Andrew_ Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Kagawa scores. Bebe with a good assist Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllStar4 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Bebe owning the fullback then skillfully setting up Kagawa to score. Sweet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Bestie7 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 And inflation and massive increases in revenue show we spend a massively lower proportion of our earnings on signings than we used to. Remaining stable is pointless if your income is increasing along with everyone elses and they are actually using it. Remaining stable is not pointless if you've been put into the situation that United's finances have. I have pointed out that United's transfer dealings have been stable considering the club's debt. Except as everyone else has pointed out, by ever measure it has. Added into inflation, United have a player bought in the Glazer period in the top 25 largest transfers of all time. Why? Because we lost a massive amount of quality when he left and we still haven't found a way to correct that yet despite not spending the Ronaldo money. As I said before, if we'd fixed the problem without spending money then great, however we haven't fixed it and we haven't spent the money trying. You said it yourself, the problem hasn't been fixed. I have given you numerical figures showing the amount of money that has been spent post Ronaldo which would have solved the problem. You, on the other hand, are arguing spending more than has been spent even though there has been plenty spent to fix the problem already. The issue is not the Glazer's not providing money, it's Ferguson spending it in a way that leaves a hole in the centre of the midfield. But let's go back to your insistence that we should have "replaced" Ronaldo. Who, pray tell, could United have reasonably gotten as a direct replacement? This is just getting incredibly daft, how many times do people have to point out the black hole in your argument before you will acknowledge it? It's getting daft because you've yet to understand how there are distinctly different points being argued here. I am not arguing the point that the finances should have been better if the club wasn't caught in the debt it is in, I am not arguing that the spending will be hit if the club goes through an extended dry period of success, I am arguing that the money spent has allowed the club to be in a Champions League final both pre-and-post Ronaldo, win the league for a record 19th time and be 2 extra time minutes away from having a 20th this season. Which only failed to materialise because QPR so basically switched off once they knew they were safe. What I am arguing is that the spending culture of United, that is namely bringing in squad/potential players with a hint of big stars, has not been affected by the Glazers. But what you and many people are arguing for is that the club should not only be able to spend crazy amounts of money because of our revenue (agree), but that it should be spending much more money than it has been (disagree). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roseboy64 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Coldberg's point about youth is pretty much a wait and see one, the kids coming through now would barely have been affected by any potential changes the Glazers made.Meulensteen hasn't worked with the kids since the Glazers took over anyway has he? I thought once he came back from Brondby he went straight into coaching the first team? He's the one who's been credited with it and he wasn't gone for long either way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddidiodion Posted July 25, 2012 Author Share Posted July 25, 2012 Remaining stable is not pointless if you've been put into the situation that United's finances have. I have pointed out that United's transfer dealings have been stable considering the club's debt. So transfer spending being stable is good under the caveat that you've been bought by someone who has put you in £750m worth of debt? Right, glad you can see my point. Added into inflation, United have a player bought in the Glazer period in the top 25 largest transfers of all time. well done Glazers, the third biggest club in the world has bought one expensive player in 7 years. He's our sole signing over £20m since the Glazers took over isn't he? You said it yourself, the problem hasn't been fixed. I have given you numerical figures showing the amount of money that has been spent post Ronaldo which would have solved the problem. You, on the other hand, are arguing spending more than has been spent even though there has been plenty spent to fix the problem already. The issue is not the Glazer's not providing money, it's Ferguson spending it in a way that leaves a hole in the centre of the midfield. No, the amount we have spent already has been necessary, if we hadn't spent that money where we had and spent it somewhere else we'd be in the same position just somewhere else in the squad. But let's go back to your insistence that we should have "replaced" Ronaldo. Who, pray tell, could United have reasonably gotten as a direct replacement? Can you read? It's getting daft because you've yet to understand how there are distinctly different points being argued here. I am not arguing the point that the finances should have been better if the club wasn't caught in the debt it is in, I am not arguing that the spending will be hit if the club goes through an extended dry period of success, I am arguing that the money spent has allowed the club to be in a Champions League final both pre-and-post Ronaldo, win the league for a record 19th time and be 2 extra time minutes away from having a 20th this season. Which only failed to materialise because QPR so basically switched off once they knew they were safe. Oh I understand what you're trying to say but you're wrong. As has been pointed out, those successes (especially pre-Ronaldo to Madrid) were done in-spite of the Glazers not because of them. If we'd invested what we should then City wouldn't have been close enough to get near us in the first place. What I am arguing is that the spending culture of United, that is namely bringing in squad/potential players with a hint of big stars, has not been affected by the Glazers. But what you and many people are arguing for is that the club should not only be able to spend crazy amounts of money because of our revenue (agree), but that it should be spending much more money than it has been (disagree). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddidiodion Posted July 25, 2012 Author Share Posted July 25, 2012 Just looked it up further, he was skill development coach overseeing all players between 9 and 21 from 2001 to 2006 and has worked "primarily" with the first team since he came back. But people like Welbeck, Cleverley, Cole, Lingard were all at United as kids in that time and look how they turned out technically. I don't think that was the point Coldberg was making though, it was about scouting and young player recruitment. The first bunch of kids recruited at 9-10 during the Glazer era are only just getting into the youth team now, it will be 4-5 years before anyone who doesn't take a serious interest in such things to find out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coldberg Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 The youth investment at City has only started once their new owners took over. Give it a couple more years (when it'll be too late) & then you will start to see the effects of their investment & United's complete lack of it. Meanwhile we can all still discuss how the Ronaldo money was reinvested when it quite clearly wasn't. It's all well & good saying we spent £x amount on x amount of players ignoring the fact that we usually spend each season anyway. We spent a bit more than usual last season because quite honestly we had to. It was the bare minimum needed. Ronaldo cannot be replaced, that's obvious. However the players we've signed aren't anywhere near the standard he was. The RvP transfer is a perfect example (if we really are interested). If we were a PLC do you think we would be dragging heels over the price Arsenal want? Doubt it. He's a brilliant player & is in the prime of his career. Yet it looks like he'll be off to either Juventus or City because they will offer more in the way of a fee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
el sid Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 'I told you so' about Bebe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roseboy64 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Just looked it up further, he was skill development coach overseeing all players between 9 and 21 from 2001 to 2006 and has worked "primarily" with the first team since he came back. But people like Welbeck, Cleverley, Cole, Lingard were all at United as kids in that time and look how they turned out technically. Yeah that's it. He's the one who set things in motion and we've followed through so we're now able to use him with the first team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coldberg Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 And again, Coldberg is talking about Manchester as a place for recruitment when United have a much broader network than that. A network that local chit chat and fanzines won't understand the scale of. A network that certainly isn't decreasing in size but will be challenged by a growing network at City. Even historically top United talent has come from other places. Beckham, Charlton, Taylor, Edwards and now people like Cleverley. The kid next door is 5. I'm talking about the very first level of recruitment here. Recruitment outside of Manchester? Yeah we will have a real chance of getting kids with no affinity to the club over the likes of City when they are ploughing a lot more money & effort into the community & recruitment side of things. Especially now they have a load of star names & will likely be as (if not more) succesful than we will over the coming years. We've been that good over the last 15-20 years we've not needed to make the effort, we've had no real competition domestically (the bried periods we have it's been at the other end of the country) so haven't needed to really worry about it. This is the time when we really need to be making effort & it's come at the worst possible time when we are hamstrung by owners who aren't interested in it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roseboy64 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Oh I understand what you're trying to say but you're wrong. As has been pointed out, those successes (especially pre-Ronaldo to Madrid) were done in-spite of the Glazers not because of them. If we'd invested what we should then City wouldn't have been close enough to get near us in the first place. Sorry but that's rubbish. Just like Chelsea did, City would have caught up eventually. Not sure what that statement's supposed to mean. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roseboy64 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 The youth investment at City has only started once their new owners took over. Give it a couple more years (when it'll be too late) & then you will start to see the effects of their investment & United's complete lack of it. We don't invest in youth? What evidence is there of this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coldberg Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 In comparison to City. We could spend weeks discussing this but the proof will only start to appear over the coming years by which time this will be a distant memory. This is all fluff surrounding my original point which was that all our owners care about is the short term & making as much profit as they can. The long game is pretty irrelevant to them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Bestie7 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 well done Glazers, the third biggest club in the world has bought one expensive player in 7 years. He's our sole signing over £20m since the Glazers took over isn't he?No, the amount we have spent already has been necessary, if we hadn't spent that money where we had and spent it somewhere else we'd be in the same position just somewhere else in the squad. Compared to the three in the seven years previous? Rooney, Ferdinand and Veron are the only £20+ players pre Glazers. Most of our signings post-Glazers have been £10-£19m but let's hope they start adding on an extra couple of million just to break that £20m barrier to show they're being competitive. Oh I understand what you're trying to say but you're wrong. As has been pointed out, those successes (especially pre-Ronaldo to Madrid) were done in-spite of the Glazers not because of them. If we'd invested what we should then City wouldn't have been close enough to get near us in the first place. And I love this attitude of everything successful on the pitch has nothing to do with the owners but everything negative on the pitch is. And show me where I'm wrong. Show me where United have invested in the way that City are now or Madrid have over the last 20 years on a consistent basis. There was that big two out of three year splurge when SAF was trying to totally change the playing style of the club within a few years and that's it. The rest has been a steady shifting of players and style. At no time has United gone out and been the Madrid/City/PSG spenders year after year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coldberg Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 None I expect. City are making investments now that we made a long time ago and therefore don't need to do again. Yes, that's precisely how football works. You invest once & then you don't ever have to worry about it again as you've already bought that upgrade. This isn't football manager. Our scouting network is already rubbish compared to most of the other top clubs. When was the last time we actually bought someone fairly unheard of on the cheap & they turned out to be a real bargain? Instead we end up buying promising players at inflated prices once other clubs have already been linked with them. Ronaldo is the perfect example of this. Was being touted to Arsenal & Liverpool at half the price we signed him for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icelander83 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Yes, that's precisely how football works. You invest once & then you don't ever have to worry about it again as you've already bought that upgrade. This isn't football manager. Our scouting network is already rubbish compared to most of the other top clubs. When was the last time we actually bought someone fairly unheard of on the cheap & they turned out to be a real bargain? Instead we end up buying promising players at inflated prices once other clubs have already been linked with them. Ronaldo is the perfect example of this. Was being touted to Arsenal & Liverpool at half the price we signed him for. That Hernandez bloke? Also seem to remember Vidic not exactly being the most expensive player ever? Probably Evra too? Of course depends on your definition of 'unheard of' but Hernandez at least fits that. But for the purposes of this discussion he's probably **** Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hursty2 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 1-0 victory against Shanghai Shenhua today, Kagawa with the goal and Bebe looking sharp. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macallan Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 So who of the younger players did leave a good impression so far? As a belgian myself I must say I am really pleased with the contribution of Vermijl. I would even dare to say that he is no lesser player tha Rafael at RB. Besides that Wootton alongside Rio isn't too bad either. And Petrucci/Tunnicliffe/Lingard did a decent job in midfield. Hopefully they will get some more plying minutes as SAF is deciding over a loan move or a call up to the 1st squad? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coldberg Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 That Hernandez bloke?Also seem to remember Vidic not exactly being the most expensive player ever? Probably Evra too? Of course depends on your definition of 'unheard of' but Hernandez at least fits that. But for the purposes of this discussion he's probably **** Vidic the Serbian CB who had just been in an international team that had let a single goal in during qualifying (finishing ahead of Spain in the group I think)? Who was being chased by other clubs? Also that was 7 years ago. Evra also had offers from Inter, Real & Arsenal didn't he? He chose us over them. Hardly unknown. I think my views on Hernandez are pretty well known anyway. I don't think he's good enough to be anything other than an impact player at the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icelander83 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Vidic the Serbian CB who had just been in an international team that had let a single goal in during qualifying (finishing ahead of Spain in the group I think)? Who was being chased by other clubs? Also that was 7 years ago.Evra also had offers from Inter, Real & Arsenal didn't he? He chose us over them. Hardly unknown. I think my views on Hernandez are pretty well known anyway. I don't think he's good enough to be anything other than an impact player at the club. 7 years? **** me, time flies Either way, they've certainly turned out to be bargains, even more so if they were chased by others, so that fits half of what I bolded! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icelander83 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Actually, when was the last time other big clubs bought someone from nowhere for a low fee who turned out amazing? That's an honest question fwiw, I don't think it's fair to aim that at only United when I don't doubt for a second it applies to any other big club Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustardpower Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Yes, that's precisely how football works. You invest once & then you don't ever have to worry about it again as you've already bought that upgrade. This isn't football manager. Our scouting network is already rubbish compared to most of the other top clubs. When was the last time we actually bought someone fairly unheard of on the cheap & they turned out to be a real bargain? Instead we end up buying promising players at inflated prices once other clubs have already been linked with them. Ronaldo is the perfect example of this. Was being touted to Arsenal & Liverpool at half the price we signed him for. You can't really use Ronaldo as an example to moan how we pay over the odds for talented youngsters even if you claim Arsenal and Liverpool could of got him for half the price, the fact is they didn't and we sold him for £80 million which makes the fee paid for him a bargain. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPS Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Hernandez isn't good enough as far as I'm concerned, he's a player from a bygone age. On another note, with all this young talent that City are hoovering up it will be interesting how many of them break through for them in the next decade. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Bestie7 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Hernandez isn't good enough as far as I'm concerned, he's a player from a bygone age. On another note, with all this young talent that City are hoovering up it will be interesting how many of them break through for them in the next decade. Agree. Especially if they don't cut back on their first team spending. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coldberg Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 You can't really use Ronaldo as an example to moan how we pay over the odds for talented youngsters even if you claim Arsenal and Liverpool could of got him for half the price, the fact is they didn't and we sold him for £80 million which makes the fee paid for him a bargain. Yes I can? They didn't get him because for some reason we decided to suddenly pay almost double what was being asked for him. Let other teams do the ground work & then we come in & pay over the odds. It's the perfect example to illustrate my point about scouting. Anything that happened after we signed him is completely irrelevant to the point I made. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coldberg Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Agree. Especially if they don't cut back on their first team spending. They will have to reign in the spending which is precisely why they are investing so much into local communities & other areas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roseboy64 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Yes, that's precisely how football works. You invest once & then you don't ever have to worry about it again as you've already bought that upgrade. This isn't football manager. Our scouting network is already rubbish compared to most of the other top clubs. When was the last time we actually bought someone fairly unheard of on the cheap & they turned out to be a real bargain? Instead we end up buying promising players at inflated prices once other clubs have already been linked with them. Ronaldo is the perfect example of this. Was being touted to Arsenal & Liverpool at half the price we signed him for. This is really rubbish IMO. You're basing us not investing in youth on one kid choosing to sign for City and them investing loads into their youth programme. We're already at a world class level with regards to this and are upgrading Carrington at the moment to upgrade out facilities. Not sure what you're on about. Plus calling our scouting network rubbish is nonsense. Pretty much all top clubs will have quality scouting networks these days. As such there will be very few players that scouts will not have heard of. Just because the average fan doesn't know them isn't an indicator that a scout from Arsenal and Man United has spotted him and waiting to see what the player does before considering him ready. Sometimes say Arsenal will make a move on him and so you end up paying over the worth. One has to also factor in the fact that in this age youtube videos and mobile phone cameras and the like it's not unheard of to see some random 12yo kid being touted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roseboy64 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Yes I can?They didn't get him because for some reason we decided to suddenly pay almost double what was being asked for him. Let other teams do the ground work & then we come in & pay over the odds. It's the perfect example to illustrate my point about scouting. Anything that happened after we signed him is completely irrelevant to the point I made. Wow.We were scouting Ronaldo for quite a while before we signed him. He was on our radar so that's just silly right there. we did ground work just as much as the others. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustardpower Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Yes I can?They didn't get him because for some reason we decided to suddenly pay almost double what was being asked for him. Let other teams do the ground work & then we come in & pay over the odds. It's the perfect example to illustrate my point about scouting. Anything that happened after we signed him is completely irrelevant to the point I made. Would you rather we offered the same amount as competitors for transfer targets and risk missing out on players that obviously our scouts identify as having the best potential available and then have to settle for a second choice target. I would much rather see money spent on a player we could have in our team for years or sell at a higher price than spend £30+ million on a player like Berbatov who we will make a loss on and also risk paying massive fees for someone that might fail to play well. I think its important to get value for money but paying massive fees for players in their prime is not neccessarily value for money,players like Kaka and Torres spring to mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddidiodion Posted July 25, 2012 Author Share Posted July 25, 2012 Sorry but that's rubbish. Just like Chelsea did, City would have caught up eventually. Not sure what that statement's supposed to mean. Last season? Nah sorry, keeping hold of Tevez would have held them back from the Champions League by at least another season. Compared to the three in the seven years previous? Rooney, Ferdinand and Veron are the only £20+ players pre Glazers. Most of our signings post-Glazers have been £10-£19m but let's hope they start adding on an extra couple of million just to break that £20m barrier to show they're being competitive. 3 in the previous 7, coinciding with the real lift off of our commercial side in a time when transfer fees were lower? Yeah that sounds about right. And I love this attitude of everything successful on the pitch has nothing to do with the owners but everything negative on the pitch is. Where did you get this nonsense from? Stop making stuff up to suit your purpose. And show me where I'm wrong. Show me where United have invested in the way that City are now or Madrid have over the last 20 years on a consistent basis. There was that big two out of three year splurge when SAF was trying to totally change the playing style of the club within a few years and that's it. The rest has been a steady shifting of players and style. At no time has United gone out and been the Madrid/City/PSG spenders year after year. Man Utd have spent heavily several times since Ferguson took over. We did it in the late 80's, the early 90's, the late 90's and spent heavily all the way through the early 2000's. Nobody is asking us to invest like City, that isn't possible with or without the debt and necessary as we had a much higher starting basis, most would just like to see our investment representative of the amount of money we make like it used to be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddidiodion Posted July 25, 2012 Author Share Posted July 25, 2012 Actually, when was the last time other big clubs bought someone from nowhere for a low fee who turned out amazing? That's an honest question fwiw, I don't think it's fair to aim that at only United when I don't doubt for a second it applies to any other big club I'm honestly not sure you can any more, especially the last 3-4 years. The second one of the big clubs comes in for a player it's like dropping blood into a shark tank and the price rockets. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPS Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 I'd be surprised if City suddenly start producing great players from their academy by throwing their wallet around. City have always had a very good youth set-up anyway. Time will tell, but the likelhood of them promoting a crop of youth players to their first team in the next 10-15 years is pie in the sky to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheps. Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 So who of the younger players did leave a good impression so far? Not that any of them have really faced stiff opposition yet but I think Wootton's done really well for someone I've always considered completely average. Lingard and Petrucci are class technical players, it'll be interesting to see if they can make the step up physically now. I think my views on Hernandez are pretty well known anyway. I don't think he's good enough to be anything other than an impact player at the club. Hernandez isn't good enough as far as I'm concerned, he's a player from a bygone age. I love him, but I agree with these. His game is so limited that teams can easily nullify his threat. That said, he could definitely be/already is an OGS-type player. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roseboy64 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Last season? Nah sorry, keeping hold of Tevez would have held them back from the Champions League by at least another season. They'd probably have just signed another talented forward without Tevez. Whether it was last season or not doesn't matter. They'd have thrown money at it anyway to reach where they wanted. It was inevitable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icelander83 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 I'm honestly not sure you can any more, especially the last 3-4 years. The second one of the big clubs comes in for a player it's like dropping blood into a shark tank and the price rockets. Exactly what I'm thinking but if someone wants to beat United over the head with it then I'd like some examples of other clubs doing it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddidiodion Posted July 25, 2012 Author Share Posted July 25, 2012 They'd probably have just signed another talented forward without Tevez. Whether it was last season or not doesn't matter. They'd have thrown money at it anyway to reach where they wanted. It was inevitable. All well and true but considering we were talking about City beating us to the title last season, not even slightly relevant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roseboy64 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 All well and true but considering we were talking about City beating us to the title last season, not even slightly relevant. It is since they would have someone other than Tevez to help them. Might even have won them the title sooner that replacement player. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddidiodion Posted July 25, 2012 Author Share Posted July 25, 2012 It is since they would have someone other than Tevez to help them. Might even have won them the title sooner that replacement player. And who would that be exactly? If they were reliant on Dzeko then they certainly wouldn't have and without Champions League football they were never getting Aguero. No striker available to City could have come in and did the job he did, he had Premier League experience and is still their best striker when he turns up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roseboy64 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 They might have thrown money at Eto'o or Cavani or any of such quality strikers. Premier League experience means little if the player they bring in adapts quickly and scores plenty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddidiodion Posted July 25, 2012 Author Share Posted July 25, 2012 They might have thrown money at Eto'o or Cavani or any of such quality strikers. Premier League experience means little if the player they bring in adapts quickly and scores plenty. Yeah I can see why Eto'o would go to City instead of Jose Mourinho's Inter Milan or why City would be in for a random from the Italian league who had never scored more than 10 goals in a season before that one, or that that player would have had the same impact Carlos Tevez did. Carlos Tevez's signing was absolutely critical for City, there is no other way to look at it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roseboy64 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Bad examples but irrelevant to my main point. Just as how they lured Tevez to them with wads of cash. So too would they have someone else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddidiodion Posted July 25, 2012 Author Share Posted July 25, 2012 Bad examples but irrelevant to my main point. Just as how they lured Tevez to them with wads of cash. So too would they have someone else. Except none of the other players they lured then or since, with potentially the exception of Aguero (who only moved when they had CL football) are as good as Tevez, getting Champions League football with Adebayor? Nah I don't think so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roseboy64 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 They've managed to get quality in the likes of Silva, Kompany and Yaya so them getting someone as good as Tevez I wouldn't put out of the realm of possibility. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddidiodion Posted July 25, 2012 Author Share Posted July 25, 2012 All of those players came of the back of the season where they finished just behind the Champions League places, not off the back of the season where they finished 10th. Tevez was their stand-out buy and if they'd been stuck with the likes of Adebayor and Santa Cruz then that would have delayed them plenty, City weren't nearly attractive then as they are now, Tevez was a coup not a formality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coldberg Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 This is really rubbish IMO. You're basing us not investing in youth on one kid choosing to sign for City and them investing loads into their youth programme. We're already at a world class level with regards to this and are upgrading Carrington at the moment to upgrade out facilities. Not sure what you're on about. Plus calling our scouting network rubbish is nonsense. Pretty much all top clubs will have quality scouting networks these days. As such there will be very few players that scouts will not have heard of. Just because the average fan doesn't know them isn't an indicator that a scout from Arsenal and Man United has spotted him and waiting to see what the player does before considering him ready. Sometimes say Arsenal will make a move on him and so you end up paying over the worth. One has to also factor in the fact that in this age youtube videos and mobile phone cameras and the like it's not unheard of to see some random 12yo kid being touted. No, i'm basing it on other stuff like living near Hyde, working in Stockport & the fact that the people I speak to who are mainly a mix of United/City fans are pretty much all saying the same thing. That along with articles in fanzines & local papers backing up the fact that City are investing heavily which will end up leaving United behind. Talking to people at the ground the feeling is the same. They aren't just investing in the youth system, they're investing in the communities. If you don't think this is having an effect then I don't know what to say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPS Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 They aren't just investing in the youth system, they're investing in the communities. If you don't think this is having an effect then I don't know what to say. So what is the upshot of this then? Honestly, where do you think the two clubs will be in 15 years time? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddidiodion Posted July 25, 2012 Author Share Posted July 25, 2012 So what is the upshot of this then? Honestly, where do you think the two clubs will be in 15 years time? Depends how long the City gas money lasts. While I despise both ownerships for different reasons you can't deny City are doing the right things at ground level, at the moment it's too early to tell if the City hierarchy will allow that groundwork to come to fruition on just keep flooding the scene with foreign imports. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason the Yank Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 RT Andy Green @andersred Hearing #MUFC IPO pulled due to lack of investor demand at valuation / share structure demanded by Glazer family. #glazernomics Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bren24 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 What players are up against Cork City at the moment? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddidiodion Posted July 25, 2012 Author Share Posted July 25, 2012 RT Andy Green @andersred Hearing #MUFC IPO pulled due to lack of investor demand at valuation / share structure demanded by Glazer family. #glazernomics Surprised this hasn't got more comment, can pretty much say goodbye to any chance of signing a midfielder... funny how the Lucas talks died just before the IPO collapsed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.