crossy1686
career ending
Our minimum expectation for next season, if we improve the squad massively, should be to consolidate a top 4 finish with ease. Anything more than that will be a bonus.
Well yes, but a lot of the clubs forking out that sort of money on players are investing unwisely and not using the transfer market astutely. Good managers and good teams manage to compete by spending wisely.In the current market it doesn't because prices just aren't sensible anymore. It used to be that when you spent £30m, you knew you were getting a quality player that had a proven track record of performing at the highest level. Now, £30m gets you a bottom half of the PL quality player. The money spent on players today, that have the ability to perform at the top half of the PL go for £70m - £250m and there's absolutely no pattern, it's all down to how much the other club think they can get for the player.
Players now don't get the chance to develop like they used to, one good season and big teams come circling due to the internet, FM, FIFA, YouTube and SQWAKA, all of which inflate the worth of the player. Getting yourself on the cover of FIFA now improves your market value by £50m.
What I'm saying is, with all these factors now in the modern game, paying £200m isn't what it used to be and we should stop piling expectation on a team because it's the most expensive team ever.
I agree with the notion that the most expensive teams are the ones that win the most trophies but there are exceptions out there where cheaper constructed teams have also had success.
Agreed. We have to invest wisely and I'm hoping Solskjær gets free rein over who goes and who stays/comes in. The other teams have only had success because they've backed their managers, while we've worked against ours it appears.Well yes, but a lot of the clubs forking out that sort of money on players are investing unwisely and not using the transfer market astutely. Good managers and good teams manage to compete by spending wisely.
Spurs have spent comparatively little to us but because they've invested wisely they're consistently in a battle for a top four spot and they've come closer to us than winning the title since he last did. If Ole's as capable of being our manager as Pochettino would've been (which is presumably why the board felt it was right to appoint him permanently) then we should be able to compete by spending wisely.
Liverpool have spent a lot in the past year or so but plenty of their star players were signed for relatively little in the modern market. Again though, they've spent wisely, instead of just aimlessly throwing £200m at various players for no reason.
If we're spending £200m and it's not even getting us to a point where we're capable of competing then we're doing something seriously wrong. The fact our spending in recent years hasn't gotten us anywhere is indicative of how wasteful we've been, not that you can't get a lot of value for £200m.
Not really though - all three since Fergie left were given plenty to spend in the transfer window. It was fairly clear the board were hesitant on Mourinho last summer which was on them, but he'd been given a ton to spend before that.Agreed. We have to invest wisely and I'm hoping Solskjær gets free rein over who goes and who stays/comes in. The other teams have only had success because they've backed their managers, while we've worked against ours it appears.
Well we didn't really help Moyes. I think he was given the freedom of transfers but he couldn't decide what he wanted, someone should have forced the issue for him to save him from himself. Van Gaal also didn't know what he was doing, sold everyone he didn't like, brought in some of his favourites who were past it and promoted a load of kids because that was the job description, that was just a bad appointment all round. Then we actively didn't back Mourinho in the transfer window, that's public knowledge.Not really though - all three since Fergie left were given plenty to spend in the transfer window. It was fairly clear the board were hesitant on Mourinho last summer which was on them, but he'd been given a ton to spend before that.
We literally made a world record signing when he arrived. And Lukaku was one of the most expensive players in history as well. The fact we didn't let him spend obscene amounts on Harry Maguire reflected the board's increasing doubt in him, which is on them, but it isn't the reason he failed and when he first came we backed him to the absolute hilt.Well we didn't really help Moyes. I think he was given the freedom of transfers but he couldn't decide what he wanted, someone should have forced the issue for him to save him from himself. Van Gaal also didn't know what he was doing, sold everyone he didn't like, brought in some of his favourites who were past it and promoted a load of kids because that was the job description, that was just a bad appointment all round. Then we actively didn't back Mourinho in the transfer window, that's public knowledge.
My point is, why were we appointing managers who had a different idea to recruitment than the board have? Surely these are interview questions? The reason I think Solskjær will get it right is because he's fully aware of the expectation, unlike the others.
We're not some special case that needs to spend twice as much as everyone else to assemble a squad capable of challenging, we just need to spend the money better, and manage the players with much more quality.We'd need to spend 500m to have a chance of a title challenge in 20/21, let alone 19/20.
Finished second when he was backed.We literally made a world record signing when he arrived. And Lukaku was one of the most expensive players in history as well. The fact we didn't let him spend obscene amounts on Harry Maguire reflected the board's increasing doubt in him, which is on them, but it isn't the reason he failed and when he first came we backed him to the absolute hilt.
I disagree. There is a definite issue with the club structure. So we either sort that in one window or throw a ton of $ at the on field operationWe're not some special case
to challenge with Liv, City and their all round operation we certainly do,that needs to spend twice as much as everyone else to assemble a squad capable of challenging
oh i completely agree and have done for years. yet when was the last time we did anything wisely...transfers/contracts/managerswe just need to spend the money better
i could come close to agreeing with this, "net", but this depends on who you think is leaving.The foundations of a very good team are there, if we could just consistently keep them on form, and add players we actually need for once , £200 million (net) should be more than enough.
1 season. Just doing a Leicester but better. Baring in mind Liverpool have spent a shedload. They spent over 200m in the summer.Liverpool have competed with them for most of the season and they aren't exactly any better off than us when it comes to spending power. Indeed, for a significant period of time they were spending a lot less until they forked out massively on VVD. City will be incredibly hard to beat but with the right additions it's got to be our aim.
And it's quite conceivable that they'll slip up soon enough. Mourinho's Chelsea between 04-06 looked infallible and generally outspent Fergie's United side massively, but with some astute signings we were able to compete again and win as they started to fall off a bit.
I disagree. There is a definite issue with the club structure. So we either sort that in one window or throw a ton of $ at the on field operation
to challenge with Liv, City and their all round operation we certainly do,
oh i completely agree and have done for years. yet when was the last time we did anything wisely...transfers/contracts/managers
i could come close to agreeing with this, "net", but this depends on who you think is leaving.
De Gea - 80m
Lukaku - 60m
Sanchez - 0m - but apply a chunk of his overgrown wages to transfer budget circa 200k x 52 = 10+mil
Bailly - 15m
Rojo - 7m
172m total
+ the 200m spend
= 372m on players, by your net amount
But if I apply that budget to what I feel we need:
120m on a real striker
80m on a centre back
60m on a right back
30m on a second left back
80m on a right winger
thats 370m there
but I still think we need another 3 players, roughly:
defensive mid - 50m
attacking mid - 50m
another wide creative forward 50m
thats 150m more = 520m all in all
That's why I originally said circa 500mil before even considering sales. So my net figure with the sales above is 348m. But I know this isn't going to happen, nor is that level of upheaval likely to gel. I wouldn't even trust the club to purchase the right players, so it's just a damn 'merry' go round.
So, by the original thread...if we spend just 200 million on two max three players....then we'll struggle for top four all over again, in my opinion. Nevermind comfortable top four. And probably 15 points+ off the top yet again.
OK fair enough, but I do think it depends how you spend it. But judging by Alot of comments on here, the people in charge aren't trusted to spend it wisely.Firstly it's not just because you spent so much money. It's because you had a good team where you then spent a lot to fix your weak spots. You had spent very well previously and were in a position to spend on quality to supplement and because of that.
We have to first get to where you were before last summer. That's why 200 won't be enough for us to challenge.
Chelsea have won it twice since Fergie left. We outspend Arsenal generally by considerable amounts. Liverpool reached a CL final last year.1 season. Just doing a Leicester but better. Baring in mind Liverpool have spent a shedload. They spent over 200m in the summer.
Chelsea Arsenal and United have been shite. And the bottom clubs are absolute dross, as bad as I have ever seen in the PL.
You also sold Coutinho for a £140m. I don't think your net spend was as high as £186m, or was it?Liverpool spent 186 or so million last summer. Fans from every other club declared we have to win the league.
So I don't understand how people are saying 200m shouldn't mean united have to win the league. Somethings not adding up or it's just double standards.
If United spend 200m, you will have to do as you all pointed out last summer, and win the league.
You say we "just need the team to play an actual good attacking style of play and to be in unison with each other" as if that's nothing! What you're actually saying there is "we just need to be better at playing football"!So they went from 4th to 2nd and close to winning the PL by signing 2 players in important positions.
We finished 2nd less than 12 months ago so the players at our disposal have shown they are capable of performing well in the PL.
We don't need 6-8 players to compete again. We need the team to play an actual good attacking style of play and to be in unison with each other. 3 or 4 major signings and some tactical tweaks and we could actually put up a fight at the top end of the table.
I still don't think it will be enough to beat this City side, but that isn't a bad thing because they are incredible and top 3 PL sides of all time in my opinion.