Manchester United Rumours Member Posts

 

Poopaul's Profile

Current Avatar:
No Avatar image uploaded
Flat Out Racing:

Not played Flat Out Racing


No Profile Picture uploaded

Team:


Where from:


Favourite player:


Best team moment:


Interests:


Timezone:




Poopaul's Posts and Other Poster's Replies To Poopaul's Posts

 

 

To Poopaul's last 5 rumours posts

 

To Poopaul's last 5 banter posts

 

To Poopaul's last 5 rumour replies

 

To Poopaul's last 5 banter replies

 

Poopaul's rumours posts with other poster's replies to Poopaul's rumours posts

 

10 Jul 2013 14:32:02
a website saying Thiago now linked with Bayern. I personally don't see us signing him. With such a low buyout clause, I believe a deal would have happened already. Although I do believe we have an ace up our sleeve in regards to a signing.

Poopaul

1.) BM have always been interested in Thiago. The issue is playing time and it will be hard for BM to guarantee him playing time. As of the 7th, we were still favourites to sign him and unless there has been developments between now and the 7th, we are still favourites.

That being said things can change very quickly in a short space of time.

Sydney!


2.) He's still on Holiday. Nothing will be sorted until he gets back.

Matt


3.) Matt, the deal can be agreed in his absence. But he will not sign until he is back from his holiday.

Sydney!


4.) A Catalan paper saying Thiago turned down Real Madrid and is "excited" to be joining United


 

 

 

Poopaul's banter posts with other poster's replies to Poopaul's banter posts

 

28 Jun 2014 17:26:19
Anyone else think we will be using Luke Shaw in midfield out wide?

Poopaul

1.) Why would we spend around 30 million on a position we desperately needed to address and then play the player in midfield or out wide?


2.) No way. He'll be playing left back.


3.) 28 Jun 2014 18:28:20
No. Why would we. That's insane.


4.) 28 Jun 2014 18:48:00
Let's hope not, he needs to play left back.


5.) No. He's the best left back in the league. We desperately need a left back. Ergo he'll be played at left back.


6.) Supposedly been told he's first choice LB


7.) 28 Jun 2014 21:38:52
Bale started as a left back. I can't imagine Evra signing an extension to be used as back up when he is at the end of his career. It was only a thought that crossed my shallow empty mind.


8.) 28 Jun 2014 21:51:26
I knew this was a weak string Theory based on the Assumption Bale And Shaw were both from Southampton Both Playing Left Back and Both Potentially very good. I just don't see this happening. Not one bit. Evra Needs replacing and we bought a Left Back. 1+1=?


9.) Well its obvious to anyone who watched football last year that shaw will be first choice. evra although I love the guy for what he's done for the club was a complete liability time after time.


10.) Jrobbm, 7?


 

 

09 Jun 2014 09:36:16
Ed's, is Evra signing an extension likely to hamper our attempts to sign a replacement? If I was Luke Shaw I would have doubts about the amount of game time I would get. Or even Evra must wonder how many games he would get as we are looking at his position.

Poopaul

1.) It is a simple case of MU needing to pay Southampton what they want for the player.


2.) That's why it isn't simple Sydney. United don't pay what other clubs want. Hence, no signings! (except Fellaini)


3.) I'm honestly thinking that a deal for Shaw is already done. Expect it will be announced once LVG is finished as Holland manager.


4.) OT7, and Mata :)


5.) Evra signing a new deal seems like a contingency play incase we don't sign a new LB

I don't buy this "we already signed him" talk. He would have been announced by now if that were the case, IMO.


6.) Samthered - Why would we have announced Shaw already? As it stands we technically don't have a manager and Shaw is on the other side of the world. Announcing the signing before the manager is in place would lead to questions about whose signing Shaw actually was. Announcing him when LVG is in office shows that Shaw is a player LVG chose rather than the club.

I expect Shaw and one or two more signings to be announced at the same time after the World Cup. I'd rather it be announced now to ease the suffering of the fans - but from a commercial point of view - being able to call a press conference and announce say - Mueller, Shaw and Kroos - will be a lot more effective . impressive than a post on the club's webpage about the signing of Shaw.

I think Evra is staying at the club due to the massive amount of experience we've lost on the pitch in the past 2 months. Vidic, Giggs, Evra and Ferdinand have probably made more appearances for the club than the rest of the squad combined. Letting them all go at the same time would have been a huge mistake. I'd rather we'd hung on to Vidic if I'm being honest - but Evra will serve as back up to Shaw and will help his development.


7.) SYD Supposing shaw is priced out of a deal, who else do you see as a possible target?Also, don't you think that if chelsea refused to pay what southampton were asking, we should follow suit?I know we are in dire need of a decent LB but why are we so obsessed with that particular position that we will not settle for anything but the best(that too potentially).


8.) Correct Sydney!. but no others :-(


9.) LvG wanted to keep Evra, he wants both Evra and Shaw next season. Fullbacks play a big role under LvG and Evra nor Shaw can play every game, both will be used regularly.


10.) MU will pay what it takes eventually. There are a few more complexities than just a fee. There will be add-ons, payment structures to agree on and a couple other things, but I think it will be sorted eventually.


11.) I read on bbc that shaw actually wants the move so If that is true that's some good news


12.) Redseven,

I don't think we have yet to reach a deal for shaw, for a couple of reason - namely the fact that they sold Lambert and probably want to appoint a new manager before they let go of any-more players': By letting go of some of their established stars before appointing a new manager - might deter the person who they are going for.

If Shaw wants the deal, and the club are willing to meet Southampton's demands, we will sign the player.

I agree that Evra was given a new contract because of the amount experience we have lost, but I also think the club thought that by giving him a new contract, it would mitigate the need to pay through the nose for Shaw: If we just had Buttner for the LB spot, Southampton would be in a position of strength - knowing how desperate we were.


13.) "If Shaw wants the deal, and the club are willing to meet Southampton's demands, we will sign the player."

Exactly, therefore the manager thing is nonsense then isn't it? MU could sign him tomorrow if we met Southampton's valuation. Same goes for Lallana, if Liverpool pay what Southampton want, they will get the player, manager or no manager.


14.) No Sydney, the manager thing is the reason, IMO, Shaw hasn't been signed. Same goes for Lallana.

when Southampton appoint a new manager, he will be informed of what is going on. The new manager might want a chance to talk to Shaw. He might not want to sell him. If Shaw has his heart set on joining us, he will tell the new manager and Southampton he wants out. Then if we meet the valuation of the player, we will sign him.

It seems completely illogical to me that if a deal could have been done before Pochettino left, it would have done as soon as the season ended. What would be the point of prolonging everything, if we were going to sign him regardless of who out new manager was going to be?


15.) Samthered - I don't understand your argument. If the club didn't want to sell before a manager comes in then why was Lambert allowed to leave? It seems as though our interest in Shaw was made clear well before Liverpool bid for Lambert and so if they only planned on rubber-stamping one deal before the new manager came in surely it would have been ours?

Ultimately if Shaw wants to sign for us and we're willing to pay what it takes to sign him then we will get him. Everybody seems to be in agreement on that one. Surely anybody taking the managers job will also know this and so whether the deal has been done or is imminent will make no difference to them in the slightest.

If anything they'd probably prefer the deal to have already gone through so that they do not have to be perceived to be the person green-lighting the sale of one of their best players. If Llalana and Shaw are sold for £50m+ it would also increase the transfer budget the club are able to offer and perspective new manager.


16.) Apparently the Lambert transfer fee was agreed before Pochettino left. We haven't agreed a fee with Soton for Shaw.


17.) Don't always work like that, Redseven; and I am sure the Lambert deal was done before the previous Southampton manager left. Besides, Lambert was never going to command a 20 + million figure, with the corollary complexities that manifest with a deal that size; plus Lambert was probably surplus to requirements as far as Southampton football club was concerned.

In short - I don't believe we have tied anything up as far as the Shaw deal goes. That is just my opinion. I could be wrong.


18.) Yeah Sam, or it could be that ourselves and Liverpool haven't offered an acceptable amount for Shaw and Lallana yet, therefore no deals being agreed. Whoever the new Southampton manager is will have no say on Lallana and Shaw. Both have expressed their desire to leave and will do when an acceptable offer is made. MU could have agreed to sign Shaw anytime they wished by paying what Southampton wanted.


19.) Samthered - I'm not sure there are many clubs who would deem their second highest scorer 'surplus to requirements' - especially given the fact that two of their best players look likely to leave as well. I'm sure the club would have preferred to keep him but realised he wanted the move.

The Lambert deal went through a week after Pochettino had been announced as Spurs boss. The deal might have been agreed in principle before Pochettino left - but assuming the Shaw deal has also been agreed in principle (which I fully believe it has) I don't see how the next managerial appointment could have any bearing on the deal.

The only way it could is if the new manager signs up on the proviso that Shaw stays; but why would he want to keep a player who wants to be playing elsewhere when he could have £25m+ more to spend? He wouldn't. The deal will be announced when Manchester United decide it is best to announce it. No sooner, no later.


20.) Where is the sense in agreeing a deal to sign a player after the world cup, when we could have signed him last week?

We made a bid for the lad, and they rejected. We obviously haven't increased that offer yet.

If we were that hell bent on signing him, why not pay the asking price? I can't follow this logic of deals being agreed, and being announced at a later date, when we could have signed the player when the transfer window opened on June 1st.

As for Lambert: Southampton were not that bothered about letting him go at such a cut price, which tells me that they at no stage put up a fight to keep him.

This is just my opinion Redseven.


21.) Samthered - the transfer window doesn't open until the 1st of July - so regardless of whether a deal is agreed or not the best we could do right now is announce it. It can't be ratified by the FA until the window opens.

You asked what the sense of waiting to sign him until after the World Cup was? I answered this question a few replies ago - but I'll do so again.

For starters (as just mentioned) we can't sign him until July the 1st. We could announce the deal - but it makes more sense to wait.

Given that he is on the other side of the World preparing for the World Cup the best we could do from a publicity point of view is a block of text and maybe a photograph of him in a United top if we're lucky. I'm not sure that Roy, Luke or the FA would be too happy about the press attention right before our first game, mind.

If we wait we can call a press conference at OT / Carrington and unveil the player with the new manager and maybe even some other new signings. I suspect that last part is the main reason why we're yet to announce the deal. Can you imagine the effect of announcing 3 top players like Shaw, Kroos and Muller at the same time? It would certainly answer any questions as to our ability to attract top players as well as signaling our intent to regain our former status.


 

 

 

Poopaul's rumour replies

 

Click To View This Thread

Would he be a replacement for Vidal Ed?

Poopaul

{Ed002's Note - Or perhaps someone else leaving.}


 

 

Click To View This Thread

Chelsea

Poopaul

 

 

Click To View This Thread

No way Ronaldo will come back without CL football. Let alone RM accepting an offer in the first place.

Poopaul

 

 

Click To View This Thread

He's now removed it. But it is a done deal.

Poopaul

 

 

Click To View This Thread

Doubt that has anything to do with the sale of Bale, as I expect him to be deployed in a more central role this coming season.

Poopaul

 

 

 

Poopaul's banter replies

 

Click To View This Thread

28 Jun 2014 21:38:52
Bale started as a left back. I can't imagine Evra signing an extension to be used as back up when he is at the end of his career. It was only a thought that crossed my shallow empty mind.

Poopaul