Man U v Man C

There was never a bubble to burst. Ask Cardiff.
I've never been entirely convinced, but some seemed convinced he was the Messiah and they were on for a good finish. They were woefully exposed yesterday.
As you suggested City have spent big in total for players like Mendy Walker Sane B Silva etc.
But they seem to have purchased far better that Pogba £89m, Lukaku £75m, Fred £47m
Man U are almost in a position where they need to start again.
Sanchez is a prime example of the difference between the clubs. City bowed out when the money got silly, Man U couldn't get the cheque book out quick enough, and the player has done little justify the money. I suspect players know that club is a soft touch who will overpay for average and name players with little strategy.

They need someone utterly ruthless to go in there and clear it all out, but they seem to just want to renew contracts of average players so it makes it difficult for whoever comes in.
 
If you were to compare Eriksen and Son’s wages to Pogbas and Sanchez I reckon you would be talking between 7 times in the Man U players favour, which is ridiculous as they are inferior players who put a tenth of the effort in.
 
It's been mentioned earlier on this thread, but the central problem here is the Glazers.

They're in it solely and exclusively for the money (and obviously Man U is one of the only clubs that can be a reliable big time money-making venture), and it shows in the way they operate. Under any other ownership regime, Ed Woodward would've been out of a job years ago - their transfer activity under him has been an unmitigated disaster. But he's really good at maximizing commercial revenue, so it doesn't matter.

Until they decide they're serious about winning football matches and put in, from top to bottom, a skilled and experienced management team, then I think they're doomed to their current status as also rans who occasionally waste a bunch of money on some has-been or never-will-be to temporarily placate the restless fans.

Not that I'm complaining - it's fairly hilarious to watch. My Dad was born in Warrington and is a Man U fan, and I'm having much fun telling him that they're going to be waiting many decades for their next title (like the Scousers have...…). He doesn't disagree.
 
It's been mentioned earlier on this thread, but the central problem here is the Glazers.

They're in it solely and exclusively for the money (and obviously Man U is one of the only clubs that can be a reliable big time money-making venture), and it shows in the way they operate. Under any other ownership regime, Ed Woodward would've been out of a job years ago - their transfer activity under him has been an unmitigated disaster. But he's really good at maximizing commercial revenue, so it doesn't matter.

Until they decide they're serious about winning football matches and put in, from top to bottom, a skilled and experienced management team, then I think they're doomed to their current status as also rans who occasionally waste a bunch of money on some has-been or never-will-be to temporarily placate the restless fans.

Not that I'm complaining - it's fairly hilarious to watch. My Dad was born in Warrington and is a Man U fan, and I'm having much fun telling him that they're going to be waiting many decades for their next title (like the Scousers have...…). He doesn't disagree.
I'm really not sure that they are 'maximising' revenue. If they were in Man City's position I am sure that their revenue would be significantly higher for not a huge amount more outlay.
Regardless the revenues are adequate for the owners, but I would guess that if they miss put on the CL again the Glazers will miss the £50m they reckon they have gained by this season.
 
I'm really not sure that they are 'maximising' revenue. If they were in Man City's position I am sure that their revenue would be significantly higher for not a huge amount more outlay.
Regardless the revenues are adequate for the owners, but I would guess that if they miss put on the CL again the Glazers will miss the £50m they reckon they have gained by this season.

I really meant specifically maximizing commercial revenue i.e. not broadcasting or matchday revenue.

Woodward took over commercial operations in 2007. In 2009, their commercial revenues were $86.77m. In 2018, they were $363.11m - which, by the way, is about $100m more than any other UK club. And is sustainable revenue that now doesn't vary much year by year.

Not trying to defend Woodward - just saying that's why he's still in a job despite his many years of bungling in the transfer market.
 
I
I really meant specifically maximizing commercial revenue i.e. not broadcasting or matchday revenue.

Woodward took over commercial operations in 2007. In 2009, their commercial revenues were $86.77m. In 2018, they were $363.11m - which, by the way, is about $100m more than any other UK club. And is sustainable revenue that now doesn't vary much year by year.

Not trying to defend Woodward - just saying that's why he's still in a job despite his many years of bungling in the transfer market.
I get where you are coming from Tony.
I just reckon that they could do better financially AND be successful on.the field ( had they gone for Pep for example).
Still it gives those of us that don't like Man U some amusement!
 
Quite an incredibly head to head chase for the PL title. Liverpool haven't dropped a point since the start of March and City haven't dropped a point since the end of January.
It must be a record point accumulation for whoever finishes runner up
 
Quite an incredibly head to head chase for the PL title. Liverpool haven't dropped a point since the start of March and City haven't dropped a point since the end of January.
It must be a record point accumulation for whoever finishes runner up

I believe the current record (in a 38-game season, 3 points for a win) is Man United in 2011/12 with 89 (that was the Agueeeeeroooooo year).

So whoever loses out between Liverpool and Man City (and let's face it, it's going to be Liverpool, isn't it?) are going to smash that record.

Leicester won the title with only 81!
 
Man U only got 79 the year they did the treble, 75 two years before that. Even Arsenal’s invincibles only took 90 points, which would leave them in third this season.

As bad as Man U, Chelsea and Arsenal have been this season I don’t think it would of made a lot of difference if they were as good as in the past (certainly recent) as they would just end like Spurs, a very good team up against two excellent ones.
 
How the hell did Paul Pogba make it into the PFA Team of the Year?
Better than Hazard, Eriksen and Son apparently.
Completely unfathomable.
voting took place 10 weeks ago, when Pogba was pulling up trees when he got rid of Jose.
 
I th
I've never been entirely convinced, but some seemed convinced he was the Messiah and they were on for a good finish. They were woefully exposed yesterday.

Sanchez is a prime example of the difference between the clubs. City bowed out when the money got silly, Man U couldn't get the cheque book out quick enough, and the player has done little justify the money. I suspect players know that club is a soft touch who will overpay for average and name players with little strategy.

They need someone utterly ruthless to go in there and clear it all out, but they seem to just want to renew contracts of average players so it makes it difficult for whoever comes in.
Heard the same when Pogba was being signed. Chelsea wouldnt pay his agent £20m to get the deal done. Man Utd, did. Doh!

Pete King over @ North Leigh is a tight git. He might swap his cleaning business for a few years up north.
 
Maybe
I

I get where you are coming from Tony.
I just reckon that they could do better financially AND be successful on.the field ( had they gone for Pep for example).
Still it gives those of us that don't like Man U some amusement!
Makes me laugh when Ole says on TV about the "football club", this "football club" that. Nonsense. Man U havnt been a "football club" for a long time. They sold their souls, history and heritage, a long time ago.
 
I really meant specifically maximizing commercial revenue i.e. not broadcasting or matchday revenue.

Woodward took over commercial operations in 2007. In 2009, their commercial revenues were $86.77m. In 2018, they were $363.11m - which, by the way, is about $100m more than any other UK club. And is sustainable revenue that now doesn't vary much year by year.

Not trying to defend Woodward - just saying that's why he's still in a job despite his many years of bungling in the transfer market.
Interesting that one paper has suggested that Man U PLC value has gone from $4.2 billion in August 18 to $3.2 billion.
Due to investors worrying about not finishing in the Top 4 plus the cost relating to improving the squad.
 
Back
Top Bottom