28 May 2015 13:52:38
With regard to Hazard I think the subsequent posters made my point, notwithstanding the predominance of disagree buttone. We were outbid, whether it was the transfer price, the wage or the agent's cut, a preference for playing in the capital as opposed to a provincial city, or a combination of all 4. As Danny pithily puts it "Chelsea sure have egg on their face now"
JMB, when did I ever say we were a mediocre club? What I said was we're no longer the only show in town. Other clubs have been outbidding us, and we're going to have to get real about the way the business works if we want to get the best talents into our club. It's not going to be as easy as a load of knee jerk reactions from the faithful going on about how we're the greatest club of all time. It's quite obvious we have been outmaneuvered in the transfer market for at least the last 5 years, paying too much for the wrong players, not getting rid of players when they still had a value, and overpaying mediocre ones on our books.
As for our football, that's another matter, because for the last couple of years it has frequently been no more than mediocre, which given the resources at our great club is a travesty in itself.
If you want to move forward you must first know where you are standing. Fergie had become a dinosaur - a T-Rex, I grant you, but a dinosaur none the less. One can only hope that Beast's belief that we have employed another one to replace Moyes, proves to be incorrect.
28 May 2015 14:21:38
Shaw - what you were getting at was saying that the lure of a club like Man Utd is no longer enough because players would rather eat crepes in Paris or have a cocktail under the shadow of Big Ben. The players who want to be champions will always be interested in a move to a club like United with a rich history and state of the art facilities.
We are a global brand, one of the top 3 commercial enterprises in soccer and you are trying to say the only selling point we have to top players is paying outrageous wages? Who do you think we are Man City? It's this type of mindset that has folk content with 4th place finishes.
28 May 2015 14:30:13
Players join clubs for a number of different reasons: the style of football, the manager, the city, the climate, the club's history and on and on.
The only universal language of football is money, and if you offer the club, the player and the agent the money, you're in with a shot. The issue with players like Hazard is we didn't give him a choice to make. We'll never know if the opportunity to play under SAF would swung it for him because we didn't stump up the cash. I'm fed up of the 'we don't buy stars, we make them' attitude. The clubs competing at the top level on a regular basis buy stars and make them into bigger stars.
Our attitude seems to have changed in the last three windows, and at least now if we lose out on a player it isn't because we were being tight.
28 May 2015 15:01:04
whats the big deal with why hazard chose chelsea? get over it
28 May 2015 15:50:14
Spb, the reason we're discussing Hazard is nothing to do with being "over it" but about the attitude our club has to the market in which it exists.
I am of the opinion that we have been living on our name for too long, and it's not enough - just ask the Liverpool fans.
Our club generates a fantastic income stream but over recent years it's gone to 2 things: excess debt repayment and servicing, and an inferior transfer policy, which I would contend was symptomatic of a hubristic attitude brought about by 25 years of success under 1 manager. Fortunately, as Danny says, that attitude appears to have changed. I'm sure last year was quite sobering to the powers that be.
At a club that generates the EBITDA United does, anything less than challenging for the league and a regular berth in the latter stages of the Champions League can only be chalked up to bad management.