Manchester United

[Kid Icarus]

Should also say that I think it's bad enough that there are people at Man United who even thought this was a conundrum that needed to be worked out and shows just how low the profit motive makes people go.

 

'They'd sell their own granny' seems like a fairly mild expression.

[Froggy]

42 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Should also say that I think it's bad enough that there are people at Man United who even thought this was a conundrum that needed to be worked out and shows just how low the profit motive makes people go.

 

'They'd sell their own granny' seems like a fairly mild expression.

 

Richard Arnold was bringing him back into the team. 100%. Ten Hag was clearly open to it as well, and has previous supporting Overmars at Ajax. 

 

We do ourselves no favours. 

 

 

Edited April 2 by Froggy

[gbandit]

Ten Hag strikes me very much as a “facts and figures” man. If it’s logical to bring him back because he’s a good footballer / logical to sell because hes a good footballer, he’d push for that. Wonder what Ferguson would have done. Keegan would have ran him out of town without a second thought

[Froggy]

14 minutes ago, gbandit said:

Ten Hag strikes me very much as a “facts and figures” man. If it’s logical to bring him back because he’s a good footballer / logical to sell because hes a good footballer, he’d push for that. Wonder what Ferguson would have done. Keegan would have ran him out of town without a second thought

 

Fergie was definitely a "the club comes first" kind of manager. I'd day if he had a cracking player on his hands he'd try to stop things from going public first mind. Once bad news got out then he'd cut ties IMO.

[joeyt]

24 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

Richard Arnold was bringing him back into the team. 100%. Ten Hag was clearly open to it as well, and has previous supporting Overmars at Ajax. 

 

We do ourselves no favours. 

 

 

 

 

Do you think there's still a small chance he'll play for you again?

 

Or do you think the protests last time will continue to prevent your hierarchy from even trying it?

 

Obviously he shouldn't be playing for yous but do wonder if they might test the waters again to see if they can try and brush it under the carpet

[Froggy]

Just now, joeyt said:

 

Do you think there's still a small chance he'll play for you again?

 

Or do you think the protests last time will continue to prevent your hierarchy from even trying it?

 

Obviously he shouldn't be playing for yous but do wonder if they might test the waters again to see if they can try and brush it under the carpet

 

Zero chance he plays for us again. The decision will be whether or not to cash in on him. 

 

Funny enough the position we're arguably weakest at is Greenwood's position.

[Dr Jinx]

The correct thing to have done would have been to terminate his contract. I’m sure there would have been some sort of insurance the club could have claimed.

 

What they have done essentially loaning him out with different wording and taking a “let’s see how it goes” approach was a massive own goal.

 

No doubting there’s a player in there but it sends a terrible message that basically if you’re a wealthy young player you can do pretty much what you want and there won’t be any major consequences.

 

If it was a Newcastle player and situation replicated here, I’d have exactly the same opinion, regardless of our FFP position.

 

Some things are more important.

[leffe186]

52 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Should also say that I think it's bad enough that there are people at Man United who even thought this was a conundrum that needed to be worked out and shows just how low the profit motive makes people go.

 

'They'd sell their own granny' seems like a fairly mild expression.

Tbf, Stifler’s first reaction was that Man U could afford to just cut ties while you guys have less financial room to manoeuvre. Every club will have people putting forward the financial argument. It’s sometimes just important to do the right thing and that’s hopefully what will win out.

 

I do think that the negative PR doesn’t matter as much as we would like. Having a Russian oligarch/kleptocrat throw money at a club was horrible to watch from outside but Chelsea fans by and large loved it and they got tons of new fans. We’ve already seen a significant number of Newcastle fans on this board saying “fuck it, let us just spend whatever we want”. If you’re successful you can just bludgeon on through. It’s harder when it’s just one player, but we’ve already seen Antony play on with any pushback dwindling. And isn’t his case similar - accusations but no charges? (Genuine question, I’ve not been following either story closely).

[Kid Icarus]

19 minutes ago, leffe186 said:

Tbf, Stifler’s first reaction was that Man U could afford to just cut ties while you guys have less financial room to manoeuvre. Every club will have people putting forward the financial argument. It’s sometimes just important to do the right thing and that’s hopefully what will win out.

 

I do think that the negative PR doesn’t matter as much as we would like. Having a Russian oligarch/kleptocrat throw money at a club was horrible to watch from outside but Chelsea fans by and large loved it and they got tons of new fans. We’ve already seen a significant number of Newcastle fans on this board saying “fuck it, let us just spend whatever we want”. If you’re successful you can just bludgeon on through. It’s harder when it’s just one player, but we’ve already seen Antony play on with any pushback dwindling. And isn’t his case similar - accusations but no charges? (Genuine question, I’ve not been following either story closely).

 

Not sure, but as much as I agree in general, I think the degree of separation there is with Abramovic and our owners makes it easier to ignore than in the Greenwood situation where he's been recorded raping his gf and we've all heard it. 

[Stifler]

26 minutes ago, leffe186 said:

Tbf, Stifler’s first reaction was that Man U could afford to just cut ties while you guys have less financial room to manoeuvre. Every club will have people putting forward the financial argument. It’s sometimes just important to do the right thing and that’s hopefully what will win out.

 

I do think that the negative PR doesn’t matter as much as we would like. Having a Russian oligarch/kleptocrat throw money at a club was horrible to watch from outside but Chelsea fans by and large loved it and they got tons of new fans. We’ve already seen a significant number of Newcastle fans on this board saying “fuck it, let us just spend whatever we want”. If you’re successful you can just bludgeon on through. It’s harder when it’s just one player, but we’ve already seen Antony play on with any pushback dwindling. And isn’t his case similar - accusations but no charges? (Genuine question, I’ve not been following either story closely).

I also said that I’d want him nowhere near the club as well. It depends on what side I’m looking at it. From a fans point of view, out and never darken our door again.

If I’m on the board the moral in me wants him out, but the clubs needs requires me to get something financially out of it, be that through insurance, or even compensation via the player himself if that’s even possible, or to a lesser extent, a transfer fee.

[leffe186]

26 minutes ago, Stifler said:

I also said that I’d want him nowhere near the club as well. It depends on what side I’m looking at it. From a fans point of view, out and never darken our door again.

If I’m on the board the moral in me wants him out, but the clubs needs requires me to get something financially out of it, be that through insurance, or even compensation via the player himself if that’s even possible, or to a lesser extent, a transfer fee.

Oh yeah, I was just making the point that it wasn’t just Man U who have people thinking the financial factors might play a part.