Why doesn't United spend 1 and 1/2 Pogba's on him when they desperately need someone under the age of 35 that can score?

Why doesn't United spend 1 and 1/2 Pogba's on him when they desperately need someone under the age of 35 that can score?

Other urls found in this thread:

goal.com/en-za/news/4682/transfer-zone/2016/11/24/29853952/mourinho-i-tried-to-sign-valencia-for-real-madrid
manutd.com/en/News-And-Features/Club-News/2013/Feb/ed-woodward-assumes-responsibilities-at-manchester-united.aspx?pageNo=1
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Because Spurs won't sell

>Dealing with Tottenham's Daniel Levy was more painful than my hip replacement, says Sir Alex Ferguson

With Jews, you lose.

Jihadito is coming home, lad

They have a guy who's horrible at transfers in charge of transfers

Serious question - why not ask SAF to be in charge of transfers/personnel? That's been the worst part of the team since he left.

He's retired, they should go for someone like Leonardo or Lele Oriali

Because he is a shit Europa League level player that hasn't proven anything internationally. If Man United want to become good again they have to aim higher than this fraud

because he's not some transfer genius himself and would probably get into conflicts with everyone over signings, burn bridges with agents etc.

>someone who has played 3 CL games is unproven but a player who proved himself 10 years ago and is now old is a better choice
Either that or you think you're signing Greaseman. But he probably doesn't want to play in the Europa league either.

Mourinho is quite good at transfers.

Because le big meme swede

Wrong. But how's that relevant anyways?
Ed Woodward is the one in charge

Why does everyone always assume Spurs will be so willing to sell their young studs like Kane and Alli? They don't need the money, they are basically just as rich as any other club, so unless someone throws a fit and demands a transfer, there is no reason for them to sell.

>Wrong. But how's that relevant anyways?

How so? That's one of his strongest points. His only weakness is in buying fullbacks.

>Ed Woodward is the one in charge

On United, I think Mourinho is the one in charge.

>That's one of his strongest points.
No, he is a fucking manager, he never had that role

>On United, I think Mourinho is the one in charge.
You think wrong

Because they're a small club comparatively. When a big team comes knocking it can unsettle players that want to move up.

>No, he is a fucking manager, he never had that role

Depends on the team.

On Porto, 1st two years in his first Chelsea (he actually was sacked on Chelsea because Abramovic decided to be in charge of this), on Inter and on Real he did (that's why Valdano was sacked on Real).

Arsene Wenger is also in charge of this, for example.

>but a player who proved himself 10 years ago and is now old is a better choice
Who are you even talking about? Zlatan constantly performed at the highest level since Ajax.

Just ignore him. His entire post was a clusterfuck of stupidity

He never had that role at Inter, ever heard of Oriali and Braida?
I'm also pretty sure Florentino would never give the power to use his money to someone who's gonna get sacked in two season, actually no owner would willingly give that power to someone who does not care about the club's revenue, there are designated people for this, for example Juventus has got Marotta and Nedved

> so unless someone throws a fit and demands a transfer
Which will always happen when a big club comes knocking unless the player really likes the club or is afraid of competition for his place.

See Liverpoodle and Everton with all their bitching about Stones/Sterling or Arsenal back in the day with Cole ... and soon with Sanchez.
Spurs may got the money and a great team too but unless they will actually perform and win something, they will always remain a seller club.

The only step up right now within England for Tottenham players is Chelsea.

Spurs have always been a selling club. Levy has a price for everyone, just a matter of how much ££££

He had this power in those teams. Not all teams work in the same way.

And Florentino was very close to Mourinho. That's why they changed Madrid's structure. He is also not Real Madrid's owner.

Well I'm 100% sure he didnt have it at Inter and 90% sure he didnt have it at Real and 80% he doesnt have it at United

Current quality does not makes your team a bigger club.

When Cristiano Ronaldo went to Real, they were about as strong as Arsenal is nowadays. Yet, he still went there.

On Real, he had total freedom. They even fired the sports director.

goal.com/en-za/news/4682/transfer-zone/2016/11/24/29853952/mourinho-i-tried-to-sign-valencia-for-real-madrid

On Inter, he was pretty close to the owners. He would ask for players and they would negotiate.

United doesn't work with a sports director.

On Inter all the transfers have been dealt by Oriali and Braida from the late 90s to 2012 or so
And yes, United works with a guy in charge of transfers, who's been Ed Woodward since 2013

Price negotiation =/= choosing who to buy

Which club does need the money? Were Everton going to go under if they didn't sell John Stones?

Never said their only role was to negotiate, Oriali is GOAT at choosing players that's why Conte had him as his advisor in the NT

Woodward doesn't choose the players.

How do you know?

And might I say, he is right when he does this. He hires expensive managers for this.

Because Mourinho says so. He goes after a certain profile of player (e.g. a ball-winning midfielder) and gives a primary and secondary target. Why would Woodward choose the players? A director of football (which Man Utd don't have) might but not the CEO.

Even in the first season Roman jumped in and forced Mouyes to play Sheva, hence the first rift.

He's got that role since 2013
manutd.com/en/News-And-Features/Club-News/2013/Feb/ed-woodward-assumes-responsibilities-at-manchester-united.aspx?pageNo=1

This is common knowledge. Arsenal works in the same way.

In some clubs, the manager is in charge of transfer. In others, he is not.

And sometimes, the teams themselves change over time.

Take Mourinho's first Chelsea. In the first two seasons, Mourinho had total transfer power. In the last one, he had none. Actually, he even lost his power as a coach and at times, Abramovic would go down to the dressing room to explain Essien how he should be playing.

On Real, Mourinho was famous for being the first coach in a while to be in charge of transfers. I don't think any other Real manager since then had this power.

>Even in the first season Roman jumped in and forced Mouyes to play Sheva, hence the first rift.

That was in the 3rd season.

In the first two, Mourinho had full power.

Must be why Arsenal and ManU suck then

>Because they're a small club comparatively. When a big team comes knocking it can unsettle players that want to move up.

This isn't true so long as Tottenham is in the CL and Man U is not

In the last summer transfer window, United did a pretty good job.

Arsenal is a much stronger team with Wenger than they were before.

David Gill was an executive, not a director of football.

>In the last summer transfer window, United did a pretty good job.
The worst deal of all time is a good job?
Spending 400M to finish in the same position as the year before is a good job?
Dont be silly

I agree. If Man Utd and Spurs are both top 4 the next two seasons without winning the league, I think there might be a temptation for one of Spurs' big players to move.

United is a much bigger club than Tottenham.
Real Madrid had a mediocre squad when they got Cristiano Ronaldo, Xabi Alonso and Kaka.

>The worst deal of all time is a good job?
Which one?

Fernando Torres to Chelsea, Kaka to Madrid, Shevchenko to Chelsea were the worst transfers ever.

>Spending 400M to finish in the same position as the year before is a good job?

According to transfer market, they spent 157,25 millions. And their team improved a lot.
Pogba, Baily, Mkhitaryan and Ibra all improved the team.

Torres wasn't that bad a signing, he redeemed himself with that goal against Barca
Id say Di Maria to United was a million times worse

CL is obviously a big plus but United is also a huge club with aspirations and got players wanting to play for them due their rich past. Do you think Pogba would even think about going to Spurs if they matched the financial side?

Given how they made much more money this year, it's not like spending itself matters. What counts is the balance, as long they keep making crazy money, they can spend crazy money like it's nothing.

Spending over 100M for a player you sold for 600k, a flop on top of that is by faaaaaaaaaaaaar the worst deal ever bar none

>the squad has improved
Lmao no they have the same placement and roughly the same points as they did with moyes and van Gaal, improved my ass

>Spending over 100M for a player you sold for 600k, a flop on top of that is by faaaaaaaaaaaaar the worst deal ever bar none

Pogba is a good player and United plays much better when he plays.

Compare that to Shevchenko to Chelsea or Kaka to Madrid.

>Lmao no they have the same placement and roughly the same points as they did with moyes and van Gaal, improved my ass

Maybe you should watch their games.

He might be a good player but it's not a good transfer, idiot. They could have gotten Kante+Vidal+Nainggolan for that money. Now that would have been a good window, instead it was all a big joke, their club is becoming a big circus that cares more about medias than results, a bad version of Galacticos

>maybe you should watch their matches
Who cares if their playstyle is better or not, only results matter

"That brings us to a capital gain in the budget of €95m. Mino Raiola and his company will be paid €27m. Taking fees into account, the total gain for Pogba was €72m."

And Marotta says Pogba cost Juve 1.5m

>He might be a good player but it's not a good transfer, idiot. They could have gotten Kante+Vidal+Nainggolan for that money. Now that would have been a good window, instead it was all a big joke, their club is becoming a big circus that cares more about medias than results, a bad version of Galacticos

A certain someone called Pogba
>flop
>The worst deal of all time

Pogba was not a bad transfer.

>Who cares if their playstyle is better or not, only results matter

If you want to see if a team is improving, you have to watch the games.

Move up to 7th from 2nd??

But he is a flop and it is the worst deal of all time
You must be one big idiot if you think United had a good transfer window or if you think Pogba was a good deal
They spent 100M on a player they didnt need, what a master move

>Vidal+Nainggolan
Are both past it and much older. Perhaps Vidal would be better RIGHT NOW but he'll probably regress massively after a year or two. Nainggolan is a meme either way.

> Kante
Not the same type of player. He wouldn't massively improve the current United side because their defense doesn't do shit most of the time either way.

You look at Pogbas crazy price tag ignoring how long the contract is and how much money he brings off the field. It's silly to judge a long term plan by how it turned out after 8 months. Also you're forgetting how 94mil is nothing for United. They could break the transfer record in winter and summer for multiple years without being really affected by it. They are literally the richest club on the planet.

>But he is a flop and it is the worst deal of all time

Could you mention how someone who you agree is a good player is a worse transfer than Kaka to Real? Or Shevchenko to Chelsea?

>You must be one big idiot if you think United had a good transfer window or if you think Pogba was a good deal
>They spent 100M on a player they didnt need, what a master move

Pogba does improve them. So does Mkhitaryan, Ibrahimovic and Baily.

Also just for comparison, average rating this season:
Pogba: 7.66
Vidal: 7.43
Nainggolan: 7.29
Kante: 7.19

Vidal-Kante-Naingolan would be by far the best midfield in the league

>they are rich so they should be justified for their bad managing
Look at how that turned out for Liverpool

>Nainggolan is a meme
Please be serious, he's 100 times the player Pogba will ever be

>Could you mention how someone who you agree is a good player is a worse transfer than Kaka to Real? Or Shevchenko to Chelsea?
Yes, Pogba to United
A luxury CM who can only play good while next to Pirlo and Vidal wasnt needed to improve the team, whereas a striker and a CB were

>Yes, Pogba to United
You didn't explain how Pogba is a worse transfer than Kaka to Real. Please, explain.

>A luxury CM who can only play good while next to Pirlo and Vidal wasnt needed to improve the team, whereas a striker and a CB were

Pogba does improve the team. United is a much better team when he is on.
I would like to mention that United did buy a striker and a CB.

>(((Levy)))

>You didn't explain how Pogba is a worse transfer than Kaka to Real. Please, explain.
By being more expensive and just as useful

>he improves the team
KEK in which way? Missed shots? Surely not with defensive or offensive contributions

TELL ME ABOUT KANE

WHY DOES HE WEAR THE MASK

>By being more expensive and just as useful

He plays much better than Kaka did at Milan.

>KEK in which way? Missed shots? Surely not with defensive or offensive contributions

He controls the midfield, has a good pass, is a good dribbler, etc.

Where you gone br bro? I wanted to hear how spending 300M to finish in the same place is considered a good thing

Oh you here
>He plays much better than Kaka did at Milan.
Mmm? Do you mean Real?

>He controls the midfield, has a good pass, is a good dribbler, etc.
So nothing? Glad we agree

Van Goof's fault for selling the one good striker they had.