Premier League Thread 2019/20

[Guest An Sionnach]

Managers are two a penny , successful managers , long term ,are as rare as hen's teeth , most should only be hired on 6 month contracts and they would still queue round the block to get the job.

[murphy]

14 hours ago, Leicesterpool said:

The same thing kinda happened when Leeds went down, some of the supporters just never returned. By the time they reached League One... some of the ex Leeds fans denied they ever had anything to do with the club. Starting to come out of the wood work again since they've been challenging for promotion back to the premier league again.

@Wolfox, who does that remind you of?   

[murphy]

5 hours ago, surrifox said:

Quite a bit of the slab head fee is performance related - hopefully the performance is no more of a stretch than a target for appearances in the PL as I can’t  see them winning much in the next few years 

I thought it was all up front, no add ons or anything?  Can you elaborate?

[foxile5]

2 minutes ago, murphy said:

I thought it was all up front, no add ons or anything?  Can you elaborate?

Yes i thought that was exactly why we were holding on so long. We got the eighty full. 

[surrifox]

2 hours ago, FIF said:

How do you know this?

 

I understand a salary being performance related but how does a sale fee work - is it just while he is at Manure or over his entire career or a certain number of years wherever he is playing. Surely that would put lie to the claim that he is the most expensive defensive footballer in the world. Please elucidate.

Neither side were keen on disclosing the final fee but it was widely reported that a sticking point in the negotiations  was the balance between cash up front and the proportion of the fee payable on future contingencies  such as getting into Europe , winning the prem or simply on a player’s stats ; appearances in the prem , England caps etc. 

Rudkin was (justifiably) unhappy  with the proportion of fee deferred to MU FC  future results  during the negotiations. All this is pretty common. My post flagged that we look unlikely to recoup much of the unpaid fee by way of MU performance 

Edited 7 October 2019 by surrifox

[surrifox]

28 minutes ago, murphy said:

I thought it was all up front, no add ons or anything?  Can you elaborate?

There are definitely contingency payments   Which if triggered in full take the fee beyond £80 mill . That was definitely reported at the time 

[Muzzy_Larsson]

1 hour ago, m4DD0gg said:

Sort of big name they would go for and definelty repeat their ongoing incompetent cycle. 

Was gonna say exactly this!

[surrifox]

1 hour ago, foxile5 said:

Yes i thought that was exactly why we were holding on so long. We got the eighty full. 

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/manchester-united-facing-potential-74m-bill-for-transfer-add-ons-lh3t8cfth

[The Horse's Mouth]

https://mobile.twitter.com/WatfordFC/status/1181217917393866752?s=19 hahahah 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, surrifox said:

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/manchester-united-facing-potential-74m-bill-for-transfer-add-ons-lh3t8cfth

It doesn't say anything about the fee or add ons for Maguire in that article that I can see. As far as I was aware we got £80m (or as good as) upfront, we won't be losing out because of Manure's poor performances. Happy to be corrected though.

[surrifox]

2 minutes ago, FIF said:

It doesn't say anything about the fee or add ons for Maguire in that article that I can see. As far as I was aware we got £80m (or as good as) upfront, we won't be losing out because of Manure's poor performances. Happy to be corrected though.

Err - it says we are owed part of the £74 million that their audited accounts are showing as a provision for amounts due to clubs for add ins in transfer deals . That seems pretty unambiguous but if you don’t think so well fair enough I guess 

[ThaiFox]

3 hours ago, don_danbury said:

would be hilarious if utd got zidane

More like Fat Sam to get them out of the relegation zone.....

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, surrifox said:

Err - it says we are owed part of the £74 million that their audited accounts are showing as a provision for amounts due to clubs for add ins in transfer deals . That seems pretty unambiguous but if you don’t think so well fair enough I guess 

I can't see where it says that is from the £80m they paid. Add-ons above the £80m I can understand. Maybe you're correct but I haven't seen anything to change what I was told about the situation.

[don_danbury]

47 minutes ago, ThaiFox said:

More like Fat Sam to get them out of the relegation zone.....

would be better imo. zidane can't speak a word of english

[Blue ROI]

3 minutes ago, don_danbury said:

would be better imo. zidane can't speak a word of english

Andy Gray always wondered whether the likes of Messi and Zidane could cut it on a Tuesday Night in Stoke.

 

Now is the time

[That_Dude]

8 hours ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

Loving it but do feel sorry for Ole, hes like a cocker spaniel in the lions den

Why would you? He's paid 4M a year for a job he'd never get if it wasn't for his goal in '99.

 

He's a shit manager who massively failed at Cardiff and coached in a fishermen's league. He gutted his squad, thinking that he could replicate the '92 class by throwing his youngsters in the PL without any real preparation and put faith in bang average senior players. He sold the board the "United Way" pipe dream and is being found out week in week out. They'll be what...16th-17th if they lose to Liverpool which is more than likely? They didn't win a single away game since he's been permanently appointed and they average something like a goal per game. He'll drag them down to the bottom table and relegation battle is a real possibility if they don't sack him.

 

He'll get the boot before Christmas and I bet my house that he'll never manage in England ever again. Not even in the Championship.

Edited 7 October 2019 by That_Dude

[turtmcfly]

1 hour ago, FIF said:

It doesn't say anything about the fee or add ons for Maguire in that article that I can see. As far as I was aware we got £80m (or as good as) upfront, we won't be losing out because of Manure's poor performances. Happy to be corrected though.

 

Don't want to play Bobby Stickmynebin but from that article;

 

    "Maguire cost United £85 million from Leicester City, with another £5 million in potential add-ons;"

 

 

I think CTRL-F is for 'friend'

 

 

 

Edited 7 October 2019 by turtmcfly

[st albans fox]

3 hours ago, surrifox said:

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/manchester-united-facing-potential-74m-bill-for-transfer-add-ons-lh3t8cfth

that's the accounts to 30 june 2019.,  maguire deal was after that.  no evidence that there is a great deal of 'add ons' in the maguire deal other than appearances. it was reported by percy that we held out to avoid add ons relating to yanted performances as we had no confidence that they would apply.  

 

'It shows that the maximum potentially due to other clubs for add-ons was £74.3 million as of June 30 2019'

 

Edited 7 October 2019 by st albans fox

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, turtmcfly said:

 

Don't want to play Bobby Stickmynebin but from that article;

 

    "Maguire cost United £85 million from Leicester City, with another £5 million in potential add-ons;"

 

 

I think CTRL-F is for 'friend'

 

 

 

So the fee was £85m then.

 

Do you see what I mean?

[turtmcfly]

1 minute ago, FIF said:

So the fee was £85m then.

 

Do you see what I mean?

 

In the sense that we won't be losing much if we don't get add-ons, yes.

 

Of course, that's if those quoted figures are correct. I get the feeling they're estimates, tweaked to fit the point of an article, in the knowledge that the club/player don't want to get into the game of correcting them. Certainly these numbers are the high end of what we've been led to believe, which as I say is of a piece with the thrust of the article.

[Nalis]

Reckon the lowest Utd would finish this season is around 9th.

 

They'll see where they are around mid December and if they are still bottom half then they'll sack Ole with the new boss recovering their position to a certain degree.

[Facecloth]

8 minutes ago, turtmcfly said:

 

In the sense that we won't be losing much if we don't get add-ons, yes.

 

Of course, that's if those quoted figures are correct. I get the feeling they're estimates, tweaked to fit the point of an article, in the knowledge that the club/player don't want to get into the game of correcting them. Certainly these numbers are the high end of what we've been led to believe, which as I say is of a piece with the thrust of the article.

So we got £80m, its £85 with add ons. All this talk was that we didn't get the £80m because of add ons, but we did.

[turtmcfly]

6 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

So we got £80m, its £85 with add ons. All this talk was that we didn't get the £80m because of add ons, but we did.

 

 

 

I mean, again, yes, ish.

 

I'm going to admit to having a subscription to the Times. I'm wondering if that's why I'm the only one who seems capable of reading it 

 

     "Maguire cost United £85 million from Leicester City, with another £5 million in potential add-ons;"

 

 

So according to the article it's 90 million if we realise the add-ons

[Facecloth]

1 minute ago, turtmcfly said:

 

 

 

I mean, again, yes, ish.

 

I'm going to admit to having a subscription to the Times. I'm wondering if that's why I'm the only one who seems capable of reading it 

 

     "Maguire cost United £85 million from Leicester City, with another £5 million in potential add-ons;"

 

 

So according to the article it's 90 million if we realise the add-ons

Ah yes, my mistake. Still means we get more than £80m, and people were saying we were getting less. 

[The Bear]

On 06/10/2019 at 16:04, Tuna said:

@The Bear entering the thread like:

 

 

 

 

Edited 7 October 2019 by The Bear