Jump to content

Recommended Posts

aquarius moon Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Parkdrive Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> >

> > Not as far as I'm concerned. Who's going to

> give

> > them a run for their money? Certainly not

> Arsenal,

> > United, Liverpool or Chavs.

>

>

> Swansea.

You know what, that would be so refreshing for the Prem, but I can't see it

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> aquarius moon Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Alan Medic Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Did you watch it am?

> >

> >

> > Yes. Did you?

> I did and thought United played well enough to

> have won.

4 shots on target to each team, Monk deployed better tactics, Swansea scored more goals, their players performed far better than United counterparts and hence won the game. Time for LVG to spend the equivalent of a third world country's GDP to try and turn things round.

Parkdrive Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> red devil Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > aquarius moon Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> >

> > > ETA: And I predicted 2-1! :)

> >

> Same here , wish I'd had a few quid on it now.



Me too.

Not quite half a billion though is it? That figure isn't the net spend either, which takes into account money received from sales. Yes Liverpool have spent a lot the past couple of summers, but they have also received a lot for Suarez and Stirling. I previously posted a link to this summer's current net spend table. So far Utd's net spend this summer is ?14.5m, although that's debatable as German papers reported that we bought Basti for ?6m, not the British press oft quoted ?14m. Add in the latest fee received for Evans and it's an actual profit. Of course that could all change in the next 36 hours...


NET SPENDS THIS SUMMER


1 Manchester City: ?66.5m


2 Newcastle: ?46m


3 Chelsea: ?29m


4 Crystal Palace: ?25.5m


5 Watford: ?24.5m


6 Leicester City: ?20m


7 Liverpool: ?19m


8 Bournemouth: ?18.5m


9 West Ham: ?16m


10 Manchester United: ?14.5m


11 Stoke: ?14m


12 Norwich: ?10m


13 Swansea: ?8.5m


14 Arsenal: ?8m


15 Sunderland: ?6.5m


16 Everton: ?5.5m


17 Aston Villa: ?4.5m


18 West Bromwich: ?3m


19 Southampton: -?12.5m


20 Tottenham: -?13m

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> United buy a 19 year old with potential for more

> than ?30M. Not sure that's what they need right

> now. Time will tell.


It's desperation, and when you're as desperate as LVG obviously is you pay way over the odds.

Didier Deschamps on Martial


"He's got a good combination of pace and power. He's a young player obviously, but he's got an interesting profile in an area where it's not easy to find players with both strength and speed.


"He's got good potential and I want to see how he does with the squad."



Lot of money for some potential, but hey, he might be a superstar...

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Whilst flogging a decent player in Javier

> Hernandez. I don't get it.


Me neither. So far we've let RVP, Falcao and now Hernandez go, all No. 9s, with no direct replacement(s). Rooney is no No.9, he even wears No.10.


In wide positions we've offloaded Nani, and bought in Depay, happy with that. But now Martial comes in and Januzaj is going out on loan to Dortmund, i.e. we loan out one promising young wide player and buy another for ?36m. Genius.

Oh, and we could've had Pedro for ?15m less.


And despite all this, we still need a fooking No.9!...

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm really not surprised that Spurs are at the

> bottom of that table what with the new stadium to

> finance. I think that trend will continue for some

> years yet. More lean times for us I reckon.



Let's hope that's not the only table they are at the bottom off :)

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> United buy a 19 year old with potential for more

> than ?30M. Not sure that's what they need right

> now. Time will tell.


James Wilson, same age, came through the youth academy, so obviously LVG doesn't think he has potential? Even more mystifying Martial was offered to Spurs 7 weeks ago for 20 million euros, United now paying 36 mill, bargain, and not at all desperate or over the odds. And to think fans thought Moyes was clueless.

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It gets even weirder, De Gea sold to Madrid for

> ?29m.

>

> So a top top keeper for ?7m less than a promising

> 19 year.

>

> Strange goings on.


We were never going to get De Gea's full market value because he was into the final year of his contract. I actually think we did well to get that much, with Navas coming the other way, surely an upgrade on Romero. An interesting Tweet from Sky's man in the know in Spain, Guilem Balague, was that LVG put a stop to Utd offering De Gea improved terms back in the Spring because he wanted Navas instead. Brave decision if true.


PD's latest gem has come from a Stan Collymore Tweet...nuff said.

It was reported back in June that Spurs had a ?19m offer turned down for Martial. I reckon Monaco had no intention of selling him whilst there was a chance they could qualify for the Champions League. That ended last week when they lost to Valencia. As well as Spurs, Chelsea had been sniffing around him too, so there might have been a bit of a bidding war that upped his price. With all the money that's going to be sloshing around in the PL next season, foreign clubs will keep on demanding these silly prices...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I'm fairly sure everyone engaged with this topic will have received this email yesterday, but just in case... "To whom it may concern, We are reaching out to invite you to our upcoming Residents & Stakeholder Drop In Sessions for Gala 2026. We are hosting two drop-in style sessions (one virtual, and one in person) to facilitate more in depth conversations, allowing us to run through our plans for 2026 and to discuss how we are going to address your feedback. We look forward to meeting you in person or online and discussing our event plans for both Gala and On The Rye Festival in more detail. Evening Session (IN PERSON): Time: 6:30 PM - 8:00 PM Date: Wednesday 11th February Location: Watson's General Telegraph Lunchtime Session (VIRTUAL MEETING): Time: 12:00 PM - 2:00 PM Date: Friday 13th February We are offering 15 minute slots to speak directly with us in a virtual meeting. Please confirm your availability within this drop in period and we will confirm a time with you. You will then be sent a link directly to join the virtual session. If you would like to attend, please respond with: Your name: Your address: If you will be attending the virtual or in person meeting: Your availability for a meeting time online (if applicable): If you have any access needs so we can accommodate: We really appreciate your feedback and taking the time to attend our engagement meetings. Yours sincerely, Community Team | GALA Festival"
    • Many thanks to the woman who looked after our old deaf Miniature Schnauzer who got separated from us in the park this morning. And thank you to the man who alerted us . My husband is very relieved and grateful. If any one knows who these people are please say thank you as he didn't get their names. 
    • why do we think we have the right for the elected local council to be transparent?
    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...