Man Utd Thread:

[AZOffaly]

Yes Seanie, but if you ADD or REPLACE players to the tune of £250 million, you're entitled to be asked how well was that money spent, not how well the difference was spent.

Rodgers lost Suarez for €75m. He spent €20m on Markovic, €20m on Lovren and €16m on Ballotelli. That's a net spend of -£19m. So he shouldn't be criticised for wasting £56m ?

[Bingo]

Net spend is a load of bollix.

It is one figure in isolation and tells nothing. Doesn't tell you position of players bought/sold, age, experience, even the number of players bought and sold.

Liverpool sold Suarez and bought half a dozen players. One player replaced by 6. And still was a weaker squad, net spend or gross spend. If you send 80m on players and have feck all to show for it, then you've made a balls of it. If you've spent nothing but have 5 additional players and have feck all to show for it, then you've made a balls of it.

Anyone spending 150m, 250m, or 80m should be better off. At times you will sell a star player and its impossible to replace - Suarez, Ronaldo etc but you should fecking try and can't hide behind net spend if you don't.

Who wants to be like Arsenal and their terrific net spend policy??

[magpie seanie]

Key point is - LVG had to perform major surgery on an aging and rapidly disimproving squad. He realised some good fees from players he wanted rid of and spent a lot of money to get guys he wanted. Some of them have not worked out and will not work out but the overall impact is what he will be judged on. United are in a much better place than 12 months ago but need to keep improving.

Interesting that it's mostly non-United supporters that are so critical of LVG. The same ones that supported Moyes.

[magpie seanie]

Yes Seanie, but if you ADD or REPLACE players to the tune of £250 million, you're entitled to be asked how well was that money spent, not how well the difference was spent.

Rodgers lost Suarez for €75m. He spent €20m on Markovic, €20m on Lovren and €16m on Ballotelli. That's a net spend of -£19m. So he shouldn't be criticised for wasting £56m ?

Balotelli trumps everything. There was no way that was ever going to work!!!!!

[stew]

Utd now have only 3 strikers. 2 of them 19. 

You'll win nothing with kids!

LVG is pure ket..................... A spoofer of the highest order, I look at the business Pellegrini has done compared to LVG and the united boss has been found wanting.

I do not think LVG will be at United come seasons end, he cannot get along with the players and he seems to be building for a future he will have no part of, the man is vastly overrated at this stage of his career.

Stew - that's a ridiculous comparison. Pellegrini has an established squad, one of the best in Europe, that only needed a couple of addition plus getting their heads out of their holes.

Van Gaal is rebuilding a club left in shite by Ferguson (and to some extent Moyes).

Really? Fergie won the league in his last year by what, twelve points? Hardly a team in disarray.

City have done damn all in Europe to this point so they can hardly be hailed as one of the best in Europe until they do damage in Europe.

The man just got done buying an unknown for a transfer fee that could hit 60 million, he has a tremendous talent in James Wilson who just needs a good run to get going and he shit the bed in the DDG  saga, add in the fact that he made ADM look average by playing him everywhere except his favored position and the constant shooting for the Moon and failing to land a big fish ( Bale, Ramos etc) United are a circus under this clown, an absolute circus!

[Muck Savage]

So if a manager is told he an only spend 50M, anything more than that then he needs to generate the money with sales doesn't count?

By this thinking then he is LVG is not to be blamed for only having net 3 strikers and only be judged on the new lad that came in? If through injuries Utd don't have a striker at any point in the season then LVG is in the clear as we're not talking about Net.

Nuts!!!!

The manager can never be in the clear because he buys and SELLS the players.......

So now you want to include the sales. OK, now its all clear!

Only mentioned selling in relation to your reference to no strikers being available through injury....and that it couldn't be the managers fault...

How many were sold or let go?

Its the managers fault for selling them and/or not replacing them....

Anyway has no real connection to my original post hence my opening line...

So now your arguing my point, evaluate the manager on NET (Players in, players out)

Great, so now we agree.

[STREET FIGHTER]

Key point is - LVG had to perform major surgery on an aging and rapidly disimproving squad. He realised some good fees from players he wanted rid of and spent a lot of money to get guys he wanted. Some of them have not worked out and will not work out but the overall impact is what he will be judged on. United are in a much better place than 12 months ago but need to keep improving.

Interesting that it's mostly non-United supporters that are so critical of LVG. The same ones that supported Moyes.

Don't take it personal......my thinking applies to managers of all clubs as per my previous post....

I wasn't even critical of LVG....

If he's spent £250 million he's spent £250 million.......Don't like it dressed down to £130 million or whatever it is....

Perhaps some fans like to hide behind net spend.....who knows.......

[AZOffaly]

Key point is - LVG had to perform major surgery on an aging and rapidly disimproving squad. He realised some good fees from players he wanted rid of and spent a lot of money to get guys he wanted. Some of them have not worked out and will not work out but the overall impact is what he will be judged on. United are in a much better place than 12 months ago but need to keep improving.

Interesting that it's mostly non-United supporters that are so critical of LVG. The same ones that supported Moyes.

I think I'm on record here as saying I think van Gaal will be a good manager for Man United. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm not. However, if he fails, the argument of net spend cannot be a valid defence. In the end he is evaluating and setting the agenda for all the players he pursues and buys, so he should be judged on the return he gets from the players he buys, and how he integrates them into his team.

Same for Rodgers, same for everyone else.

Owners might love a low net spend, but fans just want the players they buy to be good players.

The only time I would give managers a bye ball on transfer dealings is if they are being forced to get in players they don't want. Rodgers may, MAY have some excuse there for some of his dross signings, but I don't think van Gaal is constrained by either an FSG type philosophy or a transfer committee. He may be constrained by Ed Woodward being a wally though.

[STREET FIGHTER]

So if a manager is told he an only spend 50M, anything more than that then he needs to generate the money with sales doesn't count?

By this thinking then he is LVG is not to be blamed for only having net 3 strikers and only be judged on the new lad that came in? If through injuries Utd don't have a striker at any point in the season then LVG is in the clear as we're not talking about Net.

Nuts!!!!

The manager can never be in the clear because he buys and SELLS the players.......

So now you want to include the sales. OK, now its all clear!

Only mentioned selling in relation to your reference to no strikers being available through injury....and that it couldn't be the managers fault...

How many were sold or let go?

Its the managers fault for selling them and/or not replacing them....

Anyway has no real connection to my original post hence my opening line...

So now your arguing my point, evaluate the manager on NET (Players in, players out)

Great, so now we agree.

But your argument is based on quantity of players?

When have I ever discussed quantity.....

Crossed wires I doubt...

I'll run it by you one more time.....

A manager should be judged on his actual spend (per player) and not nett spend...

[GJL]

Jeysus. Some sh1t being talked on here today! I suppose that is what we get with the transfer window closed and it being an International weekend.

[Muck Savage]

So if a manager is told he an only spend 50M, anything more than that then he needs to generate the money with sales doesn't count?

By this thinking then he is LVG is not to be blamed for only having net 3 strikers and only be judged on the new lad that came in? If through injuries Utd don't have a striker at any point in the season then LVG is in the clear as we're not talking about Net.

Nuts!!!!

The manager can never be in the clear because he buys and SELLS the players.......

So now you want to include the sales. OK, now its all clear!

Only mentioned selling in relation to your reference to no strikers being available through injury....and that it couldn't be the managers fault...

How many were sold or let go?

Its the managers fault for selling them and/or not replacing them....

Anyway has no real connection to my original post hence my opening line...

So now your arguing my point, evaluate the manager on NET (Players in, players out)

Great, so now we agree.

But your argument is based on quantity of players?

When have I ever discussed quantity.....

Crossed wires I doubt...

I'll run it by you one more time.....

A manager should be judged on his actual spend (per player) and not nett spend...

My argument is based on NET not quantity but that seems to have blew right over your head...

I'll run it by you again....

Managers should be judged based on NET. If they come into a club with expensive players not performing, sell and replace them with players that do perform (improve position in the league) then they have done a pretty good job.

Anyway, each to their own.

[laoislad]

Go home Muck Savage, you're drunk.

[Muck Savage]

Yes Seanie, but if you ADD or REPLACE players to the tune of £250 million, you're entitled to be asked how well was that money spent, not how well the difference was spent.

Rodgers lost Suarez for €75m. He spent €20m on Markovic, €20m on Lovren and €16m on Ballotelli. That's a net spend of -£19m. So he shouldn't be criticised for wasting £56m ?

That's just replacing quality with dung. Rodgers is just a poor manager in the market, he sold the best player he inherited and replaced with a poor bunch of players. He didn't try to buy quality which he should have. Similar with Spurs and Bale, and now I hope with Liverpool and Sterling..

There are countless examples the other way, Beckham sold and Ronaldo bought with about 10M left over. Ultimately there are many examples out there to prove or disprove your argument and numbers can be cut/diced in many different ways to argue. But its an individual preference on how you want to judge a manager and how he deals with what he inherits when he comes into a club.

Anyway Spend/Net only comes into play when a manager does not win anything. Alex Ferguson won't be remembered for for spending 531M or Net spend of 214M. He'll be remembered for 13 titles, 5 FA cups, 2 Champions leagues, countless other trophies and knocking someone off a perch!

[STREET FIGHTER]

So if a manager is told he an only spend 50M, anything more than that then he needs to generate the money with sales doesn't count?

By this thinking then he is LVG is not to be blamed for only having net 3 strikers and only be judged on the new lad that came in? If through injuries Utd don't have a striker at any point in the season then LVG is in the clear as we're not talking about Net.

Nuts!!!!

The manager can never be in the clear because he buys and SELLS the players.......

So now you want to include the sales. OK, now its all clear!

Only mentioned selling in relation to your reference to no strikers being available through injury....and that it couldn't be the managers fault...

How many were sold or let go?

Its the managers fault for selling them and/or not replacing them....

Anyway has no real connection to my original post hence my opening line...

So now your arguing my point, evaluate the manager on NET (Players in, players out)

Great, so now we agree.

But your argument is based on quantity of players?

When have I ever discussed quantity.....

Crossed wires I doubt...

I'll run it by you one more time.....

A manager should be judged on his actual spend (per player) and not nett spend...

My argument is based on NET not quantity but that seems to have blew right over your head...

I'll run it by you again....

Managers should be judged based on NET. If they come into a club with expensive players not performing, sell and replace them with players that do perform (improve position in the league) then they have done a pretty good job.

Anyway, each to their own.

lol......what are you on about......nett players? We are debating nett spend......

[STREET FIGHTER]

Go home Muck Savage, you're drunk.

airlocked.....