It doesn't matter if the fee for him was agreed (which it was). Tevez didn't want to play for United, he chose the bigger deal across town. United try to negotiate with him for over a month.Didnt we agree to give 32M to make the loan deal permanent and we paid 10M upfront, but in 2009, we said we didnt have that kind of money to pay for Tevez and instead wanted his agency who had controls over his rights to agree to some kind of installment pay and not have to pay entire 22M remaining.
This lead to Tevez believing that Utd no longer valued him, despite being in great form through 2 years. Gill however mentioned about the cash crunch etc..
I am not saying Tevez is innocent and I hate him, especially for that banner against SAF. But I think in 2009 Tevez had little choice but to agree with whatever the company which owned some 4 or 5 types of rights on him, would ask to do
And City capitalized on the fallout with all the money they had.
We either said we didnt want to pay the remaining 22M or want to pay it over a period of time. David Gill, iirc, said something about the money situation not being good.It doesn't matter if the fee for him was agreed (which it was)
United agreed to the fee and were going to make him one of the top earners but he didn't want to sign.We either said we didnt want to pay the remaining 22M or want to pay it over a period of time. David Gill, iirc, said something about the money situation not being good.
Before that Gill came out saying 25.5M was a bit toppy for him and we are neither accepting nor denying that we will buy him for that kind of money... Even SAF said the financial situation had changed and it was getting difficult.United agreed to the fee and were going to make him one of the top earners but he didn't want to sign.
Gill was definately talking bollocks. We got £85 million from the Ronaldo sale that summer.We either said we didnt want to pay the remaining 22M or want to pay it over a period of time. David Gill, iirc, said something about the money situation not being good.
You don't have your facts straight. Those comments from Gill were made after he joined City. Before he had fully denied us and gone the other way there weren't such comments. Just something about the process being complicated because of all the different parties involved but United were always going to sign him and pay the fee, that wasn't the issue. It took a while to sort out which fee went where and if the PL would allow the sale because if the whole 3rd party ownership and West Ham's involvement. Fact is Tevez is a sulky fellow, had been sulking for months and didn't want to resign so he picked basically the same environment where he got more money and later did the exact thing there. Played well for a bit and then started sulking.Before that Gill came out saying 25.5M was a bit toppy for him and we are neither accepting nor denying that we will buy him for that kind of money... Even SAF said the financial situation had changed and it was getting difficult.
We eventually offered the deal, but it was after a lot of bad press and the player publicly saying Utd are not giving him enough respect or showing that we want him.
Anyways, that was my opinion about it at that time. Not relevant to this thread though.
Does not change the fact it is wrong to say we sold him.If SAF really wanted him to stay he would IMO.
Even if Beckham had been paying attention in the changing room, and had headed the boot up, then gently side-footed it back to SAF he was going in the Summer anyway, he, sorry Victoria wanted him out of Old Trafford.I feel the answer is yes, Beckham was better player for us than Rolando. Beckham just hit the strides in 1996 until his sale in 2003. That's about 8 years of excellency, specially in the free kick department, when Beckham was here you always wised for United to get free kick. Ronaldo on other hand was nothing special far as i'm concerned until start of season 2006-7. SO Ronaldo only had maybe 3 good years at OT.
But the real culprit for the Beckham sale is Giggs: https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSfwcI8wsMY is horrendus open goal miss in FA cup 2003, after that game SAF kicked the boots into Becks is face. In the summer he was gone.
We would have been firmly in the running with him around, he really was a huge player for us.Really? I don't see Beckham making up the difference between us and the Invincibles and then Mourinho's first Chelsea.
This.We didn't get enough money for him, that was the only mistake.
I loved Beckham but he lost a yard of two and OGS was being picked ahead of him for the bigger games. Time was right for him to move on.
Fantastic servant, always be a legend!
But he did replace him in the team, in the short term, with someone who wasn't as good or able to produce what Beckham was. I don't think it's really arguable that 2003 OGS wasn't a better option on the right side of midfield than David Beckham.Nothing lasts forever.
Fergie is one of the few managers to have a great team over at least three generations. Maybe the only manager.
No he didn't make a mistake selling Beckham. Should have sold Giggs too. jokes
The non-footballing reason is a footballing reasonI don't think he made a mistake in selling him per se, I just think it's fairly obvious he wasn't sold nor lost his place in the team for footballing reasons. So ignoring everything is the question essentially is whether or not dropping a better player and replacing him with someone who cannot perform that role as well as he could, classified as a mistake/error/faux pas. Whatever else you can say about the situation between player and manager, for me that's an error.
RVP was better fit than both me thinks. I bet RVP regrets not joining United sooner, specially if we were in for him when he signed for Arsenal.His impact in Europe was dropping, better teams would plan for him, I can remember the likes of Lizarazu and Carlos neutralizing Beckham quite easily, mark him tightly, force him back and allow little space for him to wind up his right foot. He wanted to play CM towards the end as well, believing his own hype, was not good enough to play there(Giggs for all the carping was far better in CM than Beckham ever was). Madrid tried to play him in the middle early in his spell there, his short passing and spatial awareness was not good enough, only really made an impact when he moved back to the right.
Just on Tevez, he was not that good for Utd. Far better at City sadly, at Utd he looked a poor man's Rooney. Plenty of graft but you would often hear or read Utd fans talking about the lack of magic in his game. The Berbatov saga has lifted Tevez higher, but really neither were right for Utd.
He peaked late, spent time at Arsenal backing up Henry, Bergkamp, even Adebayor. Injuries held him back, only really had 2-3 great seasons in his career. Tremendous talent, pity that Utd only really got that for 1 year. A bit like Dwight Yorke in how his impact tailed off so quickly, Yorke like RVP had decent numbers in his second season but his performances if you watched him were not on the same level.RVP was better fit than both me thinks. I bet RVP regrets not joining United sooner, specially if we were in for him when he signed for Arsenal.
Was Beckham going to help matters if he'd have stayed in those 3 years? With or without Beckham we'd have done more or less the same. It was an aging squad that needed some work.Yes, it was a big mistake given the fact United didn't come close to challenging for the league in the first three seasons after he left and our performances in the champions league got worse.
He was not far removed from his primeWas Beckham going to help matters if he'd have stayed in those 3 years? With or without Beckham we'd have done more or less the same. It was an aging squad that needed some work.
Beckham was awful at Milan. People tend to remember his time there for that volley he hit against Utd in the CL, a tie in which Utd pummeled Milan. They were an old team and he was part of the problem.Yes, it was a big mistake given the fact United didn't come close to challenging for the league in the first three seasons after he left and our performances in the champions league got worse. I think it was possible to keep him and get Ronaldo as Ronaldo's market value back then was really small (12 million right ?) the power of Beckham's brand was mentioned, can people imagine how more powerful the United brand would be (even though it has always been obviously very global and big) if we had Beckham and Ronaldo together ? Goals would come from the two wings, as Beckham's crosses were still world class and Ronaldo could dribble and create chances out of nowhere. I think Giggs had already peaked as a winger by the time Beckham was sold. One year later we would get Rooney of course... I believe a front three of Beckham, Ronaldo and Rooney would have had the impact the 'MSN' had for Barcelona recently. United should have sold RVN instead. He was going to be sold in the summer of 2005 anyway. Beckham was still a very good player until 2009 as he proved in Milan. Should have been sold here only in 2010 in my opinion.
No. Before his injury in early 2010, he was in strong contention to get called up for the world cup. I remember him doing well in early 2009. At Galaxy, the team was always terrible, all he could do was to create alot of chances, which the poor teammates wasted. To be totally honest, I can't recall all of his time in Milan, if anyone remembers it in it's entirety, shed some light hereBeckham was awful at Milan. People tend to remember his time there for that volley he hit against Utd in the CL, a tie in which Utd pummeled Milan. They were an old team and he was part of the problem.
Past prime Giggs was a far better player than past prime Beckham, who apparently was not even that good in the MLS if you listen to Galaxy fans who watched him there.
I watched 10-12 of his Milan games(most in the first spell), he played in 30 odd overall in 2 spells. They were a very disappointing team given the names, Beckham, Ronaldinho, Pirlo, Gattusso, Nesta, Huntelaar, Seedorf. Must have done well enough to be brought back for the second time but every time I watched him he just looked off the pace, even in an old team.No. Before his injury in early 2010, he was in strong contention to get called up for the world cup. I remember him doing well in early 2009. At Galaxy, the team was always terrible, all he could do was to create alot of chances, which the poor teammates wasted. To be totally honest, I can't recall all of his time in Milan, if anyone remembers it in it's entirety, shed some light here
Yeah, the second time he had clearly lost a step. But the first time from what I remember, he was probably their best player outside of Kaka. I can speak more clearly about his time in PSG, I feel he wasn't given enough opportunities to play and that was partially why he chose to retire, they were more interested in his brand than in what he could offer as a player, but I still remember some classy passes and assists, I think he could have stayed in the game longer.I watched 10-12 of his Milan games(most in the first spell), he played in 30 odd overall in 2 spells. They were a very disappointing team given the names, Beckham, Ronaldinho, Pirlo, Gattusso, Nesta, Huntelaar, Seedorf. Must have done well enough to be brought back for the second time but every time I watched him he just looked off the pace, even in an old team.
Making the 2010 WC would have been more about his name than his performances.
Just to add, watched maybe 1 game of his time in MLS, so can only go on others opinion.
He barely played for the first team before 95/96, Scholes was much more involved and obviously Giggs had been a few seasons ahead in terms of development. Beckham had a loan at Preston before 95 but I doubt many United fans saw much of him there.Anyone can remember what kind of player beckham was like before 1995 ? I know he was a regular from the 95-96 season onwards, but how was he doing as a teenager ? From what I know, Giggs and Scholes got way more opportunities until 1994.
I just find it weird that Ronaldo was trusted into the team as a 18 year old and having never played in england before, while Ferguson knew Beckham since he was 14 years old and saw his progress from close but still didn't trust him until he was 20. It turned out well in the end thoughHe barely played for the first team before 95/96, Scholes was much more involved and obviously Giggs had been a few seasons ahead in terms of development. Beckham had a loan at Preston before 95 but I doubt many United fans saw much of him there.
Well having an amazing player like Kanchelskis in the same position would partly explain that. But more than that, they were just very different players at that age.I just find it weird that Ronaldo was trusted into the team as a 18 year old and having never played in england before, while Ferguson knew Beckham since he was 14 years old and saw his progress from close but still didn't trust him until he was 20. It turned out well in the end though
