Rick Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 Rashford is an overrated prick. His work off the pitch is great, but he is clearly unprofessional when it comes to football. He’s been dogshit all season, and has the nerve to start doing this shit out of protest. I’d sell to the highest bidder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeKhrush Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 The issue is he is damaged goods, maybe Arsenal or Chelsea will take a chance on him but his attitude is leaving much to be desired. if he does this to man united he will do it to anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MUFC Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 Like most players we have he'll be hard to get rid off. Because we gave him a new contract after he had his usual one good season in 4 years. Nobody will pay his wages, no chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 PSG would take him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MUFC Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 21 minutes ago, Rick said: PSG would take him. I remember them being interested a couple of years back. I said back then to get rid. But people were like no he's a prospect and a local lad. People overwank over footballers who are local to their team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeKhrush Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 5 minutes ago, Rick said: PSG would take him. He almost went their two years ago for like 20-25m then he had a good season and now the issue of his worth is a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 Heard his agent is at Carrington as we speak. It wouldn't surprise me if he puts in a transfer request and we accept. We need rid of these players, the club will never get back to it's best with the attitude of some of these lads. Such a shame as well as he's a local lad, why would he destroy his career at his boyhood club? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fusion Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 He thinks he is still 18 years old that can do these things and the club will keep finding excuses. He has to be sold, he is at an age where people are in their primes and are consistent or at least have the maturity and hunger to fight back at every obstacle. His mentality is so weak that he depends on purple patches for a few months once in a while to stay relevant. One of the most predictable wingers in the league, can't play upfront cause he is clueless (as he admitted), and he easily gets distracted, gives up and doesn't bother tracking back during games. He should leave as soon as possible, preferably together with Antony (and ETH if keep insisting on both of them). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 I thought this was edited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 2 hours ago, The Palace Fan said: I thought this was edited. I've always felt he looks heavy in fairness, maybe just an unfortunate body shape but he certainly doesn't look like a prime athlete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Gonzo Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 If I were running Man Utd, likely properly running it and not just being a Liverpool fan and running them into the ground just for the lolz, I'd be much more keen on getting rid of ETH and the players he's brought in, then I would be getting rid of Rashford or the players that were there before ETH and now seem to take serious issue with him. Solskjaer was a better manager for United than Ten Hag - I stand by that statement. And if Solskjaer wasn't good enough for United (which he's not), then I don't think ETH's tenure is indicative of someone who should be staying at a football club or being given free reign to spend tons of money on players that don't actually help United at all. How many players have fallen out with ETH now? How much money has he spent on players that simply do not improve United in the slightest? Idk if United have a director of football or not, but they do need to address a lot of things above the manager as well. Do they have a Director of Football? I genuinely don't know - but if they do, sack him and replace him with someone that's got a track record at a club that's got high expectations in the league they're from but also has a track record of making signings that indicate a good eye for signing good talent at a great price. Then, I think they need to sack off all the scouts. Man Utd's scouting in recent seasons has been a bit bizarre tbh. A lot of "obvious" signings - "we need a CB and Madrid want to sell Varane," "we need a DM and Madrid want to sell Casemiro"; these aren't bad signings, in fact Casemiro was a big hit last year. But the issue is value - Varane cost a lot for a defender with his injury record. Casemiro cost a lot for a DM that moved to a more physical league at his age - and now he looks like he's already losing his legs. Signing Sancho without really having a plan to integrate him now looks like a waste of time for pretty much everybody except Dortmund. Signing Ronaldo because they didn't want their former legend joining Man City, even though it fucked up Solskjaer's plans for that season was just stupid... and undermined the manager and his plans for the season. Sometimes the obvious signings are just what is needed - they're high quality and high profile players for a reason. But they're expensive. And to me it seems like United have done a lot of signing for the sake of making signings. I just feel like there's not enough voices behind the scenes at Man Utd that are thinking about things like getting good value for incoming signings. And there's so little cohesion between making a signing and being sure the manager can integrate them. So I think once they address the DOF/recruitment issue... then that's a good time to axe ETH and bring in a manager with a long term vision for the club worth investing in. And after a new manager's had a few months with the squad, I'd then revisit whether players like Rashford need to be sent away because their attitudes are too toxic. But I don't think ETH is worse United's time or money any more and if they rid themselves of him... I think they'll likely find themselves with a much better manager. Having said that, I'm fine with United keeping him for a very long time. I could be very wrong, and stranger things have happened than me being very wrong about something in football, but I just think he's a very overrated manager. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 16 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said: If I were running Man Utd, likely properly running it and not just being a Liverpool fan and running them into the ground just for the lolz, I'd be much more keen on getting rid of ETH and the players he's brought in, then I would be getting rid of Rashford or the players that were there before ETH and now seem to take serious issue with him. Solskjaer was a better manager for United than Ten Hag - I stand by that statement. And if Solskjaer wasn't good enough for United (which he's not), then I don't think ETH's tenure is indicative of someone who should be staying at a football club or being given free reign to spend tons of money on players that don't actually help United at all. How many players have fallen out with ETH now? How much money has he spent on players that simply do not improve United in the slightest? Idk if United have a director of football or not, but they do need to address a lot of things above the manager as well. Do they have a Director of Football? I genuinely don't know - but if they do, sack him and replace him with someone that's got a track record at a club that's got high expectations in the league they're from but also has a track record of making signings that indicate a good eye for signing good talent at a great price. Then, I think they need to sack off all the scouts. Man Utd's scouting in recent seasons has been a bit bizarre tbh. A lot of "obvious" signings - "we need a CB and Madrid want to sell Varane," "we need a DM and Madrid want to sell Casemiro"; these aren't bad signings, in fact Casemiro was a big hit last year. But the issue is value - Varane cost a lot for a defender with his injury record. Casemiro cost a lot for a DM that moved to a more physical league at his age - and now he looks like he's already losing his legs. Signing Sancho without really having a plan to integrate him now looks like a waste of time for pretty much everybody except Dortmund. Signing Ronaldo because they didn't want their former legend joining Man City, even though it fucked up Solskjaer's plans for that season was just stupid... and undermined the manager and his plans for the season. Sometimes the obvious signings are just what is needed - they're high quality and high profile players for a reason. But they're expensive. And to me it seems like United have done a lot of signing for the sake of making signings. I just feel like there's not enough voices behind the scenes at Man Utd that are thinking about things like getting good value for incoming signings. And there's so little cohesion between making a signing and being sure the manager can integrate them. So I think once they address the DOF/recruitment issue... then that's a good time to axe ETH and bring in a manager with a long term vision for the club worth investing in. And after a new manager's had a few months with the squad, I'd then revisit whether players like Rashford need to be sent away because their attitudes are too toxic. But I don't think ETH is worse United's time or money any more and if they rid themselves of him... I think they'll likely find themselves with a much better manager. Having said that, I'm fine with United keeping him for a very long time. I could be very wrong, and stranger things have happened than me being very wrong about something in football, but I just think he's a very overrated manager. Was discussing this with my mate, ETH only managed Ajax a short period and with the team he inherited it would have been hard not to win his domestic league. Of course he did well in Europe but again they had some really good players within that squad which lifted a lot of average players. Similar to Monaco a few years before. I'm guilty of wanting him to be fair, there were some people with concerns about his overall experience and that seems fair now given he looks out of his depth. I think he came with a plan of how he wanted to play and quickly realised the players he had couldn't play that way. Problem is you can't shift players at United and the players he added were nowhere near good enough. He's actually managed to weaken us which is actually insane when you think about it. Then there is the blatant money wastage. He's blown a fortune. Maybe with better guidance he'd have done better but I'd imagine we will never know now as I think he's going at the end of the season. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeKhrush Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 17 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said: If I were running Man Utd, likely properly running it and not just being a Liverpool fan and running them into the ground just for the lolz, I'd be much more keen on getting rid of ETH and the players he's brought in, then I would be getting rid of Rashford or the players that were there before ETH and now seem to take serious issue with him. Solskjaer was a better manager for United than Ten Hag - I stand by that statement. And if Solskjaer wasn't good enough for United (which he's not), then I don't think ETH's tenure is indicative of someone who should be staying at a football club or being given free reign to spend tons of money on players that don't actually help United at all. How many players have fallen out with ETH now? How much money has he spent on players that simply do not improve United in the slightest? Idk if United have a director of football or not, but they do need to address a lot of things above the manager as well. Do they have a Director of Football? I genuinely don't know - but if they do, sack him and replace him with someone that's got a track record at a club that's got high expectations in the league they're from but also has a track record of making signings that indicate a good eye for signing good talent at a great price. Then, I think they need to sack off all the scouts. Man Utd's scouting in recent seasons has been a bit bizarre tbh. A lot of "obvious" signings - "we need a CB and Madrid want to sell Varane," "we need a DM and Madrid want to sell Casemiro"; these aren't bad signings, in fact Casemiro was a big hit last year. But the issue is value - Varane cost a lot for a defender with his injury record. Casemiro cost a lot for a DM that moved to a more physical league at his age - and now he looks like he's already losing his legs. Signing Sancho without really having a plan to integrate him now looks like a waste of time for pretty much everybody except Dortmund. Signing Ronaldo because they didn't want their former legend joining Man City, even though it fucked up Solskjaer's plans for that season was just stupid... and undermined the manager and his plans for the season. Sometimes the obvious signings are just what is needed - they're high quality and high profile players for a reason. But they're expensive. And to me it seems like United have done a lot of signing for the sake of making signings. I just feel like there's not enough voices behind the scenes at Man Utd that are thinking about things like getting good value for incoming signings. And there's so little cohesion between making a signing and being sure the manager can integrate them. So I think once they address the DOF/recruitment issue... then that's a good time to axe ETH and bring in a manager with a long term vision for the club worth investing in. And after a new manager's had a few months with the squad, I'd then revisit whether players like Rashford need to be sent away because their attitudes are too toxic. But I don't think ETH is worse United's time or money any more and if they rid themselves of him... I think they'll likely find themselves with a much better manager. Having said that, I'm fine with United keeping him for a very long time. I could be very wrong, and stranger things have happened than me being very wrong about something in football, but I just think he's a very overrated manager. Part of why they hate Ten Hag is that he makes them run to much Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Gonzo Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 Looks like United should be letting Rashford drink more tbh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MUFC Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 Jason Wilcox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator Stan Posted February 21 Administrator Share Posted February 21 Ratcliffe takeover completed. Shame they'll be shopping in the bargain basement despite the Ashworth move as Newcastle have 100% control over every scouted player... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 Ratcliffe is a proper politician ain’t he Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reluctant Striker Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 19 hours ago, Danny said: Ratcliffe is a proper politician ain’t he That story about wanting a Wembley of the north & improving the south of Manchester would be perfectly ok if it was a politicians campaign. And it is true London as the capital often feels like it's usually ahead of.. Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Birmingham, Leeds, Leicester, Bury, Torquay, etc. There is quite a queue. But as a Monaco dwelling, minority share holder of a commercial behemoth, who is apparently seeking tax payer funding for a New Old Trafford, it's surely bordering on delusional. No tax payer owes Manchester United anything.. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 5 hours ago, Reluctant Striker said: That story about wanting a Wembley of the north & improving the south of Manchester would be perfectly ok if it was a politicians campaign. And it is true London as the capital often feels like it's usually ahead of.. Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Birmingham, Leeds, Leicester, Bury, Torquay, etc. There is quite a queue. But as a Monaco dwelling, minority share holder of a commercial behemoth, who is apparently seeking tax payer funding for a New Old Trafford, it's surely bordering on delusional. No tax payer owes Manchester United anything.. Just reeks of bullshit and I hope they’re forced to fund their own stadium, richest club in England. What I can say for certain is the people who are effected by how left behind the Trafford Park area is said to be, be they workers or people that live nearby, they won’t be the ones benefitting from it’s regeneration. They will be pushed out for a new middle class to move in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 It’s a popular move in the US to get state funding towards a stadium, which is probably where he’s also got the idea from. The owners say it will redevelop an area and bring new business to the benefit of the city where it is being built. But the benefits are usually pretty small to anyone but the team owners. People are becoming more aware but the politicians making the deals are getting benefits from it too in some way, so they typically won’t push back unless there is public outcry. Funnily enough, I was reading an article earlier that the Chicago white Sox owner is asking for over 1 billion dollars to build a new stadium, replacing the current one that was built in 1991 and the city has still not finished paying off. I don't think this government will take the bait. There will be an outcry. Especially during a cost of living crisis. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 If Spurs can come up with a legitimate way of funding a new stadium then Manchester United won't struggle. People just love a story about United and they run away with it. Imagine how much money we could generate by selling the naming rights to our stadium, it would be insane. Also the NFL could look to bring itself to the North of England as well as London. There are loads of possibilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Gonzo Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 1 hour ago, Devil said: If Spurs can come up with a legitimate way of funding a new stadium then Manchester United won't struggle. Realistically, no billionaires should be struggling to put up a new stadium, regardless of how expensive it is. But @The Palace Fan is right that it's popular among US ownership of professional teams to ask cities to foot the bill for a new stadium. San Diego lost its NFL team because they told the billionaire asking for handouts to pay their own money if they wanted to stay in the city. Oakland's losing its baseball team for the same reason (although with teams moving to Vegas, they're thinking about tourism revenue at matches more than giving a fuck about having a solid home crowd imo). I think Kroenke's NFL team, the LA Rams, did foot the bill when they built the new stadium in LA (that they share with the side that used to be from San Diego, and charge them rent for using that stadium) - but he did fuck over the existing fans of the team when he moved them over several states to California. I don't think it's just that people love a story about United and run away with it - I think its concerning to see massive football clubs start acting with the entitlement of American billionaire team owners and start asking for handouts from the government. This "business first" approach to sports invading football is going to be concerning, because in US sports imo the local fans are truly an afterthought in most situations. Man Utd's a massive club, them taking this route is a slippery slope for modern football... and a decent amount of football fans are already turned off massively by how the game has changed. I think more than anyone else, Man Utd fans, should be vocal about telling Ratcliffe to fuck off with this asking for a handout shite. It's not a good sign of his plans for his overall respect of the United fans that matter most, the lifelong fans that care more about the club than anyone on the planet. It's like when FSG tried to copyright the liverbird - they were rightly slated for trying to claim ownership of a symbol of the city of Liverpool that had belonged to the city far before it ever had any association with FSG & backed down. Ratcliffe's a part owner of the club now - but he works for the United fans now - taking actions that demonstrate the fans are secondary is something that should 100000% be something that irritates the hell out of every United fan in the world. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said: Realistically, no billionaires should be struggling to put up a new stadium, regardless of how expensive it is. But @The Palace Fan is right that it's popular among US ownership of professional teams to ask cities to foot the bill for a new stadium. San Diego lost its NFL team because they told the billionaire asking for handouts to pay their own money if they wanted to stay in the city. Oakland's losing its baseball team for the same reason (although with teams moving to Vegas, they're thinking about tourism revenue at matches more than giving a fuck about having a solid home crowd imo). I think Kroenke's NFL team, the LA Rams, did foot the bill when they built the new stadium in LA (that they share with the side that used to be from San Diego, and charge them rent for using that stadium) - but he did fuck over the existing fans of the team when he moved them over several states to California. I don't think it's just that people love a story about United and run away with it - I think its concerning to see massive football clubs start acting with the entitlement of American billionaire team owners and start asking for handouts from the government. This "business first" approach to sports invading football is going to be concerning, because in US sports imo the local fans are truly an afterthought in most situations. Man Utd's a massive club, them taking this route is a slippery slope for modern football... and a decent amount of football fans are already turned off massively by how the game has changed. I think more than anyone else, Man Utd fans, should be vocal about telling Ratcliffe to fuck off with this asking for a handout shite. It's not a good sign of his plans for his overall respect of the United fans that matter most, the lifelong fans that care more about the club than anyone on the planet. It's like when FSG tried to copyright the liverbird - they were rightly slated for trying to claim ownership of a symbol of the city of Liverpool that had belonged to the city far before it ever had any association with FSG & backed down. Ratcliffe's a part owner of the club now - but he works for the United fans now - taking actions that demonstrate the fans are secondary is something that should 100000% be something that irritates the hell out of every United fan in the world. Where has it been confirmed he's looking for a government handout? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Gonzo Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 47 minutes ago, Devil said: Where has it been confirmed he's looking for a government handout? https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/68361025 "It's about time someone built a national stadium in the north of England," said the British billionaire. Ratcliffe added the potential project could be a "catalyst for regeneration" in south Manchester and would therefore warrant a "conversation" with the government about using taxpayers' money. In his first broadcast interview, with BBC sports editor Dan Roan, since completing his deal to buy 27.7% of the club, Ratcliffe added: "If it can be achieved, it would clearly be my preference. It might "warrant a conversation" - but that conversation should be "fuck off, you're a billionaire living in Monaco not paying British taxes - you pay for your own stadium." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.