Man Utd Thread:

[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.....

[Muck Savage]

Go home Muck Savage, you're drunk.

And when your not able to discuss the topic throw abuse 

I'm entitled to my opinion just as much as you or anyone else. If you don't agree then argue don't belittle other because they don't agree with you.

[annapr]

As someone pointed out earlier,the only people who should be worried about net spend is the clubs Accountants.
If a manager,in this case LVG,spends 250 million pounds on players then he has to be judged on the players he bought and what they cost to buy and not his overall net spend. You spend 60 mill on a player and he flops, you can't get away with it because he only cost say 30mill net because you sold someone else. He is still a 60million pound player end of.

I'm pretty sure those arguing against net spend being relevant mean so in terms of success on the pitch.
Obviously it's important to how the club is being run financially but it should never be used as an excuse to how  a team perform on the pitch.
That's all down to the manager and the talent he brings in and if that talent is worth 250 mill then you expect results.The net cost of buying those players is irrelevant imo.
 

[STREET FIGHTER]

Go home Muck Savage, you're drunk.

And when your not able to discuss the topic throw abuse 

I'm entitled to my opinion just as much as you or anyone else. If you don't agree then argue don't belittle other because they don't agree with you.

honestly not trying to belittle you.....its just that I have zero interest in your topic.....it has nothing to do with my original post.....

[STREET FIGHTER]

As someone pointed out earlier,the only people who should be worried about net spend is the clubs Accountants.
If a manager,in this case LVG,spends 250 million pounds on players then he has to be judged on the players he bought and what they cost to buy and not his overall net spend. You spend 60 mill on a player and he flops, you can't get away with it because he only cost say 30mill net because you sold someone else. He is still a 60million pound player end of.

I'm pretty sure those arguing against net spend being relevant mean so in terms of success on the pitch.
Obviously it's important to how the club is being run financially but it should never be used as an excuse to how  a team perform on the pitch.
That's all down to the manager and the talent he brings in and if that talent is worth 250 mill then you expect results.The net cost of buying those players is irrelevant imo.

finally.....some sense on the matter!

[rodney trotter]

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).

Moyes?

Red headed dude. Scottish but has good Spanish. bit googly eyed, but not too bad

Oh aye him.....how did he leave the club in shite?

He inherited most of the squad from Fergie and signed 2 players who were UTD's best players last year....

Those who appointed Moyes made the same mistake as Liverpool when they appointed Graeme Souness. No quick fix and during this rebuilding process Van Gaal might have been better off keeping faith with the squad he had than relying on Ed Woodward in the transfer market.

Fellaini and Mata were probaly Uniteds best outfield players last season. Both players signed by Moyes.

Van Gaal talks some shite. Januzaj has a big part to play this season  - and then sends him on loan for the season

[STREET FIGHTER]

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).

Moyes?

Red headed dude. Scottish but has good Spanish. bit googly eyed, but not too bad

Oh aye him.....how did he leave the club in shite?

He inherited most of the squad from Fergie and signed 2 players who were UTD's best players last year....

Those who appointed Moyes made the same mistake as Liverpool when they appointed Graeme Souness. No quick fix and during this rebuilding process Van Gaal might have been better off keeping faith with the squad he had than relying on Ed Woodward in the transfer market.

Fellaini and Mata were probaly Uniteds best outfield players last season. Both players signed by Moyes.

Van Gaal talks some shite. Januzaj has a big part to play this season  - and then sends him on loan for the season

Certainly an odd decision.....thought Januzaj was going to play a big role this season......

[Maroon Manc]

As someone pointed out earlier,the only people who should be worried about net spend is the clubs Accountants.
If a manager,in this case LVG,spends 250 million pounds on players then he has to be judged on the players he bought and what they cost to buy and not his overall net spend. You spend 60 mill on a player and he flops, you can't get away with it because he only cost say 30mill net because you sold someone else. He is still a 60million pound player end of.

I'm pretty sure those arguing against net spend being relevant mean so in terms of success on the pitch.
Obviously it's important to how the club is being run financially but it should never be used as an excuse to how  a team perform on the pitch.
That's all down to the manager and the talent he brings in and if that talent is worth 250 mill then you expect results.The net cost of buying those players is irrelevant imo.

All very simplistic way of looking at it.

Rodgers, Pellegrini & Mourinho have all spent more than LVG since they took over so based on this logic they should all finish ahead of United in the league.

LVG took over a team where it's best players were all past their best. Rio, Vidic & Evra who were all in the starting 11 when we won the league in 2012/13 were finished by the time LVG took over and needed replacing. RVP our best player that season was passed his best and Rooney too is well past his best. he inherited a squad with too many players who were not good enough so naturally a lot of players have been bought and sold hence why net spend is taken into account. He's bought one player who it didn't work out for so he made a big decision and got rid for a good fee instead of keeping him to save face.

Finishing 4th for United would be about right based on the logic of not taking into account net spend as Rodgers, Pellegrini and Mourinho have all spent more.

[Minder]

The usual barometer of success, and last time I looked it wasn't too far away, was the teams with the highest wage bills winning the league, second biggest finishing second etc.

[STREET FIGHTER]

As someone pointed out earlier,the only people who should be worried about net spend is the clubs Accountants.
If a manager,in this case LVG,spends 250 million pounds on players then he has to be judged on the players he bought and what they cost to buy and not his overall net spend. You spend 60 mill on a player and he flops, you can't get away with it because he only cost say 30mill net because you sold someone else. He is still a 60million pound player end of.

I'm pretty sure those arguing against net spend being relevant mean so in terms of success on the pitch.
Obviously it's important to how the club is being run financially but it should never be used as an excuse to how  a team perform on the pitch.
That's all down to the manager and the talent he brings in and if that talent is worth 250 mill then you expect results.The net cost of buying those players is irrelevant imo.

All very simplistic way of looking at it.

Rodgers, Pellegrini & Mourinho have all spent more than LVG since they took over so based on this logic they should all finish ahead of United in the league.

LVG took over a team where it's best players were all past their best. Rio, Vidic & Evra who were all in the starting 11 when we won the league in 2012/13 were finished by the time LVG took over and needed replacing. RVP our best player that season was passed his best and Rooney too is well past his best. he inherited a squad with too many players who were not good enough so naturally a lot of players have been bought and sold hence why net spend is taken into account. He's bought one player who it didn't work out for so he made a big decision and got rid for a good fee instead of keeping him to save face.

Finishing 4th for United would be about right based on the logic of not taking into account net spend as Rodgers, Pellegrini and Mourinho have all spent more.

in what world would spending £250 million and only finishing 4th be deemed alright?