250 million €

Yea, i think covid played a part in that, for sure... Few clubs were gonna be paying £100m when income was getting hit hard. Maybe why we are seeing some big names going for free.

I imagine normal stupidity will resume, soon enough.

comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - It's Beekers! (U2958)
posted 17 minutes ago
Yea, i think covid played a part in that, for sure... Few clubs were gonna be paying £100m when income was getting hit hard. Maybe why we are seeing some big names going for free.

I imagine normal stupidity will resume, soon enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This trend of running down contracts was started long before Covid, Wenger said about 10 yrs ago, it would go this way, when our players kept running their contracts down and going for free. It makes sense as a player though, why give a club your leaving £100 mil, which is going to decrease your wages and signing on fee, when you dont have to.

I always wondered why players didn’t run down contracts more often anyway. Obviously there’s an element of risk, a serious injury for example, or a loss in form, but the buyer not having a transfer fee can only be beneficial for the player.

comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - It's Beekers! (U2958)
posted 1 hour, 32 minutes ago
btw - running down a contract seems to be the trend now, for whatever reason. It's not just a UTD issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Its just the players, taking charge and maximising their value.

Clubs paying big fees should insist on 5+1 year contracts.

We have occasionally benefitted from players at other clubs running down their contracts, so being stung by the Pogba situation needs to be seen in the wider context of winning some / losing some.

It's also a fact that we are more often on the losing side of that dynamic because of our failings as an organisation. Pogba has disappointed. But he's still a player who is highly valued by the market because of his quite unique abilities, and in a situation where his contract has run down, he has various options (including staying at United) and he is choosing to go elsewhere, mainly because in his view other clubs can offer him something better than United. He probably looks back and thinks he could have achieved more over the last five years had he gone to a club with more stability, a stronger sense of its footballing vision and how it wanted to use him. Pogba failed at United but I think it's hard to argue against the idea that United also failed Pogba: we had a player who is one of the best in certain aspects of the game, mediocre in others, and in whom a huge amount of expenditure was tied up - yet we repeatedly failed to utilise his abilities and to mitigate his weaknesses. We spent that much money and we didn't have a plan how to use him effectively.

I think other players see this - not just what happened with Pogba but the broader lack of vision. That's why when fine players run their contracts down, we're more likely to be the victims of that situation than the beneficiaries. Players with choices will go to the clubs who offer them the best package - and if they care about their career development, United won't score highly in that assessment.

But yeah, I can see players trying to sign shorter contracts to allow them the freedom to move sooner rather than later if theg wish, rather than being held ransom (Kane)

comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 39 minutes ago
I always wondered why players didn’t run down contracts more often anyway. Obviously there’s an element of risk, a serious injury for example, or a loss in form, but the buyer not having a transfer fee can only be beneficial for the player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, globally, from the players’ perspective, it makes sense:

The less clubs are spending on transfer fees, the more they’re spending on signing fees (and, if they’re stupid, wages).

I think we’ll continue to see more contracts being run down and growing inflation in (already massive) signing fees and resigning bonuses, whilst wage inflation is a little better controlled.

RR

Simply put, we failed miserably to strengthen our other midfield areas to accommodate Pogba.

And don't get me started on the idiocy of playing 4-2-3-1.

We shirted it all make in back sales

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 hours, 45 minutes ago
RR

Simply put, we failed miserably to strengthen our other midfield areas to accommodate Pogba.

And don't get me started on the idiocy of playing 4-2-3-1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well that's about 1/3 of the issue. So that's a promising start from any poster on this forum. However, it isn't the only reason why the club struggled.

During his time at the club Pogba was United's most useful/valuable contributor, but he's not responsible for dickheads like mctominay, rashford, lindelof, coco, bailly, lingard, dalot, telles etc., being around him - and they are not all midfielders


And yes 4-2-3-1 is a pathetic shape for any club. Even more so for a club that is supposed to be aspirational.

Pogba was ALWAYS asked to play too deep because the back 5 behind him were often dreadful.

442 (or at worst 451) is the way to consistently win league games. And that is reliant on a more cohesive defensively competent back 5.

Without pogba in the squad - unless better can be found, and that will be extraordinarily difficult - and with Ronaldo being even older, then United will struggle to match this year's debacle