Manchester United discussion


Use our rumours form to send us manchester united transfer rumours.

(single word yields best result)
Single or recurring donation
If you have a question for Ed1, press the big button, but it is answered in a podcast in about 8 weeks time.

23 Feb 2020 08:17:46
Tyson fury. 👏👏👏 Bring the titles to OLD TRAFFORD 👍.

Agree1 Disagree0

23 Feb 2020 16:36:58
He should fight Joshua at old Trafford and not in saudi.

23 Feb 2020 20:35:01
Ooohhhh now your talking. What a fight that would be 👍👍👍.

21 feb 2020 15:32:50
things have just got a whole lot sweeter.

Agree0 Disagree0

21 Feb 2020 17:11:03
Did i miss anything.

{Ed047's Note - yes mate, your new sponsor is Cadbury’s 😉🤣

22 Feb 2020 03:43:58
Ed047, it is a global partnership with Mondelēz International - the company behind brands like Cadbury, Oreo, Toblerone, Milka and belVita, to be precise.

"Cadbury" is the official snack partner of the Premier League by the way.

{Ed047's Note - and there was me joking, cheers LPU

22 Feb 2020 05:44:18
Oh God, need to hide this from Shaw.

21 Feb 2020 14:05:06
I hated the idea of bringing in VAR because I feared it would remove all the controversy that makes football so special.

Little did I know that it would bring more controvsery than ever. What a brilliant invention to increase the excitement of football.

Even when you score a goal you have to wait a nervous few minutes to know if its a goal or not. How good was it the other night when Zouma started thumping the badge all pumped up only to find out that his goal was (in my opinion wrongly) disallowed by a system which was supposed to improve decision making.

Brilliant! You couldn't make it up.

Agree1 Disagree0

21 Feb 2020 21:26:28
Imagine Solskjaers winner in 99 or Cantona’s winner vs Liverpool I’m the FA cup final going to VAR. It’s a travesty that this had happened to football.

22 Feb 2020 09:50:05
I said some time ago on here and stand by it, VAR is the sterilisation of football. They are now considering a change to the offside law just to keep VAR going. I am old, not read the laws for many many years, but was it not written “in the referees opinion” . If there has to be VAR for offside, don’t change rules, put an electronic tracker in the chest of all players shirts and judge offside from that, so it isn’t about how big your feet are. For other decisions the actual ref should view the screen to retain the referees opinion position.

22 Feb 2020 12:23:42
The offside debate going on is crazy. You are either on or offside and that's the end of it. You can't be a little bit pregnant.

I think the VAR thing works best when the ref can see a monitor by the side of the pitch. However, I prefer it working badly because its more fun.

I didn't want it in the first place but if it must exist then at least they are making a complete balls up of it when helps keep the sterilisation as you call it, at bay.

20 Feb 2020 16:15:07
Some people are desperate to see our club out of the hands of the Glazer's. I myself often wish we had "better" owners. By that I mean a wishful dream of what I see as the perfect owner. Someone who will invest their own money into our club or at least not take the money the club earns out of it. Someone who'll invest in the facilities, the team and will make smart footballing decisions (or at least decisions I agree with) .

Some owners have been idolised, City's owners, PSG's owners. People who came in and built up the team. Made them a top side, invested in the facilities and the team.

You don't get something for nothing. The people who understand that best are those with billions sitting in their accounts.

These billionaires might well buy our club, they might well invest in our club. But they won't do it our of the goodness of their heart. They will have a plan, they will want something back. Be that to sell our club for a huge profit (unlikely with us), or to maximise income and minimise outgoings in order to earn as much money for themselves, or to use the club as a public front to normalise a brutal regime and to gain a foothold in the west and have a persona that covers the atrocities they are committing.

At some point the Glazer ownership will come to an end. But don't assume that it will be sunshine and lollipops from that point. We might be bought to be asset stripped, to fund a lavish lifestyle or with blood money. We won't know what it will cost us until it's too late.

Agree4 Disagree0

20 Feb 2020 21:49:10
Oh the drama Shappy. That’s assuming we’re sold to the Saudi’s or the likes of. There are plenty of club owners out there who aren’t committing heinous crimes against humanity, running their clubs into the ground or just doing it for a lavish life style, in fact they probably already have a fairly steady income if they are owners of a football club.
What about what’s going on up the road at Liverpool. The Fenway group don’t look like a bad bunch. Redbull? They’ve done ok by Salzburg, Leipzig and New York.
The 2 you’ve mentioned in PSG and City stand out because of the drastic change and massive financial input into the clubs. There are others who have done it gradually and aren’t being chased by governing bodies.

{Ed002's Note - PSG aren’t being chased.}

20 Feb 2020 22:32:05
No, you’re right Ed. Their investigation was dropped by UEFA. The point I was making was there are other types of owners who don’t bring the suspected corruption that seems to follow PSG and City.

Hasn’t the PSG president just had charges against him in Switzerland for bribery and rewarding media rights?

{Ed002's Note - No. The charge is not "bribery" but related to the provision of the loan of a property in Sardinia rent free to ease one of the bids for the TV rights for the World Cup.}

21 Feb 2020 14:00:06
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic Ed but the Cambridge dictionary defines bribery as "the crime of giving someone money or something else of value, often illegally, to persuade that person to do something you want"

{Ed002's Note - The charge is not one of "bribery" but one of "incitement".}

21 Feb 2020 19:27:15
The greasing of ones palm.

22 Feb 2020 12:24:44
Ah, good old semantics.

20 Feb 2020 08:37:17
Question: If VAR is too harsh on offside, such as the decision against Chelsea, then how far offside do you have to be.

For me, introducing a tolerance just kicks the can further down the road, either your onside or your offside no matter what the margin.

Agree2 Disagree0

20 Feb 2020 09:14:58
i don't think so, if we have the provision to look at it so closely why not get in to the minutest of details and get the right decision.

There can be improvements made and the referee must be allowed to use a screen himself on the sidelines. Having said that, its has killed a bit of fun from the game.

20 Feb 2020 10:13:20
The whole point of VAR is to over turn clear and obvious decisions. However, I feel that the controversy surrounding it in the build up has put a pressure on it to be infalable. This in turn has caused the biggest issue with VAR which is the long delays. These happen as the VAR official goes over and over a decision to make sure it is 100% correct. Even then they fail as some rules are open to interpretation.

I think the solution is to have a time limit on VAR. Maximum of a minute, if you can't tell within a minute which is enough time to look at it from at least two angles and in slow motion then it was neither a clear or obvious error.

As for offsides, I think the whole rule needs reviewing. First off the idea that a linesman at full speed can tell if an attackers toe is offside is frankly ridiculous. Secondly, the rules clearly state that if unsure then the advantage should be given to the attacking player. Yet linesman flag offside on marginal calls all the time, sometimes correctly others not. The point though is that they couldn't have been 100% certain that it was offside so they should have played the advantage to the attacker and not flagged. Yet when your only job is to flag offsides people will tend to want to be involved, so are likely to flag on those marginal calls.

Also I don't see how your toe being a couple of inches ahead of the defender really benefits the attacker. As an attacking player you will need to slow down and set yourself to shoot. The idea that the defending player can't make up that extra inch in that time is silly.

Either change the rules to daylight between the attacker and the defender or alternatively make every offside call be played on, then give them 30 seconds to review it on VAR with a clearer boundary of what includes offside.

20 Feb 2020 12:41:02
Agree with jrred. It's one or the other. No need to tweak and add marginal exceptions to the offside rule and make way for even more controversies in the future.

And why is there always a suggestion that if it's marginal then give it in favor of the attacking team. A decision should not be unfair to either team, especially when you are using technology. Imagine a team fighting for relegation and a marginal offside decision resulting in a goal goes in favor of the opposition, it will be totally unfair.

20 Feb 2020 13:19:40
Letsplay! United, In the rule book it says that unless you are totally sure the player is offside you shouldn't flag. That rule was written before the introduction of technology. The point is that as fans we all want to see goals. It's designed so that the linesman doesn't just flag every marginal call.

No team is relegated by one decision. It might be the goal that confirms relegation, yet each team plays 38 games. During which several marginal decisions will go both for you and against you.

20 Feb 2020 13:54:02
Shappy, what you say is fine as long as referees make the call themselves. Once technology comes into play you cannot get those marginal calls wrong anymore.

Fans wants to see goals for sure but not with controversies surrounding them. The decisions need not be unfair to the other team because it is marginal.

So, is it alright if a team gets relegated because of a marginal decision? It's not.

VAR is not yet perfect but with respect to the offside, I don't think there is any need for a change.

20 Feb 2020 15:53:24
I think the issue is VAR takes a long time when checking marginal offside calls. If a marginal offside takes 3 minutes to check and there are 3 marginal offsides in a game then 10% of the game time has been spent with checking 3 marginal decisions.

There has to be a rule change somewhere. Either to not check offside calls with VAR, or a change in what constitutes being offside in order to speed up the process when checking.

I like Arsene Wenger's idea of flipping the interpretation. Currently you are offside if any part of your body which you can score with is beyond the last man.
Wenger suggests saying you are inside as long as a part of your body you can score with is in line with the last man. For example if your trailing foot for example is in line with the last man then you are on side. But if only your hand is then you are offside.

20 Feb 2020 20:38:33
Thinking of Var and the fine, fine lines that offside is now based on, could Suarez' teeth literally now be the reason he's offside?

21 Feb 2020 07:04:05
RedD, has to be. Unless he tries to bite the ball within his reach which would then be considered violent conduct and result in him being sent off.

19 Feb 2020 23:35:30
Another bumper crowd at the council house.

Agree1 Disagree0

19 Feb 2020 18:50:18
Rashford done for the season then. Just hope he's not rushed back for the euros and injures himself again. Big miss for us, lucky we got a striker in when we did.

Agree2 Disagree0

20 Feb 2020 10:15:45
I had a feeling he would be when we signed Ingalo.

The club seemed to be waiting as long as possible to assess Rashford before making a loan move. Then right at the last minute they rushed through a deal.

At that point I think the club knew there was very little chance Rashford would play again this season.

20 Feb 2020 20:27:35
Well done ole.

19 Feb 2020 11:28:19
Totally off topic my fellow reds. I was having a read on the Liverpool page ( the phantom realm) which leads to this. Seldomly in football do you get a side who are very good on both sides of the pitch. Either one is very good at attacking or very good at defending. Why is it that Everytime the more defensive side wins a game, the fans/ supporters of the more attacking side, complain and refer to it as bus parking when they fail to break down that side and score. Why should I play to your strengths and leave myself open to attack.

Agree4 Disagree0

19 Feb 2020 12:54:34
Whilst there is merit in defending well, most fans want to see goals.

How many times have you jumped out of your seat and cheered a goal for United?

Now contrast that with how many times you jump out of your seat for a tackle or an interception?

I think if you spend 90 minutes watching a team kick your players, make tactical fouls and rarely if ever venture out of their own half it is boring and to all intents and purposes you might as well be watching an attack Vs defence training exercise rather than a football match.

I would love to see some sort of rule change that encourages more offensive play. Be that away wins are worth 4 points and home win worth 3, or at the end of the season for every goals you've scored in a season you get an extra point.

19 Feb 2020 13:01:45
St. Lucia - I think it comes down to intent. Liverpool are currently a much better team than Athletico therefore to have a chance of winning they had to be disciplined and well organised.

They scored a fortunate goal but then just decided to defend. They didn't appear to have a plan to attack and score another goal or even the inclination to do so. Even on the corner from which they scored they only committed four players into the box. It's a precarious tactic because had Liverpool scored its a different game and without something to hang onto the relentless pressure can break ever the most resilient teams.

In the second leg they will defend for their lives and won't be too concerned if they go a goal down. They will know that a quick counter attack, a set piece, a moment of individual brilliance or even a mistake will require Liverpool needing at least 2 possibly 3 goals to progress. They will come with a siege mentality and I don't think Liverpool with just blow them away like they've been able to do against more progressive teams such as Dortmund, City and Barcelona in recent seasons.

I think we can all admire a defensive masterclass and there is no correct way to play the game. Ultimately it's about winning and they managed to succeed in doing what no premier league team has done this season so they should be congratulated.

From a personal point of view it didn't make for a great spectacle and at the elite level is it enough to watch a team defend for virtually 90 minutes without any obvious plan or intent to score another goal. I can understand why Liverpool might feel frustrated but that's football and Liverpool must find a way of breaking down the red and white wall.

I think Liverpool will progress, just; but they may need extra time or penalties. Once thing is for sure Athletico won't change their tactics or panic if they go behind and why should they?!

19 Feb 2020 16:48:57
Of course liverpool will go through. Atletico will capitulate at Anfield.

19 Feb 2020 17:53:43
I fancy Madrid to score 1, if its enough we don't know until the night, but Simeone knows how to set up his team to not get scored against and Pool need to score. Maybe a goal on the counter.


Manchester United Rumours Discussion Posts 2

Manchester United Rumours Discussion Posts 3


Posting / Reply Form

To post you must be logged in with a username. Please Log In or Register for a username.






Posting / Reply Form

To post you must be logged in with a username. Please Log In or Register for a username.






Log In or Register to post

Remember me

Forgot Pass