All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?
You may be right , you may be wrong ? - but Wilders legacy will always be the 2017 - 2019/20 seasons .
but his legacy is undisputed- surely
Agreed although might be a generation thing, the scary thing is those that have now just reached legal drinking age were 8 years old when Wilder first became our manager. 10 years is a long time in football and especially because of the Covid era which feels like a lifetime ago people do forget. But like anything there has to be a handover plan otherwise you end up appointing people like David Weir and Kevin Blackwell etcYou may be right , you may be wrong ? - but Wilders legacy will always be the 2017 - 2019/20 seasons .
What he did was unbelievable totally unbelievable. The proudest I have been to be a Blade since 1970 - 75 .
Wilder is and will always be a legend - maybe he is past it
Peck
It can only be assumed that we had to sell by the end of June( rather than wait for a better offer) due to the large drop in income for this season and to provide additional cashflow for the club
It's a sale you make when you have no other choice, it has to be done or bills won't get paid.
That would only be relevant if we absolutely needed to bring funds in during the financial year where we had parachute payments as opposed to the one where we didn't. Which would be completely backwards and never the actual case.
I don’t think anyone can reasonably say otherwise.You may be right , you may be wrong ? - but Wilders legacy will always be the 2017 - 2019/20 seasons .
What he did was unbelievable totally unbelievable. The proudest I have been to be a Blade since 1970 - 75 .
Wilder is and will always be a legend - maybe he is past it
I get that the point is you sell to a mid table rival ??
A combo of needing the money and the manager wanting rid woukd make that acceptable?
And wage demands which meant that it was sensible to cash in now
It's the same argument as Ndiaye. Wage demands aren't a thing until the contract expires so the choice is what is more valuable, the player for the season + the compensation for him leaving due to him coming through the academy or the cash now? Also, if United actually wanted him they'd have paid him with a view to selling him for a larger fee next summer.
I'd disagree on that because we have to meet financial restrictions this season, so it doesn't make sense to break the pay structure when we can also cash in nowIt's the same argument as Ndiaye. Wage demands aren't a thing until the contract expires so the choice is what is more valuable, the player for the season + the compensation for him leaving due to him coming through the academy or the cash now? Also, if United actually wanted him they'd have paid him with a view to selling him for a larger fee next summer.
The "he wanted paying so we had to sell him stuff" isn't a reason on it's own, otherwise players would move every summer.
United have decided Norwich have overpaid for him, and that he's not going to improve, despite showing huge improvement last season and being the only route to starting attacks. We'll see
The worst thing about it is that we’ve seemingly replaced him yet another youth loan player, so we’ll spend the season improving a player we can’t afford and end up next summer with another gap in the first 11 we won’t have the funds to upgrade.It's the same argument as Ndiaye. Wage demands aren't a thing until the contract expires so the choice is what is more valuable, the player for the season + the compensation for him leaving due to him coming through the academy or the cash now? Also, if United actually wanted him they'd have paid him with a view to selling him for a larger fee next summer.
The "he wanted paying so we had to sell him stuff" isn't a reason on it's own, otherwise players would move every summer.
United have decided Norwich have overpaid for him, and that he's not going to improve, despite showing huge improvement last season and being the only route to starting attacks. We'll see
So the choice becomes:
I think the club have decided they don't like him, either as a player, a person or both and have decided £9m is a huge overpay for him and they can replace him through a committee of Chong, Seriki, Donovan and a free agent yet to be signed.
It’s only an overpay if you can replace him for less. I don’t see anyone buying a player with similar ability or potential for less than £9m.I think the club have decided they don't like him, either as a player, a person or both and have decided £9m is a huge overpay for him and they can replace him through a committee of Chong, Seriki, Donovan and a free agent yet to be signed.
I disagree but, we'll find out
If I was United, and a team like Norwich who are funded on their continued ability to improve players and sell for a huge profit wanted your your PL level athlete, good technically 22yo who needs refinement for £9m, I'd think "they see a £20m+ player here, are we getting mugged off?"
I think the question I'd like to know is, does this cover everything we need or do we need to sell anyone else?
For all the bleating and woe is us losing Mussaba, Gassama and Bannan, this is merely because they had the need enforced upon them.
I think that's a post more about player trading and accepting your place in the hierarchy than whether the Brooks sale was financially required, desirable to the club/manager or both.
I guess that we don't have to sell anyone, but its whether selling others like Peck or Hamer will be sensible to maximise the money we can bring in for them
Episode 1,000 of "understaff your off field operations and find it almost impossible to do anything quickly or focus on more than one thing at once"
As fans. We don't know the calculation.
It’s an overpay only by Norwich if he doesn’t improve.
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?
