They took Keane back from Liverpool so they might do!
But they are planning a massive new stadium so they'll be tightening the buckles too.
but equally well you could argue that all except Heinze went on to have very good spells at Real. Van Nistleroy's admittedly blighted by injuries, though his goal scoring record was pretty good at Real from what I recall. I would argue that none of those players were past it when they were sold (again Heinze maybe a bit iffy) and there weren't direct immediate better replacements for any (again Heinze being the exception). Most of those departures were like Jaap Stam's situation - falling out with the manager.
Big team rise and fall, they go through good years (or couple of years) and then bad years. Juventus are in the doldrums now, so are Boca, Real were not much cop in the mid 1990s (Atletico did better in the league), Barca were slippy in the early 2000s, Bayern Munich went off the boil pretty much after winning the Champions League. The big question is will United slip away into that "not quite contenders" bracket like Dortmund in Germany, Marseille in France, Lazio and Roma in Italy - all these teams were the strongest in the countries for a time (won the league in the last decade or so) but all have slipped into the ether. With Man Utd it's hard to say much will depend on the other English teams around them like City, Chelsea (both rich in terms of ownership) and perhaps Arsenal (very fiscally tight).
Hard to imagine United drifting that far off the pace, even in the Seventies and Eighties they were qualifying for European semi-finals and reputation alone should ensure the top names will always consider joining. It's worrying about the drift to Real, but they've hardly reaped the rewards and only van Nistlerooy wasn't properly replaced (Valencia doing OK and Rooney making up the goals).
"Your guilty conscience may move you to vote Democratic, but deep down you long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king"
Sideshow Bob
Carlos Tevez did the right thing for Carlos Tevez and that was to go somewhere where he would be the main man which he is now at City.
Utd didn't have the money to buy him simple as that.
At least it was for genuine reasons as opposed Benitez who sold Bellamy and Crouch and Murphy and Keane.
The good thing about it is that with any bit of luck they will come back bite him on the bum.
"Joe Jordan is off to watch Young Boys tomorrow" Ian Darke
[QUOTE=gaiscíoch;1306817]Carlos Tevez did the right thing for Carlos Tevez and that was to go somewhere where he would be the main man which he is now at City.
Utd didn't have the money to buy him simple as that.
But had £30 million to spend on Benzema![]()
There's the right way, the wrong way.... and the Max Power way!! :-D
Real were prepared to pay £30million- United were not- hence he is now a Real Madrid player.
Couple that with the fact that Real were paying the money up front compared to United wanting to structure the deal based on team success and his own personal achievements..
Likewise can be said of Tevez his owners wanted the money in a block payment which was the reason Ferguson was stuttering in terms of payment.
He said he would pay £20million in a block payment. Tevez owners said no chance hence he is now at stinking rich Manchester City.
"Joe Jordan is off to watch Young Boys tomorrow" Ian Darke
For whatever reasons, only Ronaldo wasn't the managers choice, and even then it was on Uniteds terms (i.e. he stayed an extra season than he wanted). In fact Madrid was more Fergie's choice than Heinzes, if you remember he was trying to move to Liverpool.
It's easy to retrospectively look at Tevez being United couldn't afford it, but I still don't think he was worth the money his owners wanted. There was probably a deal to be done, but it's to the Tevez camp people should point their ire. And from what I've seen, it isn't up front that the issue really is.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
The Glazers can legitimately take around £127m out of Manchester United next year if profits remain stable.
The Guardian have taken a week to read the small print in the 322-page bond prospectus and report that the Americans have the right to take millions out of the club.
The newspaper reports that the 'principal purpose' of the bond issue is to raise funds for the Glazers to pay off the 'payments in kind' loans that are secured against their shares in the club. This £200m debt exists in addition to the £500m owed by the club.
The prospectus details how the Glazers can take £70m from the club's cash reserves, pay themselves a £25m dividend and take half of the club's cash profits (a figure that stood at £23m last year). They can also take out a further £9m in administration fees and payments to directors.
That adds up to around £127m on top of the £45m already being directed towards paying off the £500m the club will have borrowed via the bond.
Neville could be up on a charge:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...oberto-mancini
Looks like Jaap was right.
Did you read his book, point number 8 here:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/s...315698,00.html
Bookmarks