Manchester United Rumours Member Posts

 

Tim_99'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:




Tim_99's Posts and Other Poster's Replies To Tim_99's Posts

 

 

To Tim_99's last 5 rumours posts

 

To Tim_99's last 5 banter posts

 

To Tim_99's last 5 rumour replies

 

To Tim_99's last 5 banter replies

 

Tim_99's rumours posts with other poster's replies to Tim_99's rumours posts

 

18 Jun 2020 10:16:29
Werner to Chelsea official! Good bit of business that for Chelsea. surprised Liverpool didn't match them.

Tim_99

1.) 18 Jun 2020 11:20:38
I'm sure ED002 said Liverpool would need to sell Firmino, as Werner wouldn't want to go and sit on the bench.


2.) 18 Jun 2020 11:26:59
Fair enough. think he’s the kind of striker Chelsea need so I think he will do well for them unfortunately 😂.


3.) 18 Jun 2020 14:44:21
Werner is a good signing for Chelsea, I'm not sure how he would fit at Liverpool without them either changing shape/ formation or dropping one of their front three. Werner I think has chosen Chelsea ahead of Bayern Munich and Liverpool due to playing time, which is fair enough.

Chelsea are doing a good job in the transfer market. Werner and Ziyech improve their first 11, while I think Frank has done a good job blooding the youngsters during their transfer ban.


4.) 18 Jun 2020 17:42:05
Im not sure about that Shappy. Neither Bayern nor Liverpool bid the money so he didn't have either of them as a choice.
Good player. I think he will do well for Chelsea. 10 times the player abraham is that's for sure.
Along with the lad from ajax and pulisic and odoi they have replaced willian and pedro with 2 very good signings.


5.) 18 Jun 2020 18:59:05
Ken, Klopp went to great lengths to call Werner personally to try and persuade him. In the end Liverpool didn't put a bid in, but to suggest Liverpool weren't an option isn't quite right. I'd imagine had the chats with Klopp had gone differently then maybe Liverpool might have made a bid.
While Bayern spoke to Werner last year and attempted to make a deal happen, it didn't and Werner was apparently annoyed by Bayern resulting in him rejecting their advances.

Clubs don't need to actually place a bid for them to have serious interest in a player, nor does a player need to wait until a bid is placed before rejecting the idea of moving to a club. Bids only tend to be put in once a club has established that a player is interested in making the move. In the case of Werner he apparently made it clear he didn't want to move to Liverpool or Bayern, so they never placed a bid.


6.) 18 Jun 2020 19:13:16
They were not an option if they didn't bid.


7.) 18 Jun 2020 19:30:54
Too be fair shappy i see half your point.
A player can reject advances before a bid is made. I agree with that.
But he can also accept their advances and declare his intent to sign but that is not an option unless a fee is agreed with his club.
For all you know he could have told klopp he would sign but Liverpool were never an option because they wouldn't pay the fee.
Same with bayern last year. He said he would go but Bayern low balled RB so bayern were never an option even though he declared his intent to sign.
So any player can give an indication or state intent to sign and then a fee not agreed so it never was an option.
I think ed002 said klopp unsettled the player and as a result RB were annoyed and were more intent on selling him elsewhere as long as a fee was agreed.


8.) 18 Jun 2020 21:16:57
Although Werner is a very good player i wouldn't want him in our team. First he is good but i think not a class act, his game is based in pace to burn and he doesn't perform week in week out. But most importand (and is just my opinio) i see Greenwood following a similar path to Rashy.

He is clearly talented with both feats, good movement, i think he is a really good lad who works hard and with a top mentality. Correct me if i am wrong but in recent photos i think he is to bulked up a little so in 1-1,5 year maybe he is ready to lead our front line. So i prefer our own player.


9.) 19 Jun 2020 08:46:40
Klopp want to great lengths to tap him up to be more accurate.

{Ed001's Note - Shappy is wrong, Werner came out very publicly about wanting to join Liverpool, which caused the problems with RBL.}


10.) 19 Jun 2020 09:32:29
I seem to remember him saying something similar about us not so long ago.


11.) 19 Jun 2020 15:49:48
Hi Ed001, how have you been? Hope you've been doing well during C.V.
How do you feel about Werner, would you have liked to have signed him?

{Ed001's Note - he would have been a very good signing for the long term, but not sure he was really what Liverpool needed right now. I would much rather see Curtis Jones given the time Werner would get, as he was never going to be a starter ahead of any of the front 3. So yes and no really. Personally I am glad the club is being prudent and cutting back on outgoings due to the huge loss in revenue. I would rather not end up back where we were when G&H were in charge, when they were hit by a similar situation financially.}


12.) 19 Jun 2020 16:13:05
He also publicly said he wanted to join us and Bayern. If I'm remembering correctly wasn't the clause in his contracted added with Bayern Munich in mind?

{Ed002's Note - It was added after discussions with Bayern Munich.}


13.) 19 Jun 2020 17:18:04
He might have said he wanted to join us or bayern but neither were an option. Neither side agreed a fee with RB.
Wishful thinking on his behalf maybe, but not options.


14.) 19 Jun 2020 19:09:07
Both Bayern and Liverpool have shown a strong interest in Werner in the past and earlier this year. While he was available for a fairly low fee considering his talent, I would find it very odd that neither would have made a move for him unless they can't afford to given the new state of play with C.V. Or that he told them through intermediaries (as directly is tapping up) that he wasn't interested.


 

 

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

Tim_99

1.) 28 May 2020 17:38:33
Must have been quite a productive meeting.


2.) 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.


3.) 28 May 2020 18:21:39
Can't help but think that this is going to be a mistake.


4.) 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?

{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.}


5.) 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) .

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


6.) 28 May 2020 19:28:18
Thanks ed002. I can imagine sky not being too pleased with free to air games 😂.


7.) 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.


8.) 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.


9.) 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.


10.) 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.


11.) 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.

{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.}


12.) 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.


13.) 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.

{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.}


14.) 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.

{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.}


15.) 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.

{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.}


16.) 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.


17.) 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.


18.) 30 May 2020 17:19:52
Most people know what to think but very few know how to think in these times.


19.) 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.


20.) 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.


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

{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?}


22.) 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.

{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.}


23.) 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.


 

 

12 Mar 2020 12:16:17
BBC via marca stating that the champions league and europa league will be suspended because of the coronavirus, announcement imminent. Scare mongering or a possibility only time will tell.

Tim_99

1.) 12 Mar 2020 13:00:40
Tim it's a matter of when not if now. Real possibility that national leagues will be postponed as well.


2.) 12 Mar 2020 14:00:38
3 players from a pl team have apparently displayed symptoms, I think pl will have to do the same sooner rather than later.


3.) 12 Mar 2020 22:07:22
I don't mind if they have to. Lives matter more than a game. I just hope that all parties to the game get together to agree a sensible way forward and how they will decide what happens later so that titles / promotion / relegation issues and the Euros can be played at some future point.


 

 

13 Feb 2020 13:11:59
Chelsea agree to sign ziyech in the summer, good move I think. Ed002 are they still interested in sancho also? Does his possible move to us hinge on UCL qualification? On a side note it goes to show that work can continue outside of the window if clubs actually have a plan and are organised 😉.

Tim_99

{Ed002's Note - Unless there is a very significant change in the financial demands Chelsea will drop interest in Sancho. Manchester United are keen but the budget may not stretch but they could return with an offer.}


1.) 13 Feb 2020 14:20:29
thanks ed002.


2.) 13 Feb 2020 16:37:22
In your deductions, where do you suggest Sancho may end up Ed?

{Ed002's Note - It is largely down to one person and his demands, what the player is open to and whether or not Dortmund are willing to work on the price. If you look at the clubs as options, the player has made it clear a return to London and joining Chelsea would be his preferred choice, but they are not going to pay for the total package as it is costed right now. Manchester City are in a similar place financially as Chelsea - and don't see anywhere close to the value in the player. Liverpool would need to let go of Salah and commit a lot more money to make it viable - I can't see that is the plan and it would be disruptive and rather stupid if they went down that road. Real Madrid and Barcelona both have high end targets that will soak up significant funds and will be ready to go immediately they join - they are likely unimpressed by the risk associated with the potential benefits. As for Manchester United, they remain in turmoil with no direction and the player wants to move elsewhere - they could throw money at the problem but it would then mean they don't have the funds left to fix the more significant issues. Dortmund may try and work the Euros and him excelling to try and leverage more from the English sides - but that would be a high-risk plan for all. Else he stays at Dortmund. There will be a further discussion with one of these sides in the coming days - so right now it remains up in the air.}


3.) 13 Feb 2020 20:36:59
Ed if you don’t mind me asking what areas would you suggest United need to address the most? I understand the costs behind a deal for Sancho- but I would say we are crying out for a right winger, a striker and another midfield player. Would you agree?

{Ed002's Note - DM, CM, CM/AM, W/F and S are needed over coming transfer windows but I suspect the club will prioritise CM/AM (e.g. a Jack Grealish), S (e.g. Dries Mertens) and a W/F (e.g. Wilfied Zaha) and then a couple of pricey youngsters (e.g. Joe Gelhardt (F) and Jude Bellingham) - but realistically if you look at the amounts of money involved in such changes it makes little sense and looking closely at value for money - and it is hard to see. Maybe the sale of Pogba will be tougher than the club realise and the could be forced down the road of listening to which players Real Madrid or Juventus could offer in a deal - although Isco could well be used, he is not what is needed now. James could be an option for the W/F - and although Bale fits that role, wages would be a huge issue. So sorting out Pogba is a priority.}


4.) 13 Feb 2020 22:40:11
I think we should stay clear of Sancho spending minimum 100 million plus wages on a 20 year old is ridiculous

We should sell pogba and fix the issues in other areas first before we make an stupid offer for a plauer that doesn't want to play in Manchester.

{Ed002's Note - How would Manchester United get him so cheaply?}


5.) 14 Feb 2020 08:05:15
Sancho is clearly a very talented player. That said I'm not fully convinced he is the right style of wide player we need.

With Rashford cutting in from the left and Bruno often preferring to push forward in the inside right channel we really don't want a wide right player who is looking to cut in. It will just compress the space in the final third and give all of our forwards less space to play in. Especially if we persist with AWB at RB, he doesn't push forward enough or offer a big enough threat when he does.

Although for me RW would be further down the order of priority, if I had to pick someone out as being the ideal candidate it would be Adama Traore. Something closer to a traditional wide player. Someone who can burst past the full back and either cross the ball or cut it back. Someone who'll stretch the pitch and make more space for Rashford, Martial and Bruno breaking from midfield.


6.) 14 Feb 2020 09:02:57
Shappy, if we go for Jack Grealish, then Bruno will most probably play further behind alongside a defensive midfielder.
Therefore, we definitely need a RW.

As you suggested, Adama Traore looks like an absolute power house this year. Wilfried Zaha is another option.


7.) 14 Feb 2020 10:40:01
Sancho may not come due to the reasons given by Ed002 which makes sense but potentially is better than Adama and Zaha, both like Sancho would not come cheap and on my views are prone to poor decisions and inconsistency. Sancho is a right footed RW, i think he would compliment Bissaka well.


8.) 14 Feb 2020 05:58:36
Ed, thanks for the breakdown above, great info as always.

You mentioned Mertens, is he now someone United are looking at? I think he'd be a sensible signing. Still a good player, 32 years old and can play across the front line. Much better than trying to sign someone like Callum Wilson.

{Ed002's Note - Yes, Mertens is of interest to Manchester United but he is being pushed toward another side.}


9.) 14 Feb 2020 08:42:15
Thanks as always for all the priceless inside information Ed002, really very much appreciated.

Could I possibly ask who our primary Defensive Midfield and Central Midfield targets might be please? Will understand if you reply RTP if targets are the same from previous detailed updated you’ve kindly posted.

Also, when you say MU are in turmoil and lack direction, does that allude to indecision about a manager going forward into next season and also a lack of a Sporting Director?

Thanks again for anything you have time to provide.

{Ed002's Note - (a) Boubakary Soumare is certainly of interest Marcos Llorente may still be of interest. You can scratch Eduardo Camavinga now. A change in coach would be required to attract Denis Zakaria and without Champions League you can scratch him. (b) Jack Grealish remains a very clear target for midfield.}


10.) 14 Feb 2020 09:57:00
TrueRedDevil, I feel that with Bruno now signed we should move towards a 433 type shape. Bruno needs a little more freedom to find the space and use his intelligence to break teams down.

I would go all out for a mobile holding midfielder who can shield the back four, then look at a creative attacking midfielder such as Grealish who can create chances by carrying the ball forward.

I'd then look to line up with the new DM and Bruno every week, and switch between McTominay and the new AM depending on whether we need to be more solid in midfield or have more creative ability on the pitch.

I agree we need a RW, but I also feel that we need coverage/ challenger for Martial and I'm not convinced the defence has the right balance yet.

Whereas, I do feel Greenwood and Dalot can play a role on the right hand side. While James has also done well there this season. I'd rather play Greenwood there for a year, let him develop more then sign a RW in the summer of 2021 when we could move Martial on and Greenwood could challenge the striker we sign this summer for the starting striker spot.

However, I appreciate other see things differently. I just want to see more homegrown lads make it at the club and in Greenwood we have one who could become a world class player. So for me making space for him in the side is vital for him to become a top player.


11.) 14 Feb 2020 10:01:38
Thanks Ed, always interesting to hear your thoughts.


12.) 14 Feb 2020 11:10:28
Thank you so much for your time Ed002, very much appreciated!

{Ed002's Note - You are welcome.}


13.) 14 Feb 2020 11:51:38
Shappy, your point above about Greenwood is a good one and not signing a RW this summer might be a good option as long as Greenwood gets plenty of game time.

That's why I think Mertens is a sensible signing, he wouldn't block Greenwood for years to come but is still able to contribute for the next couple of seasons. Free transfer probably means big wages but you'd hope Pogba, Sanchez, Smalling etc will all be off the wage books so should have room for a signing like that.


 

 

28 Jan 2020 16:09:40
Barca in for fernandes, Skysports running the story now. aww well at least its not Spurs or City lol.

Tim_99

{Ed002's Note - Spurs rejected the chance when offered in the past few days.}


1.) 28 Jan 2020 16:31:40
As Ed has said many times, we're amateurs. I don't think I'll be renewing for next season the way we are going. Not worth the money.


2.) 28 Jan 2020 17:33:16
Phew thank god for that. Could you imagine Jose's face at that unveiling 😂🤦‍♂️. Thanks for the info Ed002, no doubt you will be glad when this window shuts 😂.


 

 

 

Tim_99's banter posts with other poster's replies to Tim_99's banter posts

 

05 Jul 2020 20:47:41
Our next 2 games are villa away and Southampton at home. Judging by today they are both going to be very tough games and we will need to be at our best to win both. Looking at other fixtures, we can't afford to drop any points so it's a big week ahead. ❤️🖤.

Tim_99

 

 

05 Jul 2020 00:11:47
I'm not going to dissect the performance today, but I would like to say how nice it is to enjoy watching united again. we are playing fast, attacking, creative football and it's a joy to watch. Gone are the days of wanting to gouge my eyes out, watching giants lumber about midfield and the incessant sidewards passing. The players are having fun and so are us fans, long may it continue GGMU ❤️🖤.

Tim_99

1.) 05 Jul 2020 01:29:38
That's all we want-enjoyable to watch and challenging.


 

 

03 Jul 2020 19:54:23
Pogba and Bruno both injured in accidental clash at training. could cost us top 4 if true and it's anything serious 😔😡.

Tim_99

1.) 03 Jul 2020 19:58:57
No, I think it's all a load of tosh. Apparently some parody account had wrote an article and it was picked up by the mirror and other outlets. Seemingly not true at all.


2.) 03 Jul 2020 20:22:34
Really hoping it's cheap journalism!


3.) 03 Jul 2020 20:33:35
God I hope so angered, would be a huge blow.


4.) 03 Jul 2020 21:45:23
Go read the original article. It’s a joke that the daily mail went with lol.


5.) 03 Jul 2020 22:51:52
Imagine being that rubbish of a journalist that you read that and make up the story to get some clicks. The press are a joke.


6.) 03 Jul 2020 23:32:11
Is got to be bs, reported by the sun and the mirror that says it all, they write anything about us for clicks on their site.


 

 

02 Jul 2020 19:44:08
That's spurs out of the race then. Awful from them today.

Tim_99

1.) 02 Jul 2020 22:32:19
Going backwards fast.


2.) 02 Jul 2020 22:42:23
Park the bus style of play only works when you have great defenders.

Jose got caught out at United trying it with poor defenders. We invited pressure on the back four and made mistakes and gave away silly goals.

He's now doing the same at Spurs. Aurier, Sanchez, Foyth, Davies, Rose, and a past their best Alderwiereld and Vertonghen. Just a poor defence.

With those defenders the best form of defence is to make them work as little as possible and keep the ball away from them at the other end of the pitch.

With little money to spend this summer I can see a big falling out with Jose next season.


3.) 02 Jul 2020 22:44:39
Nothing to do with Jose though 😂.


4.) 02 Jul 2020 22:55:31
Isn’t Rose at Newcastle? Don’t think we can blame him for this one.


5.) 02 Jul 2020 23:34:12
Spurs are in a mess, if I were Harry Kane I'd be looking to leave this summer to try and win something. The problem is maybe he's left it a season or 2 too long as I can't see anybody paying the transfer fee levy is looking for.


6.) 03 Jul 2020 12:52:59
More and more whining from Jose.


7.) 03 Jul 2020 13:09:17
GDS, yes Rose is on loan at Newcastle, but still technically a Spurs player.


8.) 03 Jul 2020 19:29:10
Poor recovery, Shaps 😁.


 

 

01 Jul 2020 22:12:41
Been a good week for us and wolves. it's going to come down to the final day isn't it? 😱😂.

Tim_99

1.) 01 Jul 2020 22:44:41
Tim,

If we keep winning hopefully not, could well be in the bag before that, the others look likely to drop points, I wouldn’t like to go into that last game needing a win, although Ole has shown so far he can win one off games against better teams so we could be ok.


 

 

 

Tim_99's rumour replies

 

Click To View This Thread

03 Jul 2020 16:30:12
God I hope so. just take whatever they offer and run. This is not the time to be holding out for a larger fee, get him out and it frees up huge amounts on the wage bill.

Tim_99

 

 

Click To View This Thread

03 Jul 2020 10:40:38
It’s a shambles run by amateurs as ed002 has stated many times. If anyone expecting us to be competent in how we do business this summer in terms of both ins and outs, then you are in for a shock. Least this summer they will have C.V. 19 as an excuse for their incompetence.

Tim_99

 

 

Click To View This Thread

27 Jun 2020 15:52:39
It’s obvious his head has been turned however with C.V. 19 etc I just can’t see us paying what Dortmund want. There might not be anyone pay it either so he could very well stay. Think it’s best for the lad to get on with it and not burn any bridges, after all Dortmund have been good for him.

Tim_99

 

 

Click To View This Thread

22 Jun 2020 19:08:40
It’s ok we will sign them next summer for 150mill combined. that’s how we roll 😂.

Tim_99

 

 

Click To View This Thread

18 Jun 2020 11:26:59
Fair enough. think he’s the kind of striker Chelsea need so I think he will do well for them unfortunately 😂.

Tim_99

 

 

 

Tim_99's banter replies

 

Click To View This Thread

03 Jul 2020 20:33:35
God I hope so angered, would be a huge blow.

Tim_99

 

 

Click To View This Thread

03 Jul 2020 19:59:15
We will struggle especially if last week against Norwich is any indicator. Our midfield is then completely void of creativity, Couldn’t have came at a worse time and is just typical of our luck.

Tim_99

 

 

Click To View This Thread

02 Jul 2020 22:44:39
Nothing to do with Jose though 😂.

Tim_99

 

 

Click To View This Thread

30 Jun 2020 22:35:36
Agreed ed004.i can’t for the life of me figure out why we gave pereira (and a few others) a new contract. Not good enough for where we want to go.

Tim_99

 

 

Click To View This Thread

30 Jun 2020 22:18:34
Makes you wonder what might have been if we had signed him earlier?

Tim_99

{Ed004's Note - Even watching Andreas come on as his replacement and the downgrade in quality is shocking. If we had Bruno all season we would be in top 4}