17 Aug 2026 21:08:53
So we have Bruno at 31 in the last year of his contract and now he is suddenly subject to interest from Turkey that would double his pay. The club say not for sale. What is the betting the club will suddenly want to offer him a new 3 year contract at double what he is on with us?
It’s the age old game and previously the club fell for it, just look at Rashford.
I know you will tell me we must keep him at all costs but if we fall for the game, give him the contract, we are no better than when Woodward was in charge.
City are going to get £65m for Rodri and refresh with a younger player. Which direction are United going in?
17 Aug 2026 21:26:03
Redman,
It is quite concerning. However, I'll reserve judgement until the transfer window is closed.
17 Aug 2026 21:32:59
It should never have got to this point.
17 Aug 2026 21:45:17
Wouldn't trust these clowns to replace him with any money from a transfer if he leaves.
But rumours are circulating now that the reason for the lack of activity is that Wilcock is once again butting in and wants to go with what he sees rather than data.
Madness. They have a team dedicated to a role, and they are not following their advice.
17 Aug 2026 22:25:00
The problem is that Bruno is currently irreplaceable. Our entire attacking system is dependent upon him. For the past few seasons, it has often been the case that we can't create opportunities if Bruno isn't playing well.
I can understand why the club won't consider selling him. But this is a result of successive failures to develop an attacking system that isn't completely dependent on one player.
17 Aug 2026 22:40:16
Does make you wonder.
Ugarte for example. On paper, pre-injury, he's the type of player we're all saying we ought to be looking for. Sadly I think he's been misused at Utd. He's a dirty-work player, not a ball carrier or progressor.
Are the club reluctant to lay money on short-term fixes, and wait for him to come back and see how he does under Carrick?
Feels like too many cooks to me, in the club, and nobody is aligned.
Screams of a panic loan of someone late in the window.
18 Aug 2026 01:14:21
We had no problem attacking wise, when Bruno was not a creator in Amorim era, Danny. In fact, the metrics were better then than after Amorim in which Bruno went back to his number ten position and was our "creator".
18 Aug 2026 09:02:14
Yeah, let's push Bruno back again. That worked a treat, eh?
Didn't have a problem attacking, but had a massive one putting that spherical thing in that netty thing!
18 Aug 2026 10:23:24
You can't compare Bruno to Rashford. Bruno's stats are mad. He was EPL Player of the Year last year, and his contribution has been outstanding. Rashford was always streaky and had one very good season, absolutely no comparison.
We now have football people making the decision, not Woodward. Maybe we need to trust them.
18 Aug 2026 10:35:32
Ajh
So give him 400k a week until he is 35? Are we mad?
18 Aug 2026 11:36:36
Keefy, we had no problem, full stop, my friend.
We were creating more without him in the ten position, and were playing better, attacking wise, as a team. That's facts.
The conversion rate you speak (if I understand correctly) is a whole different matter.
18 Aug 2026 11:42:16
Red Man, one of the few times I agree. I wouldn't give him 400 a week, his best years are behind him. Players must be paid based on what they can bring, rather than the hype and what they have already brought in the past. These decisions, often enough, come back to bite you.
Good teams know when to let a player go and replace them. It would be a huge mistake to give such a contract to Bruno, without saying that he can't help for, say, 1-2 years. We would be better off building the team around a younger player.
18 Aug 2026 11:57:12
Lucky you're not deciding, Heaven.
18 Aug 2026 12:28:46
We have a plus one in his deal, which we could activate, meaning that, technically, he has two years (potentially) on his deal.
The club are negotiating a possible new deal, but if they can't negotiate a deal they feel represents value to the club, then they will either let him leave next summer on a free, or activate the one-year extension.
These are not the same people running the club, and making the decisions that the previous regime did. I doubt they will be offering a 31-year-old a 5-year deal on huge wages. It'll more likely be a 3-year deal (maybe even a 2 + 1) on a slight increase in wages (maybe performance related) to remove or increase the buy out option in his current deal.
18 Aug 2026 13:05:19
No chance he will be offered 400k per week, imo. Those silly days are behind us, hopefully, keeping players past their best on silly wages, and I've seen no suggestion of it. Trigger his extension next season and let him leave for free in 2 years at 33/4, no issue.
Can't understand why people get their knickers in a twist.
18 Aug 2026 17:10:06
Angelred, lucky I and you don't decide. But I think we can speak some facts, unless you want to be blinded, and speak only facts that suit you.
The facts say, under Amorim and without Bruno at 10, we were one of the best attacking teams. Bear in mind that the front three didn't come together at the time, but still we were better attacking-wise.
18 Aug 2026 20:08:49
I find the short minded nature of some fans hilarious.
Complaining about Bruno's age as if we haven't just finished a season where the 34-year-old Casemiro was one of our best and most important players.
While Casemiro's game relies far more on physicality (which will decline with age) than Bruno's game does.
With modern sports science, players are able to compete at the elite level for much longer than they used to.
Players like Messi, Ronaldo, Zlatan, Cavani, Modric, Lewandowski, and Harry Kane have all put in world-class seasons many times over after hitting the age of 30.
There is no reason whatsoever to suggest that Bruno cannot continue to be a top player for the next 3-4 years, maybe even longer.
32 is the new 27 in football now, it seems.
18 Aug 2026 20:56:43
Heaven, Goals win games. I couldn't give a rats how 'good' we look going forward. If the ball ain't in the net, it means nothing. That is the only stat that counts. FACT!
Yes, we had a slightly better creation rate with RA, but under Carrick we converted more goals per 90 mins, scored more per 90, and had more shots on target.