Fergie could have bought different players for the same money bit Fergie identifies his targets and went for them. If he failed he moved on. United spending is not the issue, without Chelsea and city nobody would care all that much. Those clubs are tge exception rather than the rule here. We cannot compete with them if they are given a free ride. We have to operate properly. If we tried to match them we would either make them pay even higher fees and wages or eventually spend so much that we start losing money. I think thats how Fergie saw things as well. Thats why more often than not he didnt go up against the money clubs as the long term repercussions would be to risky. I also assumed Fergie had faith in ffp to soften the impact of the money clubs. Just my opinion.
