Scotchegg
Well-known member
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 13,546
He's not even better than Brannaghan!!How the hell did Paul Pogba make it into the PFA Team of the Year?
Better than Hazard, Eriksen and Son apparently.
Completely unfathomable.
He's not even better than Brannaghan!!How the hell did Paul Pogba make it into the PFA Team of the Year?
Better than Hazard, Eriksen and Son apparently.
Completely unfathomable.
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.There was never a bubble to burst. Ask Cardiff.
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.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.
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.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 get where you are coming from Tony.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.
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
voting took place 10 weeks ago, when Pogba was pulling up trees when he got rid of Jose.How the hell did Paul Pogba make it into the PFA Team of the Year?
Better than Hazard, Eriksen and Son apparently.
Completely unfathomable.
Heard the same when Pogba was being signed. Chelsea wouldnt pay his agent £20m to get the deal done. Man Utd, did. Doh!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.
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
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!
Interesting that one paper has suggested that Man U PLC value has gone from $4.2 billion in August 18 to $3.2 billion.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.