Manchester United Rumours


Use our rumours form to send us manchester united transfer rumours.

Paypal single or recurring donation

(single word yields best result)
Single or recurring donation
If you have a question for Ed1, press the big button, but it is answered in a podcast in about 8 weeks time.
We've now created a mental health web site

02 Jun 2020 22:20:35
Most of the posts go to the Man United Banter page

Also more posts are being added to the Man United Discussion Posts page

02 Jun 2020 22:11:58
Ed002 you mentioned the other day that a move for jude bellingham looks unlikely right now does that mean he's headed to dortmund than? thanks.

Believable0 0Unbelievable

{Ed002's Note - Dortmund offer a better option to him. Right now it seems more likely.}

02 Jun 2020 11:51:45
Hello Ed’s! Just a quick question if you have the time. Do united still hold an interest in Werner? Have a good day and thanks in advance!

Believable1 0Unbelievable

{Ed002's Note - Timo Werner (S) RBL know of the interest of Chelsea who consider TW as a suitable replacement for Giroud - but they have other options. Manchester United, Bayern Munich and Atletico Madrid remain keen - but this could change quickly depending on other targets clubs have - equally if other clubs were not able to sign their targets, interest in TW might increase. Atletico signing Cavani would likely kill off their interest and they have financial issues. There is clearly interest from Klopp, but would Timo Werner be interested in a move to sit on the bench at Liverpool most of the time? If the answer is yes, or if Firmino is leaving then it makes sense and that may well be how it turns out. Many of the fans expect Klopp to numerous players without anyone leaving and then completely change tactics and rotate them - it makes zero sense and the club has to meet Home Grown quotas as well. Last summer there was an approach from PSG who wanted Werner as a Cavani replacement - in the end Cavani stayed and they took Icardi on loan. PSG were concerned about being shunned by Icardi and have looked again at TW but have not declared any interest - now they have signed Icardi but might move him on quickly - but I would discount them. Mr Mourinho is keen for Spurs to take him but there are concerns about the cost. The interest of Dortmund has gone with the signing of Haarland - but could return in the summer if Real Madrid could prise Haaland away. Bayern Munich were never going to do business in January and played down all transfer talk but there is no doubt that Robert Lewandowski, who will be 32 at the start of next season, is going to need replacing in the next 18 months - and the plan had always been that it would be Timo Werner - they could yet look to do something or perhaps suggest he waits another year at RBL who have offered a new contract. The player has always said he wants to play for Manchester United one day but a move last summer was not possible and then Werner said he wanted to play for Bayern Munich over all others. There was a third party trying to negotiate for a BM move last summer but they were a long way apart on price and RBL looked to extend. As BM were expected to need Werner this coming summer, a release clause was agreed with his new contract that would make him available at a low fee so RBL would keep him another year and then he could move to Bayern Munich this summer. Now after a potential illegal approach he clearly wants to join Liverpool regardless of game time - the riot act has been read to him over public statements and his club is very unhappy at Liverpool, but accept that he is going to go this summer.

There was a meeting between RBL and Inter Milan in London in mid February when Inter were in town to discuss transfers with Chelsea. Inter enquired after the availability of TW but were told by RBL that they were resigned to losing Werner as the player had his head turned by Liverpool – although Liverpool had yet to approach RBL at all.

RBL may look to keeping the player for a further year if Bayern Munich are not prepared to utilise the release clause just yet. Or perhaps Liverpool will do the honest thing and approach RBL with a very good offer to tempt them to sell - or maybe they will make a €35M offer and see what happens? Unlikely for Chelsea.}

02 Jun 2020 20:24:03
I must admit that all I know about Werner is he can stick the ball on the net in Germany, is quite young and loads of teams want him. Having watched Greenwood, would we not be better sticking with Ighalo and Martial until he is ready to lead the line every week.

Agree0 0Disagree

31 May 2020 17:31:11
Saul Niquez on his twitter posting he will announce new club in three days.

Believable0 0Unbelievable

31 May 2020 19:37:18
If this is true and not a windup, then reckon he’ll either stay at Athletico, or go to Juventus or PSG (though maybe too similar to Verrati perhaps? ) : United do t seem to have Pogba sorted yet and not sure if he’ll take the risk of City getting a Euro ban.

If he goes to Juventus, could mean Pofba’s most likely escape route blocked and he has to stay with United.

Agree0 0Disagree

31 May 2020 22:09:06
Not sure many clubs, if any are going to spending big cash in the current climate.

Agree0 0Disagree

31 May 2020 23:06:04
Well he’s recently followed Bruno, Pogba and man it’s foundation on Instagram. Utd move confirmed :’)

Agree0 0Disagree

01 Jun 2020 04:47:10
I m sure that " club" will not be football related. just a tease. some horse riding, golf, charity club will it be. don't expect such high profile move to be confirmed like this during this time.

Agree0 0Disagree

01 Jun 2020 15:50:17
Saul's Nightclub!

Agree0 0Disagree

02 Jun 2020 20:32:22
I’ve seen a few things say it’s to do with an esports club.
We will know soon enougj!

Agree0 0Disagree

31 May 2020 15:03:20
Saul Niguez has apparently said he will announce his new club in 3 days. Will be interesting to see where that is.

Believable0 0Unbelievable

31 May 2020 15:15:26
He looks City bound, i think he'll fit in any Pep side.

Agree0 0Disagree

31 May 2020 15:56:54
Im not sure how reliable that teller is redman. hope your well.
If he is announcing it in 3 days then its been kept very quiet wherever he is going.
My guess would be city although i really hope its us. He is one of the top midfielders in Europe imo. If pogba where to go saul can replace most of his qualities and add more.
Saul and sancho and ighalo in this window would be the stuff of dreams.
Maybe get a player in return for pogba that could add depth.
Grealish is another target according to ed002 and the club are keen on him and Bellingham so saul is probably less likely.

Agree1 0Disagree

31 May 2020 16:43:56
Hi Ken

I am well thanks, but not everyone in my family is, but we shall see on that. Sat drinking vino in the garden.

Someone said this was similar to what Griezmann did. It seems strange announcing it that way.

It would be interesting to see Ed02’s view on Saul and where he is going or if he is at all?

Agree1 0Disagree

31 May 2020 17:34:47
It's his new e-Sports team.

Agree3 0Disagree

31 May 2020 17:41:21
Fabrizio Romano has said this has nothing to do with a transfer.

Which seems to make sense. Saul has always appeared pretty commited to Atletico, at least publicly. I can't imagine he would announce himself leaving before the season is finished.

I'm expecting some sort of sponsorship or the other to be announced.

Agree6 0Disagree

31 May 2020 17:47:50
Saul is a top class player and would fit in well in pretty much any side. If it was United he is due to sign for, that would surely signal the club are confident that Pogba will leave this summer? Even though the club appear to be dicking about in letting him leave.

Agree0 0Disagree

31 May 2020 21:04:47
When do we ever announce a signing this early?

It will be a sponsor.

Agree1 0Disagree

31 May 2020 22:48:25
Following United on twitter Orr instagram now apparently 👀👀 that 100% means were nailed on to sign him 😂😂😂.

Agree0 0Disagree

01 Jun 2020 09:35:03
People will grab hold of anything, fair play to him for playing everybody like this and getting attention on himself, madness what people believe.

Agree0 0Disagree

01 Jun 2020 10:02:17
I am sure the Atletico fans are really pleased with the circus he's created around him. Straight away i have been put off him. Sounds like he's feeling sorry for himself and is suffering from lack of attention due to lockdown bless him.

Agree0 0Disagree

01 Jun 2020 15:38:11
Nothing official from athletico madrid or from any other club. so is take it with a massive pinch of salt.
Im sure any club sending that sort of money will want to maximise the coverage and to their unveiling.
Sounds like a load of BS to me.
Him and sancho are the dream signings this summer. Along with ighalo they would breath new life into this team. With maybe another player coming in to boost the squad in any deal for pogba. The likes of raibot would increase competition.

Agree0 0Disagree

31 May 2020 14:36:05
Looks like Igahlo's deal is being extended.

Believable0 0Unbelievable

31 May 2020 17:02:49
Good news, has been impressive and gives us a different option.

Agree0 0Disagree

31 May 2020 19:00:11
Very happy if he stays. Has shown enough to be given a longer stint and also maybe allows us to invest elsewhere in the team. Another overlooked point is that he seems good in the dressing room and has a real hunger to do well for us. Good news if true.

Agree1 0Disagree

28 May 2020 15:51:56
Premier league returns 17th June (BBC)

Believable1 0Unbelievable

28 May 2020 17:38:33
Must have been quite a productive meeting.

Agree0 0Disagree

28 May 2020 18:10:43
Have to be honest, I don't really care, ill watch the games united are involved in but with no fans its not something ill be rushing to watch anyone else for.

Agree2 0Disagree

28 May 2020 18:21:39
Can't help but think that this is going to be a mistake.

Agree4 0Disagree

28 May 2020 18:34:25
It must have been. I assume the teams who were against a resumption have had their issues and fears allayed and are now happy to continue. It will be strange for many reasons. Ed002 Are the games being played at neutral venues? Or has that not been sorted yet?

Agree0 0Disagree

{Ed002's Note - The deal on the table is that not all games will be played at home and it will be a mix of home venues and neutral venues to address police and reduce concerns raised by three cities. You can assume that derbies, crucial matches and home matches for clubs whose fans cannot be trusted will likely be played at neutral venues.}

28 May 2020 19:15:08
Thanks ed002. Obviously a restart will depend on us continuing to improve the r rate etc. If things slip then we will be back to square 1 again. Let's hope not for everyone's sake. Positive note on a return, all Premier league games on normal TV (la liga planning the same via app and sky) .

Agree0 0Disagree

{Ed002's Note - It depends on several factors - and there remains a broadcast issue.}

28 May 2020 19:28:18
Thanks ed002. I can imagine sky not being too pleased with free to air games 😂.

Agree0 0Disagree

29 May 2020 12:35:27
If it's a mix of home venues and neutral venues it all becomes a bit of a farce really doesn't it.

Agree0 0Disagree

29 May 2020 13:05:35
Exactly, some have home advantage, others don't, the integrity of the competition to complete the season is made a mockery of really, its not the same competition we are going back to, a season to forget from existence tbh.

Agree1 0Disagree

29 May 2020 14:29:38
I'm not sure the issue of "neutral" venues is that big a deal. With no fans every stadium will be empty. So you lose any advantage from having the majority of the crowd cheering you on, booing your opponent and putting pressure on the officials.

The only advantage left from playing at "home" is a lack of travel before the game. However, that probably only comes into play when you've had to travel from one end of the country to the other and to be honest is a marginal disadvantage to the "away" team at best.

Without fans all stadiums will effectively be neutral grounds.

Agree7 0Disagree

29 May 2020 21:12:27
Well, you also become accustomed to your own pitch and have an advantage over away teams in that respect. So it's quite a big disadvantage really.

Agree2 0Disagree

29 May 2020 22:02:05
I really don't think it is. The pitches have certain specifications which they have to meet, and boundaries which they have to fall between in terms of length and width. While EPL pitches have hundreds of thousands spent on them each season to maintain them.

Maybe you might feel a little more comfortable in your own dressing room, but these are international players who have all either played for multiple club's, represented their countries in stadia around the world or participated in European competitions with their club's.

All of them have been played in over a hundred different stadiums from youth football right through to their senior careers.

Having 90% or 10% of the fans in the stadium cheering you or booing you is by far the biggest difference between playing at home or away.

That is something that has been removed since fans can no longer be in the stadiums.

We have seen the change in atmosphere in the German games, while a few players plying their trade in the Bundesliga have said that games don't feel like normal home or away games.

Playing Liverpool at Anfield means being met with 50 thousand fans singing "you'll never walk alone" before kick off, those fans drawing the ball into the net at the kop end. Take those fans away and going to Anfield is no longer such a daunting task. Less nerves for the players.

Now some players need those nerves to play, while for others those nerves inhibit them being able to play their best.

We are in uncharted territory, will it be more off putting to play in a larger empty stadium than a smaller one? Will players at club's who normally play in front of massive crowds find playing in empty stadiums more off putting than those who normally play in front of much smaller crowds? Will a lack of fan pressure on match officials lead to less mistakes? Or at least fewer favourable decisions going the home teams way?

There are many aspects linked to the lack of fans that could alter the out comes of games, who owns the pitch is less important in my opinion.

Agree6 0Disagree

{Ed001's Note - sorry but you are wrong. The main difference is the landmarks in the stadium. Players judge passes by them. The West Ham players came out publicly talking about how difficult they found it adjusting to their new stadium because of the lack of them with the stands being so far back from the pitch. Once they adjusted it gave them an edge over opponents who couldn't judge passes so easily.}

30 May 2020 08:10:04
Was it though, or was that an excuse for why they suffered poor form when they first played in their new stadium.

Did Arsenal, Man City or Spurs have the same issue when they moved into new stadiums over the past 10 years? No, just West Ham.

The difference in the main is having a disproportionate number of fans in the stadium. It's way there is a correlation between larger stadiums and the home team getting more "favourable" decisions.

Also when looking at major finals held at the home stadium of one of the finalists the results are almost split down the middle as to whether the "home" side won or lost. The difference is that in that one off game the tickets were split evenly. Further supporting the idea that it is having more fans in the stadium that provides a real advantage.

Agree6 0Disagree

30 May 2020 11:32:11
A lot of football is played in your head a change in routine does have an effect . There will still be home advantage even with out fans.
Which is why it obviously been an issue for several teams.

Agree1 0Disagree

{Ed001's Note - it is pointless, Shappy has decided he is right and will not listen to those who actually have to play the game. He will point out all the stats that favour his point and ignore all the evidence that proves he is wrong. Talking about major finals, as if a one-off game is relevant and is a sample size that proves a thing. Shappy until you understand statistical analysis, just drop it, because everytime you post you just prove you don't understand how to analysis the numbers. You take tiny sample sizes as relevant and ignore the larger ones, which are slightly more relevant, as they disprove your point. If you think the results in major finals are in anyway relevant to this conversation about league matches, then you just prove a lack of understanding about the game of football as well as analysing stats.}

30 May 2020 13:11:16
Actually, I read peer reviewed articles around football and have read several which demonstrate that the “home” crowd are the decisive factor in having a “home” advantage.
Nevill and Holder’s 1999 paper “Home advantage in sport” in Sports Medicine highlights exactly this point. While a recent paper by Inan released this year analysing “The Effect of Crowd support on Home-field Advantage: Evidence from European Football” published in Annals of Applied Sport Science, further supports my argument.

While an interesting read is Waquil, Horta and de Moraes 2020 paper “Home advantage and away goals rule: An analysis from Brazil Cup”. Published in Journal of Sports Analytics.

My argument isn’t based on hearsay from footballers, but on studies performed by academics.

Agree4 0Disagree

{Ed001's Note - so academics that have never even played the sport and don't understand it. Ok you stick with that then. Still missing the point that not one of those papers has enough numbers to be relevant in statistical analysis. There is not enough games played a season in football to be able to rule out anomalies or the differences caused by team choices, tactics etc. Your studies you use are flawed and if you understood them you would see that too. You are typical of a blinkered student who thinks they are an expert because they have read a bit but not learnt enough to question what they have read. Instead you just regurgitate it wholesale with no real understanding of what it is you have read.}

30 May 2020 13:41:51
Clearly you haven't read those articles which have been published by highly regarded peer-reviewed journals. Getting work published in these journals isn't easy and if the science doesn't stand up then it doesn't get published. So the work they have done is statistically sound, otherwise it wouldn't be published.

Obviously you can always do a wider review, collect more data and improve the quality and accuracy of the outcomes.

I don't think I'm an expert, but from what I have read which is peer-reviewed in highly rated journals and is scientifically sound, it is clear that the major and key factor in home advantage is based on the crowd.

Playing the game doesn't mean you are able to understand statistics or the key factors that can determine a result. Football employs huge numbers of people working in sport analytics, most of which have never played football at even a semi-professional level. So are the clubs wrong in hiring these people? Of course not they in many cases are top people in their field.

Agree3 0Disagree

{Ed001's Note - lots of studies in peer-reviewed journals are wrong and use false information which is later disproved. Perhaps if you knew as much as you think you do, you would understand that. Also, as usual, you fail to understand the points. Football is not appointing sports analytics and taking their data at face value, they are using it as a start point because they know that the data is inherently flawed due to the lack of numbers involved. Teams are only playing 19 league games at home in a league season, that is not enough to plot results-based data from and draw conclusions. Especially when you consider all the other variables involved, such as team selection, tactics etc.

Just ask yourself, if the home crowd is the key to all of this, why do Dortmund not dominate the Bundesliga over Bayern every season? Their home crowd is not just larger, but significantly more vocal. Why don't Turkish teams, who have the most vocal and intimidating crowds, dominate in Europe?

Oh and I never said anything about playing the game making you understand statistics. But it certainly helps you to understand what makes you as a player perform better and what factors affect your performance negatively. The point is that statistical analysis of results and goal data is not usable or relevant as there are too many other factors and not enough games played a season to draw clear and meaningful conclusions. You have no control sample to compare it with for it to be of any use scientifically.}

30 May 2020 14:39:37
Think crowd helps, but familiarity with the pitch helps more tbh. I look at my local leagues and the top sides mostly dominate at home and away not struggle but not as smooth as home, and yeh no fans there.

Agree2 0Disagree

30 May 2020 15:27:34
I always like playing at home I felt better and more confident probably more comfortable, not all the time but most the time .
It was the same at some away grounds always played well there, because I belived i was going to .
Massive amount of sport is in the head, there is 100% home advantage even with out fans. No-one will convince me other wise to be honest.

Agree0 0Disagree

30 May 2020 17:19:52
Most people know what to think but very few know how to think in these times.

Agree1 0Disagree

30 May 2020 21:25:59
Imo there are many advantages to playing at home.
The crowd is a major factor but by no means the only one.
As jred says there is s mental aspect. A familiarity and a routine. Lots of reasons.
The crowd does have an impact no doubt about that. But even in an empty stadium there are other advantages to the home side. Only Some of the advantage is nullified by no crowd.

Agree0 0Disagree

31 May 2020 01:17:20
Interesting thread!

There is actually a plethora of published scientific research into the question of home advantage in sport.

From what I've read the crowd does appear to be the single most dominant factor when assessing home advantage through a variety of mechanisms. Other factors such as familiarity with the stadium, pitch or traveling time appear to have less of an influence.

Who am I to argue with the academics. Peer reviewed articles/ journals are considered to be the most reliable and respected sources of information.

Initial results in Germany although admittedly a very small sample size do seem to support this view.

Read the research and make your own mind up.

Agree3 0Disagree

31 May 2020 10:21:26
Ask a player.

Agree0 0Disagree

{Ed001's Note - I would just ask why home advantage doesn't increase the higher up the leagues you go? I mean crowds get bigger and so should provide a higher boost but you get almost exactly the same advantage at every level of the game, including non-league and park football. If the crowd is the single most dominating factor, then why have Newcastle won so little?}

31 May 2020 11:48:19
Ed001 - With all due respect if you want to disregard peer reviewed research then that's your prerogative. This is not my opinion but published peer reviewed literature.

Shappy has in my opinion eloquently made his argument and referenced his material, which I have read

If there are studies which contradict his point then please reference them and I will read them too.

Ed I don't know where you've found that the size of the crowd isn't important but here's some more published research for your consideration.

Agnew and Carron (1994) found that the only significant predictor of game outcome was crowd density. It was indicated that as crowd density increases, home advantage increases.   Nevill, Newell and Gale (1996) observed significant home advantage with larger crowds in football.

These are not my opinions but published findings in peer reviewed journals and articles.

Agree3 0Disagree

{Ed001's Note - I did not say disregard it, I said question it. The same peer review journals were telling us that, for example, margarine was healthier than butter because of a large number of these kinds of papers. It was false because the people writing them made their conclusions based on their own bias - they went into the tests looking to prove margarine was healthier and so set the tests up to prove so. All of these reviews are taking raw data and not a holistic view. They are not using context. They are like Shappy with his debates, which are him looking purely at what agrees with him and discarding what doesn't. That is not how studies should work. They should look at ALL the date and try and fit their understanding around it all, rather than fit the data to their beliefs.

They are negating to look into the fact that as teams do well, crowd density increases. Density is a product of good performances as well and that has not been factored in at all. There has also been no account of player form or availability. They have ignored tactical considerations and team investment etc. Instead they have focused purely on the numbers and it is lacking context.

There are so many variables that they simply cannot factor in with pure numerical values.}

31 May 2020 17:32:17
Can I chime in please, as an academic who has published papers.

Not all peer reviewed papers have statistical significance, sometimes papers are accepted if it is a special edition, or shows something new, regardless of number of participants unfortunately. I regularly see papers that have small. sample sizes, less than 20, or small group sizes, only 10.

The way forward with peer reviewed papers is replicability. and it needs to be more than 1 paper, ideally you would look at 20.

The best way would be to look at meta-analysis that aggregate many papers, both significant and non significant.

Effectively you are all correct.

However not all papers are peer reviewed, and it depends on the journal, if it is class 1, or a tier 1 paper, anything other than a tier 1, possibly tier 2, should only be taken into consideration if the study has been replicated a few times.

I did a study on the crowd at Old Trafford in 2009/ 10, based on size of crowd, size of away fans crowd etc for social psychology, but it was only at Old Trafford, so it can't be considered, I would gave needed to do a longitudinal study across a few seasons at all grounds in order to get a proper sample size.

While smaller studies can he informative and lead to larger studies, same size will be an issue and it's very difficult to apply that to a larger population.

Agree2 0Disagree

27 May 2020 20:58:47
Hello Ed's,

Has the club shown any interest in Berardi? Also who are the back up targets incase the Sancho deal doesn't materialise. I think if he wants to play elsewhere then we should walk away from the deal. As you have already told us the fee with everything attached to it will be astronomical and could be a big mistake.

Thanks a lot and take care 👍.

Believable0 0Unbelievable

{Ed002's Note - There is no interest in Domenico Berardi.

Ferran Torres (RW/LW) considered as a potential Jadon Sancho replacement but likely priced out of a move to Borussia Dortmund - will end up at Real Madrid or Barcelona in all probability at some point. But, if Salah were to depart Liverpool he could well become an option for them but for now that is not the case. The player has made no secret of his desire to join Barcelona at some point. Valencia have a replacement lined up but the €100M asking price would need to drop to make a transfer anywhere viable this summer. Juventus has enquired after his availability but would need to make sales to fund a move. A third party has suggested to Manchester United that Ferran Torres would be a better option to Jadon Sancho as the deal would be far, far cheaper for them.
Federico Chiesa (RW/F) much more affordable than Sancho but Inter remain keen although talks are now on hold. Fiorentina are willing to sell in the summer.
Isaac Lihadji (RW) Not be interested in joining MU and moving elsewhere.

27 May 2020 21:58:30
Thanks very much for your reply Ed.
Has there been further developments regarding Sanchez? Will the club give him a chance or are they looking for a club to take him.

Agree0 0Disagree

{Ed002's Note - The club are desparate to get him off the books because of his wages - and he is no kiddie now. They will offer him about but finding takers might be very difficult.}

27 May 2020 22:41:38
Yeah I thought as much Ed. I heard a ridiculous rumour that we had offered Sanchez in a potential deal for Sancho. I can't see them being interested in that one bit. I think we will really struggle to get him to another club. There's obviously been no interest in him I take it by your response.

Agree0 0Disagree

28 May 2020 15:54:44
Could sanchez be used as a back up to martial if the ighalo deal is unable to be completed.

Ideally would like to see him move on but we've got a need for a backup striker and he has played there before.

Agree0 0Disagree

28 May 2020 16:24:38
£400k a week is not what you want to pay back ups I guess DSG.

Agree0 0Disagree

28 May 2020 21:51:16
Pretty sure he's paid around 100K.

Agree0 0Disagree

30 May 2020 08:45:27
Pretty sure he’s not.

Agree0 0Disagree

27 May 2020 17:26:46
Hey Ed2 just wanted to know what's the latest if any in regards to United's pursuit of Jude Bellingham.

Believable2 0Unbelievable

{Ed002's Note - As far as I know the situation remains with Jude Bellingham that Birmingham want more than £30M for the kid and know that there are clubs from across Europe interested in him, including clubs who can afford to take the risks and clubs who will give him a chance of first team football before the likes of Manchester United (who are very keen). Manchester United have done nothing to try and complete the transfer but propose a low fee and bonuses over a number of years but the player wants a road map which the club can't offer. Dortmund have continued discussions and have thought for a while that they will reach a formal agreement.}

27 May 2020 21:43:09
Amateurs at it again?

Agree1 0Disagree

28 May 2020 08:35:01

amateurs risking offloading more than 30 million for a 16 year old child? who is no where near the level for the first team?

Agree2 0Disagree

28 May 2020 10:33:59
I have said previously that although clearly a very talented young player I struggle to see how he fits in to a United first team.

He is too young to be loaned out, while at the same time we have Matic, Fred, McTominay, Bruno and Pogba currently as first team midfielders. While we are looking at players such as Saul if Pogba leaves. Which means at best Bellingham would be one of 6 players fighting it out for one of the three staring midfield positions. While doing so against vastly more experienced players.

A move to United will either result in time on the bench in the first team or playing Under 23's. Neither of which are better than playing every week in the Championship with Birmingham.

I think Bellingham is at a vital moment in his young career, look at Odegaard, moving to Real Madrid at 16 years old. He is only just looking like getting his career back on track now at 22, SIX years after making the move.

If he moves to a club too far up the football ladder he risks spending most of his time on the bench and stagnating. He needs game time, either continuing at the level he is at or maybe at a higher level. I think the key thing is for him to realise he doesn't have to rush. Which is probably the hardest thing to appreciate at 16 years old. He needs to believe in himself and appreciate that if he is good enough then opportunities to join the biggest clubs will always be open to him. But to be a great player you need to be playing, every week.

Look at Angel Gomes, one of the most gifted players from our academy, yet Bellingham three years his junior is rated just as highly if not a little higher based off nothing more than playing every week albeit at a lower level.

My advice to all young players is go where you will play, you learn between 20-30% of your footballing knowledge through training, the rest can only be learned and developed through playing actual matches.

Look at our own academy this season, Williams didn't make the pre-season tour squad, yet due to actually playing games this season (due to injuries) he has managed to jump ahead of players such as Garner, Gomes and Laird who were all rated higher than him this time last year.

Personally I think Bellingham is best off signing a professional contract with Birmingham, play there next season then move to a mid-tier sized club the following summer, stay there for a couple of years then move to a top level club still only aged 19/ 20 years old, but in a position to fight for a first team spot every week.

Playing for the biggest clubs is an end goal, at 16 the only goal you should be considering is how to develop yourself.

Agree8 0Disagree

28 May 2020 12:07:30
My point wasn’t about wether the player should be signed or not. Wasn’t even to do with the amount of money being mentioned.
United clearly want the player As they are offering instalments but just fly by the seat of their pants when it comes to negotiating. Why would you not supply a road map for a young player and why would the player even need to ask for this.

Kid should go to Dortmund.

Agree2 0Disagree

28 May 2020 12:08:18
Agree Shappy that young players only develop through playing. But if you’re good enough you’ll come through to the first team. In time. Look at Giggs and Rooney, Owen as examples. Is Bellingham in that tier though? Time will tell. Best of both worlds for United is to secure his transfer now but loan back for 2 seasons. Pogba definitely gone by then though hopefully replaced by Saul. Matic likely to leave then also.

Agree2 0Disagree

28 May 2020 12:31:48
Halesini, He can't be loaned back until he is at least 18 years old. The rules do not allow the loan of players under the age of 18.

So if we sign him the only options are to play him in the first team, or in the Under 23's. As I have said there are significant hurdles for him to play in the first team and the Under 23's is a much lower standard than he is playing currently.

This was the issue Real Madrid had with Odegaard. They signed him but he couldn't get enough game time in the first team, but at least they could play him for the B side in the second division. Although ultimately he stagnated, he was then loaned out to three clubs I think since he turned 18 and it is only this year at the age of 22 that he has managed to kick on.

Bellingham could end up in a potentially a worse situation at United as if he doesn't play in the first team then the Under 23's is a much lower level than that the Real Madrid B team play.

I think the other examples you mention such as Giggs, Rooney and Owen all managed it with significantly less competition for places. With only one or two players in the first team fighting them for a first team spot. Bellingham would have 5 maybe 6 players he would be competing with for a first team spot.

Now although he has been impressive in the Championship, the EPL is a step up and he is very young. I would probably say he isn't ready to play most weeks for a side near the top of the EPL. The lad needs to learn to walk before he can run.

Agree7 0Disagree

28 May 2020 13:21:49
you said amateurs at it again? in reply to the ed saying we put a low offer with addons and bonuses.

is that not realistic for a player who is 16.

not having a go just my opinion on the post.

Agree2 0Disagree

28 May 2020 13:58:12
He doesn't need to be loaned back Shappy, we could just arrange the transfer date to be next season.

This signing isn't about plugging a hole in the squad now. It is the "biggest" club in England signing the most talented kid in England. Spend 30 million now so you don't have to spend 100 million in 3 years.

Not many are batting an eyelid at spending £150 million on Sancho. This is more than just "where does the kid play". We have rolled out the red carpet for him and his family. Got Sir Alex to show him around Carrington. Activtely trying to sign an English kid and he will turn us down to play in Germany.

This is a signing that a proactive club makes. We have been offering low balling bids that will get us nowhere. We're the equalivant of a poser that goes to the gym just to take selfies and not do the hard work. Then to keep up we take some steroids (Sanchez), short term effects look great but it will kill us in the long run.

Agree0 0Disagree

28 May 2020 14:50:22
Mumbles, I think the issue stems from the fact that currently Bellingham hasn't signed a professional deal with Birmingham as he isn't yet old enough. So Birmingham cannot "sell" him currently. If he doesn't sign a professional deal with Birmingham then he could in theory sign for any club for just a compensation fee (which if pushed to tribunal would likely be a few million at most.

However, my understanding is the Bellingham family have agreed to sign pro-deal so that Birmingham can receive a large fee for him.

So clubs are reluctant to just agree to a 30m deal or whatever Birmingham are asking for, given that in theory he could be available for a tenth of that. While I don't think there is a rule that would allow you to sign a player now, but not register him at your club for 18 months. The closest you might get is him signing a permanent deal with Birmingham and then United agreeing to sign him for a fixed fee at the end of next season. However, I have no idea how legal that sort of arrangement would be, or why Birmingham would agree to it as depending on the market and how he develops over next season he could be worth significantly more.

While it's fair to say that in three years time he could be worth significantly more, given the current situation and the likely knock on effects in terms of transfer fees I think its right that clubs don't just jump and and throw 30m around for a 16 year old like its nothing. Likewise clubs could have spent 30m or 40m on a 17 year old Januzaj, or Macheda players who at 17/ 18 years old looked destined to become top players. Yet in hindsight that would have been an awful investment.
Barcelona thought 140m for Dembele would be a sound investment, thinking the market would only continue to grow. Yet, the kid has struggled for fitness and form and the market has dropped significantly.

We signed Nick Powell as a future England star midfielder from the Championship.

Bellingham looks a future great player, but he is 16 years old and a lot can happen between now and when he should be entering his peak years in TEN years time. He could suffer serious injury, he could go off the rails with a huge contract giving him too much too soon, or he could lose focus on football and not develop as many think he will.

Freddy Adu was going to be the next Ronaldo (Brazilian), yet he made very few top flight appearances in Europe.

The club are trying to sign the lad, and they have done several things in order to tempt him. I've stated the issues with providing a 16 year old with a "road map" into the first team. The club can't loan him out, and they certainly can't guarantee him any first team football beyond him being part of the squad and competing for a first team place.

As for the club making "proactive" signings, last summer we signed AWB, James and Maguire. Two are good young prospects who have made an impact while the eldest player signed is now our club captain. We then signed a 25 year old Bruno in January a player who in his few appearances looks like he could arguably be our best player (albeit only on a small sample size) . Ighalo might fit into your analogy of short term fixes, yet the idea of not signing a long term prospect in striker position could be linked to the club having one eye on the development of one of our own super talented young players in Mason Greenwood.

Agree7 0Disagree

28 May 2020 15:22:07
Mumbles like I’ve already said. My point was the fact we refused to give a young player a road map. That’s what I find amateurish. If you read again you will see I make that very clear.

Agree0 0Disagree

28 May 2020 15:34:09
We could sign Bellingham and leave him at Birmingham for a season. It wouldn't be a loan, it would be agreeing a transfer date in the future.

Your hypothetical scenarios could work for any transfer. The fact is that we are losing out on a young English target to Dortmund.

As the biggest club in England, we should not be losing out on the most promising 16 year old in the country, who we are actively trying to buy.

Agree0 0Disagree

28 May 2020 15:38:43
Peter, what sort of a "road map" do you think the club should be giving him?

We can't loan him out, so his options are under 23's or the first team.

Are you suggesting that our club with 142 years worth of history, a club that has had some of the greatest players ever grace the turf of Old Trafford should be guaranteeing a 16 year old a place in the staring 11 ahead of Pogba, Bruno, Fred, Matic and McTominay?

You say road map like its an obvious and clear thing. What sort of guarantees should the club be giving him.

For me regardless of who you are or what you have achieved you still need to earn your starting spot.

Reports in the press suggest the club have said that if signed Bellingham has been told he will be part of the first team squad.

That in my opinion is about as far as the club can go. He might get more chances at other clubs, and if playing every week is what is important to him then good on him and he will probably have to go elsewhere to get that, he certainly will if he wants guarantees of game time.

Agree5 0Disagree

28 May 2020 17:45:04
The lad shouldn't get any guarantees at all with first team exactly the same as gomes if u get the chance you take it. But i would love the club to grab a young potentially good player and try to develop him inhouse. We could always make it a future transfer for next summer with then loans the season after. The club has risked a ton lately on the likes of alexis giving ddg a mass deal when we had henderson. Risking on a young lad might be a change of pace. 2-3 seasons we don't know who will be in midfield n he could or could not slot straight in but if he wants it enough I've always thought were a team that can develop some great talents. i'd love to go back to that rather than double or tripple every players wage we want to sign n then they come in and coast.

Agree2 0Disagree

28 May 2020 17:50:17
Mumbles, what I'm saying is there is no precedent for a club agreeing the transfer of a player, but not signing them for over a year so they could stay at their current club. Let alone the issues regarding his age.

We would be in New territory and I'm not sure whether that would be within the laws of the game.

While I'm not sure what Birmingham stand to gain from agreeing to sell a player in a year's time for a fixed fee. What sort of legal protections does either side have in case of a career ending injury?

Would it still be in there best interests to play him?

I would imagine the reality is we sign him this summer or we don't. If we do then he has to stay with us until he is at least 18. Which means January 2022 is the earliest he could leave on loan.

Agree4 0Disagree

28 May 2020 19:08:18
Reason to wait and see on Bellingham

Granted we are yet to see the role these guys and Jude will play long term and is why along with loan reason I’d wait and see.

(FM suggestion: agreed purchase date as end of next season + loan back, keeps him at Brum till 22.)

Agree1 0Disagree

{Ed002's Note - I am not sure Dortmund will be looking to sell him next season.}

28 May 2020 22:39:30
Ed002, I'm pretty sure the answer will be no. But is it possible for a club to agree a deal to sign a player over a year in advance?

I've never heard of it, but it seems like it's something that you can do on FM, or I'm not sure where the idea is coming from.

So could United agree to sign Bellingham in the summer of 2021? And how legally binding would that be?

Agree0 0Disagree

{Ed002's Note - Sure. Keita to Liverpool is an example. RvN to MU another. Contracts can be written and signed but no such proposal is being made.}

Mobile version of this site: Manchester United Rumours Mobile

Football Transfer Rumours

Manchester United Rumours 2

Manchester United Rumours 3

Manchester United Rumours Archives

Football Rumours


Posting / Reply Form

To post you must be logged in with a username. Please Log In or Register for a username.






Log In or Register to post

Remember me

Forgot Pass