Why the negativity against Ed and the Glazers? Sorry I don't follow

[breakout67]

CEO green lights 700m of investment and the return is 1 FA Cup, League Cup and Europa league. Still the managers fault though. That is not how any business works including football clubs.

We are being grossly mismanaged by Woodward, who's hiring policy, philosophy of recruitment and industry network are not fit for purpose. 3 successive managers have been held on to for far longer than they should have, all to save a bit of cash due to some CL football clause. We are constantly paying more for players than other top clubs, largely because our negotiators are piss poor and Woodward actually wants to break transfer records. We also hold on to dross because we want to get some resale value instead of moving them on.

You would think LVG telling us that United is a business and not a football club would ring some alarm bells. His detailing of how Woodward told him one thing and was doing another thing behind his back. Mourinho wasn't even available until mid way through the season he was hired, which was done behind LVG's back. He then got a contract extension, was told his transfer targets are either too expensive or not good enough, and is now waiting to get sacked until the end of the season. 4 losses in the first 9 games of the season, in the 3rd season of a manager would see him get sacked at every top club except here.

 

[Moriarty]

They have spent 700m since SAF retired. I hate them but we need to be objective.

Which should have been spent long before Fergie retired. Chucking money at the problems they helped create by chronic under-investment hasn't worked.

 

[Sunny Jim]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

If this guy is to be believed, which is doubtful, then these twats have decided to get their hands off the club completely and don't spend a cent till they sell it, so lack of transfers in summer and refusing to sack Mourinho for the pay off. They don't want to put in any more money till they sell it.

He is an idiot, but i do belive the Galzers want to get rid,l.

 

[friendlytramp]

Fred £53.10m
Diogo Dalot £19.80m
Lee Grant £1.53m
Alexis Sánchez £30.60m
Romelu Lukaku £76.23m
Victor Lindelöf £31.5
Nemanja Matic £40.23m
Paul Pogba £94.50m
Henrikh Mkhitaryan £37.80m
Eric Bailly £34.20m

TOTAL £420m under Mourinho

 

[Mainoldo]

Which should have been spent long before Fergie retired. Chucking money at the problems they helped create by chronic under-investment hasn't worked.

Jesus Christ. We was winning the league with Fergie. We still spent when we had to spend. What was the alternative... not spend.

 

[Sunny Jim]

Who is he?

An idiot.

 

[Adisa]

Which should have been spent long before Fergie retired. Chucking money at the problems they helped create by chronic under-investment hasn't worked.

Agree with that. However, teams rebuild entire squads with half that amount and still put out quality sides. The Glazers are parasites but we have spent more than enough to have a good team.

 

[Moriarty]

Jesus Christ. We was winning the league with Fergie. We still spent when we had to spend. What was the alternative... not spend.

We should have been doing what all great sides do, build from a position of strength. Fergie was the glue that held the club together. When he left, the deficiencies his genius had been masking for some time became apparent.

 

[Mainoldo]

We should have been doing what all great sides do, build from a position of strength. Fergie was the glue that held the club together. When he left, the deficiencies his genius had been masking for some time became apparent.

Yes because we hired a sh!t manager.

 

[Snow]

Fred £53.10m
Diogo Dalot £19.80m
Lee Grant £1.53m
Alexis Sánchez £30.60m
Romelu Lukaku £76.23m
Victor Lindelöf £31.5
Nemanja Matic £40.23m
Paul Pogba £94.50m
Henrikh Mkhitaryan £37.80m
Eric Bailly £34.20m

TOTAL £420m under Mourinho

Sanchéz was a straight swap for Mkhi.

 

[Foxbatt]

We should have been doing what all great sides do, build from a position of strength. Fergie was the glue that held the club together. When he left, the deficiencies his genius had been masking for some time became apparent.

Why should they force players on to Fergie when he did not want them? That would be crazy and also interfering in the football side of things. When Fergie wanted they paid and got the players he wanted. If Fergie did not buy players to strengthen then it is his fault and not the fault of the board. He left with a team that won the PL by 11 points.

 

[Waynne]

The board bringing in Moyes, Van Gaal and Mourinho when other more proactive managers were available.
Not backing the manager this last transfer window. Personally i don't think Jose should get the extra money to spend as he has already brought in a few players who are also now underperforming.
The people at the top at this club are failing time and time again to steer this club on the right path.
Moyes, Van Gaal and Jose didn't hire themselves and the football we have played during these last few manager's spells has been dire and we've actually regressed compared to other top clubs.

 

[fellaini's barber]

1, Pep would not have joined us because it was too difficult a job.
2, He chose our closest rivals, over us.
3, Pep would've demanded a lot of transfers. Jose is still using a lot of players from previous managers. Pep would've asked for every single outfield player to be sold and replaced.

The job at MUFC is ridiculously tough. LVG and Jose have both failed (I'm not going to mention Moyes, as he was a joke), even though these are top class managers.
If we want to win the title, A LOT of money will need to be spent and A LOT of our current roster would need to be sold.
Players like Lukaku, Jones, Lingard, Darmian, Young, Valencia should not be in the starting XI of a league winning team. The replacements for these players will cost a small fortune.

1 You're making that up .We finished level on points in both their first seasons, they bought 3/4 players and boom PL title, we did exactly that too with little improvement.

2. He didn't chose shit over us, personally I don't think we were ever in for him. Fergie already had his successor planned out at the the time we should have been trying to get him, I've never believed that 'Moyes was 4th choice ' bollocks for a second.

3. You are completely making that up. No one is forcing Jose to play Fellaini. Jose is still using the players from previous managers because almost everyone he has bought is crap, while most of Peps are now first team players. We bought Fred for 50m and I don;t even know where he is. You're making it sound like he's trying to help us save money or something. The feck do you mean 'Pep would demand a lot of transfers'? You mean unlike Jose who has demanded few transfers here or something? You do realise we've signed only 3 players less than City right? 2 of those extra signings being keepers?

I honestly don't see what's so outrageous with what Pep has done at City compared to Jose, he's bought 14 players, we've bought 11, we could easily have outspent them if we paid fees for Sanchez and Ibra, which we would have gladly paid if we had to and still been exactly where we are. What has he really done that's so outrageous? He's bought and sold players with the same amount of freedom Jose has,except he's not trying to keep hold of average players like Fellaini and Rojo. Exclude the money he's spent on keepers and we easily,very easily could have signed the exact same players he signed at City with the same amount Jose has spent or even more, especially considering the fact that some of the money we've wasted on Jose favorites like Lukaku and Matic would have definitely been spent on other players. He most likely won't have spent $89m on Pogs either as that's not his type of player. He also would not be fighting to keep fecking Fellaini here either. What has he really done that's so outrageously different than what Jose has done here? Seriously. Fellaini and Rojo would have been long gone but we gave them new contracts yet your making it sound like we're stopping Jose from getting rid of players. How come he got rid of Blind,Rooney etc?

LVG and Jose failing here has nothing to do with the job being so ridiculously 'tough', they failed because they're not just that good. LVG came in, bought a lot of absolute trash, played a lot of trash too. Now Jose is doing the same after spending more, what has United being a tough job got to do with this? Arse and Liverpool are above us in the table too, are we a more difficult job or bigger mess than them too?

 

[Kag]

We should have been doing what all great sides do, build from a position of strength. Fergie was the glue that held the club together. When he left, the deficiencies his genius had been masking for some time became apparent.

Even today, in spite of how bad Mourinho coaches the team in its current guise, we still pay the price of austerity between 2008 and 2013. I’m pleased there are more posters who are willing to recognise this. Ferguson leaving ripped open a dilapidated footballing infrastructure and David Gill walked off into the sunset. The Glazers bear responsibility for this, too.

 

[Mainoldo]

Even today, in spite of how bad Mourinho coaches the team in its current guise, we still pay the price of austerity between 2008 and 2013. I’m pleased there are more posters who are willing to recognise this. Ferguson leaving ripped open a dilapidated footballing infrastructure and David Gill walked off into the sunset. The Glazers bear responsibility for this, too.

If we had brought Frank Ribery, Hazard and Luka Modric for instance when we should have invested, we would still be here right now if we went on to hire Moyes, LVG and Jose. Investment has nothing to do with where we are.

Like I don’t get it. It’s really very simple when you are successful on the pitch there is frig all to moan about when it comes to club structure. I keep using The premier league as an example. Except for Newcastle who i feel sorry what club benefits from the way it is ran?

Tell me and we can break it down.

 

[Acole9]

Neville hit the nail on the head earlier, the problems start at the top. The club moved people who had done very well on the commercial side over to the footballing side where they have no clue. All Woodward seems to be interested in is making signings which are "Marketable". This is one of many reasons why we're doing so badly because a lot of these prized signings don't give a rats ass about playing for us, they just want a big pay packet.

Sure we've signed world class players in the past and will do again in the future but primarily United has mainly been about turning players into stars and that's what we need to get back to.

 

[NinjaFletch]

Mate,if Pep came here and bought most of the same players he got at City we'd be just grand. Unlike our Jose Pep is clear with what he needs and targets players who fit into his plans which have all mostly worked out for him. What the hell was so difficult about the United job when they both took over? We finished level on points in their first season, they bought 3/4 players and boom PL title, we did exactly that too with little improvement.
I honestly don't see what's so outrageous with what Pep has done at City compared to Jose, he's bought 14 players, we've bought 11, we could easily have outspent them if we paid fees for Sanchez and Ibra, which we would have gladly paid if we had to and still been exactly where we are. What has he really done that's so outrageous? He's bought and sold players with the same amount of freedom Jose has,except he's not trying to keep hold of average players like Fellaini and Rojo. Exclude the money he's spent on keepers and we easily,very easily could have signed the exact same players he signed at City with the same amount Jose has spent or even more, especially considering the fact that some of the money we've wasted on Jose favorites like Lukaku and Matic would have been spent on other players. He most likely won't have spent $89m on Pogs either as that's not his type of player. He also would not be fighting to keep fecking Fellaini here either. What has he really done that's so outrageously different than what Jose has done here? Seriously

LVG and Jose failing here has nothing to do with the job being so ridiculously 'tough', they failed because they're not just that good. LVG bought a boatload of shite, played crap football, Jose has done the exact same thing even worse. I don't get all this crap about United being a 'difficult' job, or the shit about Pep not wanting to come here either, SAF already had his successor lined up at the time we should have been trying to get him. Arse and Liverpool are above us in the table too, are we a more difficult job or bigger mess than them too?

If Pep came here he'd probably have had two seasons like Van Gaal's (which his first season at City was incredibly similar too) and have been sacked and labelled a fraud.

The reason he's been successful at City (besides the fact he has had no financial constraints whatsoever even compared to us) is because off the pitch they have spared no expense whatsoever to create a club in his image. They prepared for his arrival years in advance, bought players that would suit that style, appointed a DoF who shared his vision, they set about identifying players that would suit his style, and they've given him complete free reign to make decisions. The entire club bought in to his ethos from top to bottom, and they're reaping the rewards for it.

City aren't just a stupidly rich club, they're a club with a clear vision and everyone pulls in the same direction in order to achieve it. If people genuinely think you could drop a Pep in to the situation and it would solve all our problems they're insane and completely blind to the issues we have.

 

[Kag]

If we had brought Frank Ribery, Hazard and Luka Modric for instance when we should have invested, we would still be here right now if we went on to hire Moyes, LVG and Jose. Investment has nothing to do with where we are.

Like I don’t get it. It’s really very simple when you are successful on the pitch there is frig all to moan about when it comes to club structure. I keep using The premier league as an example. Except for Newcastle who i feel sorry what club benefits from the way it is ran?

Tell me and we can break it down.

Give over. Apply that to any other industry and you’ll sharp be in a pinch. Logic like that is why the economy falls to pieces every few decades.

The club had fallen behind. So much so that David Moyes was embarrassed at the state of our scouting and recruitment. Gill and the Glazers had allowed City and Chelsea to hoover up the best kids in the country, while we had a few lads down at the park like it was in the 90s. The academy was a bust and the club has had to invest millions to sort it out. It’s had to invest millions in a scouting infrastructure.

There is no doubt that Moyes was a terrible appointment. He was a shocking choice, a cheap choice and he was rightly given the boot.

But these are separate points. There is no denying that our football operations had been left behind in comparison to our rivals. Ferguson leaving then exacerbated this.

 

[Kag]

Neville hit the nail on the head earlier, the problems start at the top. The club moved people who had done very well on the commercial side over to the footballing side where they have no clue. All Woodward seems to be interested in is making signings which are "Marketable". This is one of many reasons why we're doing so badly because a lot of these prized signings don't give a rats ass about playing for us, they just want a big pay packet.

Sure we've signed world class players in the past and will do again in the future but primarily United has mainly been about turning players into stars and that's what we need to get back to.

The club has been trying to do this (Shaw, Martial, Memphis, Rashford, Bailly, Lindelof, Schneiderlin, Dalot, Fred, Lukaku even). Young players that have plenty to prove and could/can develop into stars. There can be no doubt the intention has been there.

The idea that the club is only interested in ‘galaticos’ is inherently fictitious. And when we have bought these players (Di Maria, Mata, Pogba, Sanchez) it’s been widely praised as fantastic business and exactly what we need to compete with the rest.

Hindsight dictates the rest. Recruitment has been largely sensible for a while now. It doesn’t get the credit it deserves due to the club’s inability to hire a manager that prioritises attacking football and gets the best out of them. When we do that then the transfer business will appear all the more streamlined. The theory will be seen in practice.

What we try to do is pretty obvious. I’m praising it before we get the manager right and you all jump on the bandwagon.

 

[Mainoldo]

Give over. Apply that to any other industry and you’ll sharp be in a pinch. Logic like that is why the economy falls to pieces every few decades.

The club had fallen behind. So much so that David Moyes was embarrassed at the state of our scouting and recruitment. Gill and the Glazers had allowed City and Chelsea to hoover up the best kids in the country, while we had a few lads down at the park like it was in the 90s. The academy was a bust and the club has had to invest millions to sort it out. It’s had to invest millions in a scouting infrastructure.

There is no doubt that Moyes was a terrible appointment. He was a shocking choice, a cheap choice and he was rightly given the boot.

But these are separate points. There is no denying that our football operations had been left behind in comparison to our rivals. Ferguson leaving then exacerbated this.

This is football not running a country it’s far far far less complicated.

Let behind how? We was behind when we was winning that’s what you fail to realise and also amplifies my point of it’s importance.

The best running clubs name them.. and tell me why.. there is nothing the top 6 are doing that is any greater to how we are being run. The only problem at the minute is that they are refusing to sack a manager who should have been gone on principle two months ago.

 

[Kag]

This is football not running a country it’s far far far less complicated.

Let behind how? We was behind when we was winning that’s what you fail to realise and also amplifies my point of it’s importance.

The best running clubs name them.. and tell me why.. there is nothing the top 6 are doing that is any greater to how we are being run. The only problem at the minute is that they are refusing to sack a manager who should have been gone on principle two months ago.

Your argument seems to indicate that because the club was winning under Ferguson, there wasn’t issues with the academy, scouting and recruitment. This is rubbish. It’s factually rubbish. Read work from Andy Mitten or other journalists associated with the club. Better yet, read the club’s bloody website. It’s on record that millions has been pumped into major parts of the club’s football infrastructure.

Yes, the club had fallen behind in these areas when we were winning. Again, this has been extensively covered in British media. The club has, on record, said as much.

I’m not talking about the present. You seem to think I am. It’s been clear from the outset that I’ve been referring to historical issues that came to light when Ferguson left.

I have no real issue with the club or the board at the moment other than the fact we haven’t sacked Mourinho. Which is a pretty big issue, actually.

 

[Mainoldo]

Your argument seems to indicate that because the club was winning under Ferguson, there wasn’t issues with the academy, scouting and recruitment. This is rubbish. It’s factually rubbish. Read work from Andy Mitten or other journalists associated with the club. Better yet, read the club’s bloody website. It’s on record that millions has been pumped into major parts of the club’s football infrastructure.

Yes, the club had fallen behind in these areas when we were winning. Again, this has been extensively covered in British media. The club has, on record, said as much.

I’m not talking about the present. You seem to think I am. It’s been clear from the outset that I’ve been referring to historical issues that came to light when Ferguson left.

No my argument is so what. I don’t get what that has to do with now therefore why is it still relevant? We have and are still improving our academy and scouting. I’m not blind to it I read it whilst it was happening. My point to you is who’s academy and scouting has aided them to win the league?

 

[Kag]

No my argument is so what. I don’t get what that has to do with now therefore why is it still relevant? We have and are still improving our academy and scouting. I’m not blind to it I read it whilst it was happening. My point to you is who’s academy and scouting has aided them to win the league?

These issues have made the job of subsequent managers more difficult. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t to blame for the shortcomings of their coaching.

 

[Bastian]

@fellaini's barber
Not that I'm particularly defending Jose here, but I think it's lunacy to think Pep would have come in here and made the same impact he's had at City. For one thing, City prepared for his arrival. They put a vision in place and worked towards it. They buy the players he wants.

So what, you think we just need the right managerial appointment and we'll be laughing on our way to the next batch of titles? I get the criticism Mourinho gets, but to think our problems aren't much broader is cluelessness.

 

[NinjaFletch]

The club has been trying to do this (Shaw, Martial, Memphis, Rashford, Bailly, Lindelof, Schneiderlin, Dalot, Fred, Lukaku even). Young players that have plenty to prove and could/can develop into stars. There can be no doubt the intention has been there.

The idea that the club is only interested in ‘galaticos’ is inherently fictitious. And when we have bought these players (Di Maria, Mata, Pogba, Sanchez) it’s been widely praised as fantastic business and exactly what we need to compete with the rest.

Hindsight dictates the rest. Recruitment has been largely sensible for a while now. It doesn’t get the credit it deserves due to the club’s inability to hire a manager that prioritises attacking football and gets the best out of them. When we do that then the transfer business will appear all the more streamlined. The theory will be seen in practice.

What we try to do is pretty obvious. I’m praising it before we get the manager right and you all jump on the bandwagon.

This argument seems to me to be demonstrably incorrect – if not actively dishonest. Lukaku (who in particular was certainly the highest profile player on the market when we were looking), Fred or Schneiderlin (who was 26 when we signed him) were clearly established players who were expected to immediately improve the squad as a finished product. You can't pretend they weren't simply because they were/are/might not be up to the required standard.

Similarly, you're willing to discount well over half of our post Ferguson signings in Schweinsteiger, Matic, Ibrahimovic, Sanchez, Mhkitaryan, Di Maria, Falcao, and Pogba simply because they don't support what you would like to be true.

Which leaves you with Shaw, Martial, Memphis, Rashford (who wasn't a signing), Bailly, Lindelof and Dalot. Two of those Mourinho is claiming credit for (whether you believe him or not I don't care) in Lindelof or Dalot. So in six years your clear, irrefutable proof a sensible recruitment policy being developed by the club is Shaw (signed five seasons ago), Memphis (signed four seasons ago, sold two years ago in January), Martial (signed four seasons ago), Bailly, and possibly Lindelof and Dalot. Let's be honest, that's not a lot, is it?

And are those young players treated like they have plenty to prove and could/can develop into stars? For my money, most were treated like teenage wunderkinds who had already made it and given wages to reflect that. Why did Shaw join us over Chelsea? Was it because he believed we were the best club for his development, or because we offered him wages that Chelsea couldn't match? Did Memphis join us over PSG for footballing reasons, or for financial reasons?

The rest are probably fair enough, but then that's the point isn't? The clubs transfer business has been utterly scattergun and veered widely from buying established stars with a short shelf life to young players, to squad players who never really were good enough but were needed to do a job, and back again with no direction, aim, or long term vision. There may be a sensible, coherent policy underlying our transfer business, but if there is all we can say is it's one that's broken so frequently whenever Woodward sees something shiny, or when he appoints a manager that does not buy in to that vision, that there might as well not be.

 

[Mainoldo]

These issues have made the job of subsequent managers more difficult. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t to blame for the shortcomings of their coaching.

Why did Mark Hughes fail at Southampton then? Why are Chelsea coaches still failing to bring through youth players whilst they continue to spend on their squad every single window!

The only thing our coaches have to blame on their shortcomings is themselves.

 

[Mainoldo]

@fellaini's barber
Not that I'm particularly defending Jose here, but I think it's lunacy to think Pep would have come in here and made the same impact he's had at City. For one thing, City prepared for his arrival. They put a vision in place and worked towards it. They buy the players he wants.

So what, you think we just need the right managerial appointment and we'll be laughing on our way to the next batch of titles? I get the criticism Mourinho gets, but to think our problems aren't much broader is cluelessness.

Except for Pep which club is prepared for any manager? They let the manager lead and that is it. Pep would have come here and got on with it. If he wanted Laporte instead of signging Bailly and Lindelof we would have got him Laporte. Same for John Stones who fits directly into our profile (perfect for marketing too).

Why would it have been so hard for him?

 

[Bastian]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

If this guy is to be believed, which is doubtful, then these twats have decided to get their hands off the club completely and don't spend a cent till they sell it, so lack of transfers in summer and refusing to sack Mourinho for the pay off. They don't want to put in any more money till they sell it.

Has anyone been even linked to a takeover, besides that immoral regime in the last 2-3 years?

 

[sullydnl]

If we do inexplicably end up keeping Mourinho until the end of the season, my only hope is that time is used to fix the structure above the manager.

Fundamentally I do not believe things will get better with Ed Woodard in his role as it currently is. Someone with actual football expertise needs to be put in place to handle the football-related side of Woodward's job, whether we call that person a director of football or something else. Until that happens I have little hope for the club.

One of the most damning aspects of recent years is how different Moyes, LVG and Mourinho are as managers. Three different managers with different strengths, personalities, styles of play and taste in players, hired one after the other in increasingly desperate attempts to find something that works. That speaks to a profound lack of vision at the club and (unlike a lot of other things) that cannot be blamed on the managers themselves.

 

[Bastian]

Except for Pep which club is prepared for any manager? They let the manager lead and that is it. Pep would have come here and got on with it. If he wanted Laporte instead of signging Bailly and Lindelof we would have got him Laporte. Same for John Stones who fits directly into our profile (perfect for marketing too).

Why would it have been so hard for him?

Just a few brief points, though I thought this was obvious:

Laporte 57m. Stones 48m. Mendy 52m. Walker 45m.
Bailly 30m. Lindelof 32m. Shaw 30m. Darmian 13m.

They already had world class players.

If something doesn't work, they bring out the wallet asap (Ederson).

 

[Tyinde]

Our board and owners never ran United as a football club, more like a company, even a financing product. Every decision they make is about business. Only because making money share the same process with playing good football, so people think our board was not that bad.

Everytime if making money and play good football don’t match each other, they choose making money with no doubt, not even a second. As long as United can make their money, top 4 or not is never a problem for them.

 

[JB7]

Fred £53.10m
Diogo Dalot £19.80m
Lee Grant £1.53m
Alexis Sánchez £30.60m
Romelu Lukaku £76.23m
Victor Lindelöf £31.5
Nemanja Matic £40.23m
Paul Pogba £94.50m
Henrikh Mkhitaryan £37.80m
Eric Bailly £34.20m

TOTAL £420m under Mourinho

Firstly, some of those figures are way out. Pogba was £89m, Sanchez was a direct swap for Mkhitaryan who himself cost closer to £27m than £37m, Bailly was under £30m.

Secondly, we have spent less than Manchester City, Liverpool and Chelsea have spent over the same period. I’m bored of this “Mourinho has spent X, Y, Z” rhetoric. We’re not the only club that spends money, in fact we spend less than our main rivals for trophies FFS. And that’s without even going into the fact that those clubs provide their managers with players they want as opposed to people that fit into what a fecking banker decides we need.

 

[Kag]

This argument seems to me to be demonstrably incorrect – if not actively dishonest. Lukaku (who in particular was certainly the highest profile player on the market when we were looking), Fred or Schneiderlin (who was 26 when we signed him) were clearly established players who were expected to immediately improve the squad as a finished product. You can't pretend they weren't simply because they were/are/might not be up to the required standard.

Similarly, you're willing to discount well over half of our post Ferguson signings in Schweinsteiger, Matic, Ibrahimovic, Sanchez, Mhkitaryan, Di Maria, Falcao, and Pogba simply because they don't support what you would like to be true.

Which leaves you with Shaw, Martial, Memphis, Rashford (who wasn't a signing), Bailly, Lindelof and Dalot. Two of those Mourinho is claiming credit for (whether you believe him or not I don't care) in Lindelof or Dalot. So in six years your clear, irrefutable proof a sensible recruitment policy being developed by the club is Shaw (signed five seasons ago), Memphis (signed four seasons ago, sold two years ago in January), Martial (signed four seasons ago), Bailly, and possibly Lindelof and Dalot. Let's be honest, that's not a lot, is it?

And are those young players treated like they have plenty to prove and could/can develop into stars? For my money, most were treated like teenage wunderkinds who had already made it and given wages to reflect that. Why did Shaw join us over Chelsea? Was it because he believed we were the best club for his development, or because we offered him wages that Chelsea couldn't match? Did Memphis join us over PSG for footballing reasons, or for financial reasons?

The rest are probably fair enough, but then that's the point isn't? The clubs transfer business has been utterly scattergun and veered widely from buying established stars with a short shelf life to young players, to squad players who never really were good enough but were needed to do a job, and back again with no direction, aim, or long term vision. There may be a sensible, coherent policy underlying our transfer business, but if there is all we can say is it's one that's broken so frequently whenever Woodward sees something shiny, or when he appoints a manager that does not buy in to that vision, that there might as well not be.

Isn’t hindsight marvellous?

Schneiderlin and Lukaku were established players but they weren’t typical stars. They were the no brainier, PL proven types that we had apparently been neglecting in favour of superstars. Buying them made a lot of sense. One didn’t work. The jury is out on the other.

I remember when people would complain that we wouldn’t buy more obvious players that were performing in foreign leagues (usually for cheaper fees). Bayern would usually buy them while we looked for more expensive options instead. So we bought Darmian, Blind and Rojo, the first of which was met with huge enthusiasm by our resident transfer wizards.

I also remember the two seasons after Ferguson left. We had lost Ferdinand, Vidic, Evra, Giggs and Scholes. Our midfield still needed a lot of work. So when we signed Schweinsteiger, it was met with undeniable glee, with huge clamour for his experience and ‘proven winner’ ways. It didn’t work out in the end, but for £6 million there was a degree of logic in the punt. Ditto Ibrahimovic, who worked out nicely while the striker market was dry.

With the likes of Shaw, Martial, Bailly, Lindelof and Memphis, there has been an intention to bring these lads in and turn them into United footballers. Nobody complained.

Pogba, Di Maria and Sanchez were welcomed because of their pedigree. The first two were/are fairly young, too. Nobody complained here either.

Your debate is undermined by the value of hindsight. I personally think we’ve bought lots of good players that are capable of a lot more. The likes of Shaw and Martial were bought to play in our side for a decade and I love that kind of planning. When we bring in the right manager then this will finally start to get the recognition it deserves.

Even now, I look at our signings and only Di Maria bothers me to any great degree, primarily because he was a panic buy and clearly never wanted to play for the club. The rest made sense given the position the club was in at the time. Just because they don’t work out (Memphis, for example) doesn’t mean it was scattergun or ideologically flawed.

It’s funny. When the club applies logic and doesn’t sanction ludicrous deals for the likes of Harry Maguire and Jerome Boateng they are accused of undermining the manager. They really can’t win.

 

[Mainoldo]

Just a few brief points, though I thought this was obvious:

Laporte 57m. Stones 48m. Mendy 52m. Walker 45m.
Bailly 30m. Lindelof 32m. Shaw 30m. Darmian 13m.

They already had world class players.

If something doesn't work, they bring out the wallet asap (Ederson).

How much have they spent in there attack? Just a few points of my own which are pretty obvious:

Lukaku 90£m
Pogba 80£m
Fred 50£m
Alexis apparently 500k a week.

I’m pretty obvious he would have got what he wanted our Pep.

Another thing aswell they had two wordclass players Kompany and Aguero(still questionable).

 

[Irwin99]

Probably the only part of his post match I did agree with was the comment on player injuries and how the club has kept hold of some players for so long despite the fact they're so rarely available (Jones, Rojo etc). This should have been sorted out in the summer but here we are.

 

[Keeps It tidy]

Firstly, some of those figures are way out. Pogba was £89m, Sanchez was a direct swap for Mkhitaryan who himself cost closer to £27m than £37m, Bailly was under £30m.

Secondly, we have spent less than Manchester City, Liverpool and Chelsea have spent over the same period. I’m bored of this “Mourinho has spent X, Y, Z” rhetoric. We’re not the only club that spends money, in fact we spend less than our main rivals for trophies FFS. And that’s without even going into the fact that those clubs provide their managers with players they want as opposed to people that fit into what a fecking banker decides we need.

We have a higher wage bill than all of them but, City. And City lost out on Jorginho, Fred and Sanchez. And you you imagine how Mourinho would react if he had a transfer fall apart in the way it did for Liverpool in the Fekir transfer.

 

[Denis79]

Isn’t hindsight marvellous?

Schneiderlin and Lukaku were established players but they weren’t typical stars. They were the no brainier, PL proven types that we had apparently been neglecting in favour of superstars. Buying them made a lot of sense. One didn’t work. The jury is out on the other.

I remember when people would complain that we wouldn’t buy more obvious players that were performing in foreign leagues (usually for cheaper fees). Bayern would usually buy them while we looked for more expensive options instead. So we bought Darmian, Blind and Rojo, the first of which was met with huge enthusiasm by our resident transfer wizards.

I also remember the two seasons after Ferguson left. We had lost Ferdinand, Vidic, Evra, Giggs and Scholes. Our midfield still needed a lot of work. So when we signed Schweinsteiger, it was met with undeniable glee, with huge clamour for his experience and ‘proven winner’ ways. It didn’t work out in the end, but for £6 million there was a degree of logic in the punt. Ditto Ibrahimovic, who worked out nicely while the striker market was dry.

With the likes of Shaw, Martial, Bailly, Lindelof and Memphis, there has been an intention to bring these lads in and turn them into United footballers. Nobody complained.

Pogba, Di Maria and Sanchez were welcomed because of their pedigree. The first two were/are fairly young, too. Nobody complained here either.

Your debate is undermined by the value of hindsight. I personally think we’ve bought lots of good players that are capable of a lot more. The likes of Shaw and Martial were bought to play in our side for a decade and I love that kind of planning. When we bring in the right manager then this will finally start to get the recognition it deserves.

Even now, I look at our signings and only Di Maria bothers me to any great degree, primarily because he was a panic buy and clearly never wanted to play for the club. The rest made sense given the position the club was in at the time. Just because they don’t work out (Memphis, for example) doesn’t mean it was scattergun or ideologically flawed.

Agree with almost everything except that with every manager we bought players to fit the current style of play. I think if we had better leadership at the top some of our "failed signings" might have come good and some that are still here might have been better. It was clear LvG favored speed and technique in the striker role, Falcao, Martial, Rashford even Di Maria were played in that position. When Mourinho came he wanted big strong strikers Ibrahimovic, Lukaku. This is fine but we started shoehorning our former strikers in other positions because of it. Who knows how good (or bad) Martial and Rashford would have been now if we continued with a plan and kept them playing week in and out.

If we had capable leadership at the top they would have made a plan of what type football we wanted and appoint managers after that or even hire a DOF, but they wanted instant success. You are right it's easy to write all this in hindsight but the leadership should have planned for failure aswell, which they clearly haven't. We need to lead the club in one direction when it comes to signings and follow a plan, not rebuild with every new manager.

 

[NinjaFletch]

Isn’t hindsight marvellous?

Schneiderlin and Lukaku were established players but they weren’t typical stars. They were the no brainier, PL proven types that we had apparently been neglecting in favour of superstars. Buying them made a lot of sense. One didn’t work. The jury is out on the other.

I remember when people would complain that we wouldn’t buy more obvious players that were performing in foreign leagues (usually for cheaper fees). Bayern would usually buy them while we looked for more expensive options instead. So we bought Darmian, Blind and Rojo, the first of which was met with huge enthusiasm by our resident transfer wizards.

I also remember the two seasons after Ferguson left. We had lost Ferdinand, Vidic, Evra, Giggs and Scholes. Our midfield still needed a lot of work. So when we signed Schweinsteiger, it was met with undeniable glee, with huge clamour for his experience and ‘proven winner’ ways. It didn’t work out in the end, but for £6 million there was a degree of logic in the punt. Ditto Ibrahimovic, who worked out nicely while the striker market was dry.

With the likes of Shaw, Martial, Bailly, Lindelof and Memphis, there has been an intention to bring these lads in and turn them into United footballers. Nobody complained.

Pogba, Di Maria and Sanchez were welcomed because of their pedigree. The first two were/are fairly young, too. Nobody complained here either.

Your debate is undermined by the value of hindsight. I personally think we’ve bought lots of good players that are capable of a lot more. The likes of Shaw and Martial were bought to play in our side for a decade and I love that kind of planning. When we bring in the right manager then this will finally start to get the recognition it deserves.

Even now, I look at our signings and only Di Maria bothers me to any great degree, primarily because he was a panic buy and clearly never wanted to play for the club. The rest made sense given the position the club was in at the time. Just because they don’t work out (Memphis, for example) doesn’t mean it was scattergun or ideologically flawed.

It’s funny. When the club applies logic and doesn’t sanction ludicrous deals for the likes of Harry Maguire and Jerome Boateng they are accused of undermining the manager. They really can’t win.

I'm hugely struggling to see the logic of your post. You've responded to a post about the profile of our signings by talking about their success.

You're praising the club for not signing Maguire, whilst simultaneously praising the club for signing Lukaku (at huge expense) and Schneiderlin (at what was huge expense in the pre-Pogba/Neymar price world). Those aren't different types of deals, you just feel differently about them because the club signed one and didn't sign the other. Not that there's any suggestion the club wouldn't have spent silly money on a defender mind you, they just weren't prepared to pay quite as silly money as Leicester wanted for Maguire. As Woodward briefed the press, he'd have spent £100m on a big name centre half, because that's the reality: he can't resist.

The point is that there's a variety of different profiles of player that we've signed over the years and little to support your assertion that there's actually a policy. In fact you've rather summed up my point yourself. On a case by case basis there may be some logic to each transfer, but the club has changed course and direction repeatedly and rarely adhered to such a 'policy' on a window by window basis.

Let's take our last to windows for example. We signed Sanchez, who clearly had a limited shelf life, Dalot, and Fred. What do those three signings have in common to you to suggest there was an overarching plan?

 

[JB7]

We have a higher wage bill than all of them but, City. And City lost out on Jorginho, Fred and Sanchez. And you you imagine how Mourinho would react if he had a transfer fall apart in the way it did for Liverpool in the Fekir transfer.

The wage bill isn’t anything to do with the manager though. If the club overpays it’s players that the clubs problem, the most realistic barometer of how players are viewed in the game is their transfer value and ultimately we are being outspent by all 3.

Regarding Fekir, if Liverpool wanted to sign him or give him a do further medical tests they’d have done so.

 

[Keeps It tidy]

The wage bill isn’t anything to do with the manager though. If the club overpays it’s players that the clubs problem, the most realistic barometer of how players are viewed in the game is their transfer value and ultimately we are being outspent by all 3.

Regarding Fekir, if Liverpool wanted to sign him or give him a do further medical tests they’d have done so.

No it is wage bill. The best measure of a club's financial muscle is their wage bill. And it takes in account transfers like Zlatan. Zlatan was technically a "free" transfer but, few clubs would be able to afford the wages we paid him.