Which raises the question as to fecking why? Auba is supposedly off for 60 or so million, I'm sure we could have afforded both him and Griezmann instead of blowing our load on inferior strikers. Auba is superior to both Belotti and Morata.We are not not interested in him, the ban made the deal very unlikely.
So do we.No. I hate repeating myself, Di Marzio reported the exact same thing a couple of days ago. Our priorities are #1 Morata, #2 Mbappe, #3 Griezmann.
No, like 5 journo's tweeted the same thing within 5 minutes, it's obviously a club briefing. Also Di Marzio said our interest had cooled last week too.are we giving up because of James Duckweed?
Amazing autocorrect ^^
Ducker, BBC and MEN all within minutes of each other, saying the same thing? It's a briefing.I'm calling bullshit on that. Ducker knows nothing, his third tweet even leaves room for getting out of it with basically saying but it could still happen.
It isn't just Ducker mate. Too many for it not to be a club brief.I'm calling bullshit on that. Ducker knows nothing, his third tweet even leaves room for getting out of it with basically saying but it could still happen.
We don't tbh. If we go into next season with Mkhitaryan/Mata as our #10s OR play a midfield three of Pogba/Herrera/new DM I think we would be fine.We need both though. We can work multiple deals at one time
I will.
Hadnt seen the others, still think it's bollocks, if it's a briefing it's a distraction or negotiating tactic.Ducker, BBC and MEN all within minutes of each other, saying the same thing? It's a briefing.
Atletico dont want to sell due to not getting any players in this summer, that means we have to pay his buyout up front. I doubt the club would do that. And maybe Mou was just not keen on Auba for whatever the reason.Which raises the question as to fecking why? Auba is supposedly off for 60 or so million, I'm sure we could have afforded both him and Griezmann instead of blowing our load on inferior strikers. Auba is superior to both Belotti and Morata.
Wow!I will.
Yea just saw that...It isn't just Ducker mate. Too many for it not to be a club brief.
Hadnt seen the others, still think it's bollocks, if it's a briefing it's a distraction or negotiating tactic.
Agree although it's a bit silly in the end as the whole internet knows about the CAS verdict impacting Atletico - only logical that United were going to have to course correct as a resultSo the Ibra Injury that happened months ago has made United change their mind only now, the day Atleti's ban is upheld? Sounds like a bit of saving face tbh, don't think this one will happen.
Onto the Lukaku thread.
Why does he need to do anything? It's Atletico's fault for not playing ball with United in regards to negotiating. If he doesn't sign a contract, then there's a better chance that Madrid will sell this window or next. Griezmann is still young, and we're still going to be very interested in his services even if the transfer doesn't happen in this window.I don't think Griezman's the kind of guy to play second fiddle in terms of deals, it gets done soon or it won't get done he isn't gonna sit tight all summer hoping a bid comes in.
He will commit to Athletico in the coming days if United's lack of interest is true. We've completely fecked this up.
Why would a club brief the press on a matter like this? What is there to gain? If anything it hurts us because we'd lose leverage over clubs with players we want.No, like 5 journo's tweeted the same thing within 5 minutes, it's obviously a club briefing. Also Di Marzio said our interest had cooled last week too.
of course we need both, he wouldnt be our priority if that was the case. Ibras injury didnt happen yesterday. We needed a striker anyway after his injury, but also Griezmann, who was a target before and after his injury.We don't tbh. If we go into next season with Mkhitaryan/Mata as our #10s OR play a midfield three of Pogba/Herrera/new DM I think we would be fine.
However going into next season without a new #9 would be a massive gamble.
Griezmann is a brilliant player and I'd love to see him in our team but he's closer to a luxury signing than an important one.
Unless someone buys him in the meantime for the lump, cue meltdown on here if he signs for PSG or the likeIt's not exactly turning our noses up. The transfer ban for Atletico means that we are forced to pay the €100m in one lump sum rather than instalments. This changes things and it makes sense that our priorities have changes. It's a smart move from the club. Get the players we need first and foremost, and if there is scope there to purchase Griezmann then I've no doubt we will, even if he doesn't come until January/next summer.
Think it has more to do with Ibra's future. He's probably signaled an intention to leave rather than staying. Therefore we need to prioritise a replacement for him.United have known about Zlatans injury for quite some time. If that changes things this much so suddenly, they need to find something else to do.
Because Atleti might be asking for the money in a lump sum to try and put us off. Normally transfer fees are paid over years,Why would it be a negotiating tactic when he has a release clause in his contract. We were never getting him for anything less than that and I don't think our ability to trigger his clause depends on Athletico's transfer ban. Am I missing something here?