posted 1 day, 7 hours ago
We've been badly run but Elanga was a good sale - not really a good fit in ETH's side or good enough quality to play regularly, brought in a good fee to join a team where he could play regular football. No way we could have got £45m for him at that time, unlikely we'd have developed him into a £45m player, and I understand we have a sell-om clause.
We need to sell more of our academy players at the right time, and contrary to popular opinion, if they do well in their subsequent career, that's a good outcome (for United as well as the player).
posted 1 day, 6 hours ago
Reply to o, echoing RR really, He wasn’t worth that when we sold him due to being unproven in the Prem.
He’s older, clearly more physically and mentally developed and closer to peak age than he was at our gaff.
posted 1 day, 6 hours ago
Look at what you coulda won.
If you had kept him and developed him you might have saved yourself the Antony problem
posted 1 day, 6 hours ago
Didn't play particularly well when he was being called not good enough for United by the media. So doubtful his contribution would have improved.
Probably benefitting from not being under the United spotlight.
posted 1 day, 6 hours ago
Also, the players we're looking at to improve our attack are ~£65m. At Elanga's age, bearing in mind his value is boosted by opportunity to sell at a good price at the end of his contract, that is also an indicator of his level.
posted 1 day, 6 hours ago
He'd be a decent converted wing back IMO.
posted 1 day, 6 hours ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 35 minutes ago
We've been badly run but Elanga was a good sale - not really a good fit in ETH's side or good enough quality to play regularly, brought in a good fee to join a team where he could play regular football. No way we could have got £45m for him at that time, unlikely we'd have developed him into a £45m player, and I understand we have a sell-om clause.
We need to sell more of our academy players at the right time, and contrary to popular opinion, if they do well in their subsequent career, that's a good outcome (for United as well as the player).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good sale? We signed Antony for 85m and sold Elanga for 15m.
Not quite sure how that constitutes a good sale RR. That's the very opposite if anything.
posted 1 day, 6 hours ago
OP your boys took one hell of a beating
And before anyone wets their silkys I’m not talking about United
posted 1 day, 6 hours ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 35 minutes ago
We've been badly run but Elanga was a good sale - not really a good fit in ETH's side or good enough quality to play regularly, brought in a good fee to join a team where he could play regular football. No way we could have got £45m for him at that time, unlikely we'd have developed him into a £45m player, and I understand we have a sell-om clause.
We need to sell more of our academy players at the right time, and contrary to popular opinion, if they do well in their subsequent career, that's a good outcome (for United as well as the player).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good sale? We signed Antony for 85m and sold Elanga for 15m.
Not quite sure how that constitutes a good sale RR. That's the very opposite if anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What the fack has Antony got to do with it?
£15m plus the sell on clause (undisclosed publicly, but rumoured to be 20-25%, which would put it in line with similar deals) was a decent deal for a player who really looked like he wasn’t going to cut it at OT and nobody - at all - saw having a season like his last (which has also been blown out of proportion by some).
If he goes now for, say, £50m, we’ll have brought in something in the region of £25m for a player who would never have got the minutes in order to develop into the player that he’s now become if he’d stayed at United.
posted 1 day, 5 hours ago
comment by EVERYTHING’S POTE! (U17054)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 35 minutes ago
We've been badly run but Elanga was a good sale - not really a good fit in ETH's side or good enough quality to play regularly, brought in a good fee to join a team where he could play regular football. No way we could have got £45m for him at that time, unlikely we'd have developed him into a £45m player, and I understand we have a sell-om clause.
We need to sell more of our academy players at the right time, and contrary to popular opinion, if they do well in their subsequent career, that's a good outcome (for United as well as the player).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good sale? We signed Antony for 85m and sold Elanga for 15m.
Not quite sure how that constitutes a good sale RR. That's the very opposite if anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What the fack has Antony got to do with it?
£15m plus the sell on clause (undisclosed publicly, but rumoured to be 20-25%, which would put it in line with similar deals) was a decent deal for a player who really looked like he wasn’t going to cut it at OT and nobody - at all - saw having a season like his last (which has also been blown out of proportion by some).
If he goes now for, say, £50m, we’ll have brought in something in the region of £25m for a player who would never have got the minutes in order to develop into the player that he’s now become if he’d stayed at United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Blown out of proportion? He was their second best player arguably.
Probably heading to Newcastle to contribute easily to 15-20 GA.
That is about the numbers you should expect from Cunha.
He was never going to cut it here because we are a shiiiit show club from top to bottom.
The lad hardly got any opportunities. Probably Amad was heading the same way if they did not sack the bald fraud.
You would be here saying about the same regarding Amad.
posted 1 day, 5 hours ago
comment by EVERYTHING’S POTE! (U17054)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 35 minutes ago
We've been badly run but Elanga was a good sale - not really a good fit in ETH's side or good enough quality to play regularly, brought in a good fee to join a team where he could play regular football. No way we could have got £45m for him at that time, unlikely we'd have developed him into a £45m player, and I understand we have a sell-om clause.
We need to sell more of our academy players at the right time, and contrary to popular opinion, if they do well in their subsequent career, that's a good outcome (for United as well as the player).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good sale? We signed Antony for 85m and sold Elanga for 15m.
Not quite sure how that constitutes a good sale RR. That's the very opposite if anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What the fack has Antony got to do with it?
£15m plus the sell on clause (undisclosed publicly, but rumoured to be 20-25%, which would put it in line with similar deals) was a decent deal for a player who really looked like he wasn’t going to cut it at OT and nobody - at all - saw having a season like his last (which has also been blown out of proportion by some).
If he goes now for, say, £50m, we’ll have brought in something in the region of £25m for a player who would never have got the minutes in order to develop into the player that he’s now become if he’d stayed at United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because ETH signed Antony very close to when the club sold Elanga and they play in very similar positions off the right.
Didn't need Sherlock to solve that one mate. Hahaha
posted 1 day, 5 hours ago
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 30 minutes ago
OP your boys took one hell of a beating
And before anyone wets their silkys I’m not talking about United
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Couldn’t believe it but well done to the Dubs. Thoroughly deserved. Hope ye can show up again next weekend.
posted 1 day, 5 hours ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 30 minutes ago
OP your boys took one hell of a beating
And before anyone wets their silkys I’m not talking about United
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Couldn’t believe it but well done to the Dubs. Thoroughly deserved. Hope ye can show up again next weekend.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Same here mate but not confident, think cork will win the whole thing
posted 1 day, 5 hours ago
comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by EVERYTHING’S POTE! (U17054)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 35 minutes ago
We've been badly run but Elanga was a good sale - not really a good fit in ETH's side or good enough quality to play regularly, brought in a good fee to join a team where he could play regular football. No way we could have got £45m for him at that time, unlikely we'd have developed him into a £45m player, and I understand we have a sell-om clause.
We need to sell more of our academy players at the right time, and contrary to popular opinion, if they do well in their subsequent career, that's a good outcome (for United as well as the player).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good sale? We signed Antony for 85m and sold Elanga for 15m.
Not quite sure how that constitutes a good sale RR. That's the very opposite if anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What the fack has Antony got to do with it?
£15m plus the sell on clause (undisclosed publicly, but rumoured to be 20-25%, which would put it in line with similar deals) was a decent deal for a player who really looked like he wasn’t going to cut it at OT and nobody - at all - saw having a season like his last (which has also been blown out of proportion by some).
If he goes now for, say, £50m, we’ll have brought in something in the region of £25m for a player who would never have got the minutes in order to develop into the player that he’s now become if he’d stayed at United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Blown out of proportion? He was their second best player arguably.
Probably heading to Newcastle to contribute easily to 15-20 GA.
That is about the numbers you should expect from Cunha.
He was never going to cut it here because we are a shiiiit show club from top to bottom.
The lad hardly got any opportunities. Probably Amad was heading the same way if they did not sack the bald fraud.
You would be here saying about the same regarding Amad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They’re completely different players, with completely different games and skill sets.
Elanga is doing well because he’s playing in a team which sits very deep and is entirely dependent on counterattacking football (3rd lowest possession in the league vs United’s 6th highest; 3rd highest proportion of counterattacks to total attacking actions).
Forest are the second quickest side in the PL at getting the ball up the pitch and have the second lowest number of passes per sequence (both from Opta), which is perfect for him: he has space to run into with his immense pace and doesn't need to rely on his questionable close control, decisionmaking or linkup play.
Basically, if he’d stayed at United, he’d have struggled the same way that Rashford has (and he isn’t as good as Rashford) since we’ve started shifting to a more possession-based game.
If we still had Ole in charge, he’d probably be useful. Under ETH or Amorim or LVG, not really.
posted 1 day, 5 hours ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by EVERYTHING’S POTE! (U17054)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 35 minutes ago
We've been badly run but Elanga was a good sale - not really a good fit in ETH's side or good enough quality to play regularly, brought in a good fee to join a team where he could play regular football. No way we could have got £45m for him at that time, unlikely we'd have developed him into a £45m player, and I understand we have a sell-om clause.
We need to sell more of our academy players at the right time, and contrary to popular opinion, if they do well in their subsequent career, that's a good outcome (for United as well as the player).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good sale? We signed Antony for 85m and sold Elanga for 15m.
Not quite sure how that constitutes a good sale RR. That's the very opposite if anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What the fack has Antony got to do with it?
£15m plus the sell on clause (undisclosed publicly, but rumoured to be 20-25%, which would put it in line with similar deals) was a decent deal for a player who really looked like he wasn’t going to cut it at OT and nobody - at all - saw having a season like his last (which has also been blown out of proportion by some).
If he goes now for, say, £50m, we’ll have brought in something in the region of £25m for a player who would never have got the minutes in order to develop into the player that he’s now become if he’d stayed at United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because ETH signed Antony very close to when the club sold Elanga and they play in very similar positions off the right.
Didn't need Sherlock to solve that one mate. Hahaha
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think we wouldn’t have bought Antony if we’d have kept Elanga?
Do you think we should have settled with Elanga on the right?
posted 1 day, 5 hours ago
comment by EVERYTHING’S POTE! (U17054)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by EVERYTHING’S POTE! (U17054)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 35 minutes ago
We've been badly run but Elanga was a good sale - not really a good fit in ETH's side or good enough quality to play regularly, brought in a good fee to join a team where he could play regular football. No way we could have got £45m for him at that time, unlikely we'd have developed him into a £45m player, and I understand we have a sell-om clause.
We need to sell more of our academy players at the right time, and contrary to popular opinion, if they do well in their subsequent career, that's a good outcome (for United as well as the player).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good sale? We signed Antony for 85m and sold Elanga for 15m.
Not quite sure how that constitutes a good sale RR. That's the very opposite if anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What the fack has Antony got to do with it?
£15m plus the sell on clause (undisclosed publicly, but rumoured to be 20-25%, which would put it in line with similar deals) was a decent deal for a player who really looked like he wasn’t going to cut it at OT and nobody - at all - saw having a season like his last (which has also been blown out of proportion by some).
If he goes now for, say, £50m, we’ll have brought in something in the region of £25m for a player who would never have got the minutes in order to develop into the player that he’s now become if he’d stayed at United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because ETH signed Antony very close to when the club sold Elanga and they play in very similar positions off the right.
Didn't need Sherlock to solve that one mate. Hahaha
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think we wouldn’t have bought Antony if we’d have kept Elanga?
Do you think we should have settled with Elanga on the right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not what I'm saying but usually the player you sign you'd hope was better. And when he costs 85m you'd hope he's miles better.
I think Elanga is the better player of the two.
posted 1 day, 5 hours ago
If we’re on the Elanga vs Cunha comparisons, Elanga notched 17 G+A in 38 PL appearances last season (0.45 per game) in what was a breakout season for him.
Cunha racked up 21 G+A in 33 appearances (0.64 per game) having contributed almost exactly the same figures the previous season. In a worse side. And in a role which actually suits our setup.
posted 1 day, 5 hours ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by EVERYTHING’S POTE! (U17054)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by EVERYTHING’S POTE! (U17054)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 35 minutes ago
We've been badly run but Elanga was a good sale - not really a good fit in ETH's side or good enough quality to play regularly, brought in a good fee to join a team where he could play regular football. No way we could have got £45m for him at that time, unlikely we'd have developed him into a £45m player, and I understand we have a sell-om clause.
We need to sell more of our academy players at the right time, and contrary to popular opinion, if they do well in their subsequent career, that's a good outcome (for United as well as the player).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good sale? We signed Antony for 85m and sold Elanga for 15m.
Not quite sure how that constitutes a good sale RR. That's the very opposite if anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What the fack has Antony got to do with it?
£15m plus the sell on clause (undisclosed publicly, but rumoured to be 20-25%, which would put it in line with similar deals) was a decent deal for a player who really looked like he wasn’t going to cut it at OT and nobody - at all - saw having a season like his last (which has also been blown out of proportion by some).
If he goes now for, say, £50m, we’ll have brought in something in the region of £25m for a player who would never have got the minutes in order to develop into the player that he’s now become if he’d stayed at United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because ETH signed Antony very close to when the club sold Elanga and they play in very similar positions off the right.
Didn't need Sherlock to solve that one mate. Hahaha
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think we wouldn’t have bought Antony if we’d have kept Elanga?
Do you think we should have settled with Elanga on the right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not what I'm saying but usually the player you sign you'd hope was better. And when he costs 85m you'd hope he's miles better.
I think Elanga is the better player of the two.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the sale of Elanga is unrelated to the purchase of Antony. Antony wasn’t bought to replace Elanga.
It’s like complaining that you made a mistake in throwing out your old snow shoes, because the flip flops you subsequently bought are no good.
posted 1 day, 5 hours ago
(And we actually bought Antony a year before we sold Elanga, didn’t we?)
posted 1 day, 5 hours ago
Cunha and Mbuemo should do well for us but I think we need to be realistic about their output. They are going from a small pond to a big pond with far more pressure and won't be taking penalties.
I'd expect their output to decrease a little from the
seasons they have just had. However even if they are just 10-15% down on last season it will still be a huge improvement on what we had last season.
posted 1 day, 5 hours ago
comment by EVERYTHING’S POTE! (U17054)
posted 3 minutes ago
(And we actually bought Antony a year before we sold Elanga, didn’t we?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He went there on loan first. So it was 5 months after the season started with Antony signing first. Clearly wasn't room for the two of them..
posted 1 day, 4 hours ago
comment by EVERYTHING’S POTE! (U17054)
posted 16 minutes ago
If we’re on the Elanga vs Cunha comparisons, Elanga notched 17 G+A in 38 PL appearances last season (0.45 per game) in what was a breakout season for him.
Cunha racked up 21 G+A in 33 appearances (0.64 per game) having contributed almost exactly the same figures the previous season. In a worse side. And in a role which actually suits our setup.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for confirming similar numbers.
Elanga is 23. Heading to a better team. Playing under a manager who has shown he can get the best out of his players.
Bearing in mind how poor we were, I find it bizarre the arrogance our fan base still have bearing in mind he is heading to a club playing their trade in the champions league.
Yeah right he won’t cut it at 15th place Manchester United. He went on to bigger things!
Wake up
posted 1 day, 4 hours ago
comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by EVERYTHING’S POTE! (U17054)
posted 16 minutes ago
If we’re on the Elanga vs Cunha comparisons, Elanga notched 17 G+A in 38 PL appearances last season (0.45 per game) in what was a breakout season for him.
Cunha racked up 21 G+A in 33 appearances (0.64 per game) having contributed almost exactly the same figures the previous season. In a worse side. And in a role which actually suits our setup.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for confirming similar numbers.
Elanga is 23. Heading to a better team. Playing under a manager who has shown he can get the best out of his players.
Bearing in mind how poor we were, I find it bizarre the arrogance our fan base still have bearing in mind he is heading to a club playing their trade in the champions league.
Yeah right he won’t cut it at 15th place Manchester United. He went on to bigger things!
Wake up
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CL or no CL. Playing for Manchester United invites more pressure than any other club in the league. That is a fact.
posted 1 day, 4 hours ago
£45m for Elanga.
posted 1 day, 4 hours ago
comment by Ali - 🇪🇦 🏴 (U1192)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by EVERYTHING’S POTE! (U17054)
posted 16 minutes ago
If we’re on the Elanga vs Cunha comparisons, Elanga notched 17 G+A in 38 PL appearances last season (0.45 per game) in what was a breakout season for him.
Cunha racked up 21 G+A in 33 appearances (0.64 per game) having contributed almost exactly the same figures the previous season. In a worse side. And in a role which actually suits our setup.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for confirming similar numbers.
Elanga is 23. Heading to a better team. Playing under a manager who has shown he can get the best out of his players.
Bearing in mind how poor we were, I find it bizarre the arrogance our fan base still have bearing in mind he is heading to a club playing their trade in the champions league.
Yeah right he won’t cut it at 15th place Manchester United. He went on to bigger things!
Wake up
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CL or no CL. Playing for Manchester United invites more pressure than any other club in the league. That is a fact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He never got given a fair chance to perform. Whilst Antony given ample chance to stink the joint.
I am not sure the relevance of this point. Elanga never struggled because of expectations. He never got going in the first place due to limited chances.
Sign in if you want to comment
Forest reject £45 mill for Elanga
Page 1 of 4
posted 1 day, 7 hours ago
We've been badly run but Elanga was a good sale - not really a good fit in ETH's side or good enough quality to play regularly, brought in a good fee to join a team where he could play regular football. No way we could have got £45m for him at that time, unlikely we'd have developed him into a £45m player, and I understand we have a sell-om clause.
We need to sell more of our academy players at the right time, and contrary to popular opinion, if they do well in their subsequent career, that's a good outcome (for United as well as the player).
posted 1 day, 6 hours ago
Reply to o, echoing RR really, He wasn’t worth that when we sold him due to being unproven in the Prem.
He’s older, clearly more physically and mentally developed and closer to peak age than he was at our gaff.
posted 1 day, 6 hours ago
Look at what you coulda won.
If you had kept him and developed him you might have saved yourself the Antony problem
posted 1 day, 6 hours ago
Didn't play particularly well when he was being called not good enough for United by the media. So doubtful his contribution would have improved.
Probably benefitting from not being under the United spotlight.
posted 1 day, 6 hours ago
Also, the players we're looking at to improve our attack are ~£65m. At Elanga's age, bearing in mind his value is boosted by opportunity to sell at a good price at the end of his contract, that is also an indicator of his level.
posted 1 day, 6 hours ago
He'd be a decent converted wing back IMO.
posted 1 day, 6 hours ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 35 minutes ago
We've been badly run but Elanga was a good sale - not really a good fit in ETH's side or good enough quality to play regularly, brought in a good fee to join a team where he could play regular football. No way we could have got £45m for him at that time, unlikely we'd have developed him into a £45m player, and I understand we have a sell-om clause.
We need to sell more of our academy players at the right time, and contrary to popular opinion, if they do well in their subsequent career, that's a good outcome (for United as well as the player).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good sale? We signed Antony for 85m and sold Elanga for 15m.
Not quite sure how that constitutes a good sale RR. That's the very opposite if anything.
posted 1 day, 6 hours ago
OP your boys took one hell of a beating
And before anyone wets their silkys I’m not talking about United
posted 1 day, 6 hours ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 35 minutes ago
We've been badly run but Elanga was a good sale - not really a good fit in ETH's side or good enough quality to play regularly, brought in a good fee to join a team where he could play regular football. No way we could have got £45m for him at that time, unlikely we'd have developed him into a £45m player, and I understand we have a sell-om clause.
We need to sell more of our academy players at the right time, and contrary to popular opinion, if they do well in their subsequent career, that's a good outcome (for United as well as the player).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good sale? We signed Antony for 85m and sold Elanga for 15m.
Not quite sure how that constitutes a good sale RR. That's the very opposite if anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What the fack has Antony got to do with it?
£15m plus the sell on clause (undisclosed publicly, but rumoured to be 20-25%, which would put it in line with similar deals) was a decent deal for a player who really looked like he wasn’t going to cut it at OT and nobody - at all - saw having a season like his last (which has also been blown out of proportion by some).
If he goes now for, say, £50m, we’ll have brought in something in the region of £25m for a player who would never have got the minutes in order to develop into the player that he’s now become if he’d stayed at United.
posted 1 day, 5 hours ago
comment by EVERYTHING’S POTE! (U17054)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 35 minutes ago
We've been badly run but Elanga was a good sale - not really a good fit in ETH's side or good enough quality to play regularly, brought in a good fee to join a team where he could play regular football. No way we could have got £45m for him at that time, unlikely we'd have developed him into a £45m player, and I understand we have a sell-om clause.
We need to sell more of our academy players at the right time, and contrary to popular opinion, if they do well in their subsequent career, that's a good outcome (for United as well as the player).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good sale? We signed Antony for 85m and sold Elanga for 15m.
Not quite sure how that constitutes a good sale RR. That's the very opposite if anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What the fack has Antony got to do with it?
£15m plus the sell on clause (undisclosed publicly, but rumoured to be 20-25%, which would put it in line with similar deals) was a decent deal for a player who really looked like he wasn’t going to cut it at OT and nobody - at all - saw having a season like his last (which has also been blown out of proportion by some).
If he goes now for, say, £50m, we’ll have brought in something in the region of £25m for a player who would never have got the minutes in order to develop into the player that he’s now become if he’d stayed at United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Blown out of proportion? He was their second best player arguably.
Probably heading to Newcastle to contribute easily to 15-20 GA.
That is about the numbers you should expect from Cunha.
He was never going to cut it here because we are a shiiiit show club from top to bottom.
The lad hardly got any opportunities. Probably Amad was heading the same way if they did not sack the bald fraud.
You would be here saying about the same regarding Amad.
posted 1 day, 5 hours ago
comment by EVERYTHING’S POTE! (U17054)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 35 minutes ago
We've been badly run but Elanga was a good sale - not really a good fit in ETH's side or good enough quality to play regularly, brought in a good fee to join a team where he could play regular football. No way we could have got £45m for him at that time, unlikely we'd have developed him into a £45m player, and I understand we have a sell-om clause.
We need to sell more of our academy players at the right time, and contrary to popular opinion, if they do well in their subsequent career, that's a good outcome (for United as well as the player).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good sale? We signed Antony for 85m and sold Elanga for 15m.
Not quite sure how that constitutes a good sale RR. That's the very opposite if anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What the fack has Antony got to do with it?
£15m plus the sell on clause (undisclosed publicly, but rumoured to be 20-25%, which would put it in line with similar deals) was a decent deal for a player who really looked like he wasn’t going to cut it at OT and nobody - at all - saw having a season like his last (which has also been blown out of proportion by some).
If he goes now for, say, £50m, we’ll have brought in something in the region of £25m for a player who would never have got the minutes in order to develop into the player that he’s now become if he’d stayed at United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because ETH signed Antony very close to when the club sold Elanga and they play in very similar positions off the right.
Didn't need Sherlock to solve that one mate. Hahaha
posted 1 day, 5 hours ago
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 30 minutes ago
OP your boys took one hell of a beating
And before anyone wets their silkys I’m not talking about United
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Couldn’t believe it but well done to the Dubs. Thoroughly deserved. Hope ye can show up again next weekend.
posted 1 day, 5 hours ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 30 minutes ago
OP your boys took one hell of a beating
And before anyone wets their silkys I’m not talking about United
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Couldn’t believe it but well done to the Dubs. Thoroughly deserved. Hope ye can show up again next weekend.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Same here mate but not confident, think cork will win the whole thing
posted 1 day, 5 hours ago
comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by EVERYTHING’S POTE! (U17054)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 35 minutes ago
We've been badly run but Elanga was a good sale - not really a good fit in ETH's side or good enough quality to play regularly, brought in a good fee to join a team where he could play regular football. No way we could have got £45m for him at that time, unlikely we'd have developed him into a £45m player, and I understand we have a sell-om clause.
We need to sell more of our academy players at the right time, and contrary to popular opinion, if they do well in their subsequent career, that's a good outcome (for United as well as the player).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good sale? We signed Antony for 85m and sold Elanga for 15m.
Not quite sure how that constitutes a good sale RR. That's the very opposite if anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What the fack has Antony got to do with it?
£15m plus the sell on clause (undisclosed publicly, but rumoured to be 20-25%, which would put it in line with similar deals) was a decent deal for a player who really looked like he wasn’t going to cut it at OT and nobody - at all - saw having a season like his last (which has also been blown out of proportion by some).
If he goes now for, say, £50m, we’ll have brought in something in the region of £25m for a player who would never have got the minutes in order to develop into the player that he’s now become if he’d stayed at United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Blown out of proportion? He was their second best player arguably.
Probably heading to Newcastle to contribute easily to 15-20 GA.
That is about the numbers you should expect from Cunha.
He was never going to cut it here because we are a shiiiit show club from top to bottom.
The lad hardly got any opportunities. Probably Amad was heading the same way if they did not sack the bald fraud.
You would be here saying about the same regarding Amad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They’re completely different players, with completely different games and skill sets.
Elanga is doing well because he’s playing in a team which sits very deep and is entirely dependent on counterattacking football (3rd lowest possession in the league vs United’s 6th highest; 3rd highest proportion of counterattacks to total attacking actions).
Forest are the second quickest side in the PL at getting the ball up the pitch and have the second lowest number of passes per sequence (both from Opta), which is perfect for him: he has space to run into with his immense pace and doesn't need to rely on his questionable close control, decisionmaking or linkup play.
Basically, if he’d stayed at United, he’d have struggled the same way that Rashford has (and he isn’t as good as Rashford) since we’ve started shifting to a more possession-based game.
If we still had Ole in charge, he’d probably be useful. Under ETH or Amorim or LVG, not really.
posted 1 day, 5 hours ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by EVERYTHING’S POTE! (U17054)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 35 minutes ago
We've been badly run but Elanga was a good sale - not really a good fit in ETH's side or good enough quality to play regularly, brought in a good fee to join a team where he could play regular football. No way we could have got £45m for him at that time, unlikely we'd have developed him into a £45m player, and I understand we have a sell-om clause.
We need to sell more of our academy players at the right time, and contrary to popular opinion, if they do well in their subsequent career, that's a good outcome (for United as well as the player).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good sale? We signed Antony for 85m and sold Elanga for 15m.
Not quite sure how that constitutes a good sale RR. That's the very opposite if anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What the fack has Antony got to do with it?
£15m plus the sell on clause (undisclosed publicly, but rumoured to be 20-25%, which would put it in line with similar deals) was a decent deal for a player who really looked like he wasn’t going to cut it at OT and nobody - at all - saw having a season like his last (which has also been blown out of proportion by some).
If he goes now for, say, £50m, we’ll have brought in something in the region of £25m for a player who would never have got the minutes in order to develop into the player that he’s now become if he’d stayed at United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because ETH signed Antony very close to when the club sold Elanga and they play in very similar positions off the right.
Didn't need Sherlock to solve that one mate. Hahaha
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think we wouldn’t have bought Antony if we’d have kept Elanga?
Do you think we should have settled with Elanga on the right?
posted 1 day, 5 hours ago
comment by EVERYTHING’S POTE! (U17054)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by EVERYTHING’S POTE! (U17054)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 35 minutes ago
We've been badly run but Elanga was a good sale - not really a good fit in ETH's side or good enough quality to play regularly, brought in a good fee to join a team where he could play regular football. No way we could have got £45m for him at that time, unlikely we'd have developed him into a £45m player, and I understand we have a sell-om clause.
We need to sell more of our academy players at the right time, and contrary to popular opinion, if they do well in their subsequent career, that's a good outcome (for United as well as the player).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good sale? We signed Antony for 85m and sold Elanga for 15m.
Not quite sure how that constitutes a good sale RR. That's the very opposite if anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What the fack has Antony got to do with it?
£15m plus the sell on clause (undisclosed publicly, but rumoured to be 20-25%, which would put it in line with similar deals) was a decent deal for a player who really looked like he wasn’t going to cut it at OT and nobody - at all - saw having a season like his last (which has also been blown out of proportion by some).
If he goes now for, say, £50m, we’ll have brought in something in the region of £25m for a player who would never have got the minutes in order to develop into the player that he’s now become if he’d stayed at United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because ETH signed Antony very close to when the club sold Elanga and they play in very similar positions off the right.
Didn't need Sherlock to solve that one mate. Hahaha
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think we wouldn’t have bought Antony if we’d have kept Elanga?
Do you think we should have settled with Elanga on the right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not what I'm saying but usually the player you sign you'd hope was better. And when he costs 85m you'd hope he's miles better.
I think Elanga is the better player of the two.
posted 1 day, 5 hours ago
If we’re on the Elanga vs Cunha comparisons, Elanga notched 17 G+A in 38 PL appearances last season (0.45 per game) in what was a breakout season for him.
Cunha racked up 21 G+A in 33 appearances (0.64 per game) having contributed almost exactly the same figures the previous season. In a worse side. And in a role which actually suits our setup.
posted 1 day, 5 hours ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by EVERYTHING’S POTE! (U17054)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by EVERYTHING’S POTE! (U17054)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 35 minutes ago
We've been badly run but Elanga was a good sale - not really a good fit in ETH's side or good enough quality to play regularly, brought in a good fee to join a team where he could play regular football. No way we could have got £45m for him at that time, unlikely we'd have developed him into a £45m player, and I understand we have a sell-om clause.
We need to sell more of our academy players at the right time, and contrary to popular opinion, if they do well in their subsequent career, that's a good outcome (for United as well as the player).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good sale? We signed Antony for 85m and sold Elanga for 15m.
Not quite sure how that constitutes a good sale RR. That's the very opposite if anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What the fack has Antony got to do with it?
£15m plus the sell on clause (undisclosed publicly, but rumoured to be 20-25%, which would put it in line with similar deals) was a decent deal for a player who really looked like he wasn’t going to cut it at OT and nobody - at all - saw having a season like his last (which has also been blown out of proportion by some).
If he goes now for, say, £50m, we’ll have brought in something in the region of £25m for a player who would never have got the minutes in order to develop into the player that he’s now become if he’d stayed at United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because ETH signed Antony very close to when the club sold Elanga and they play in very similar positions off the right.
Didn't need Sherlock to solve that one mate. Hahaha
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think we wouldn’t have bought Antony if we’d have kept Elanga?
Do you think we should have settled with Elanga on the right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not what I'm saying but usually the player you sign you'd hope was better. And when he costs 85m you'd hope he's miles better.
I think Elanga is the better player of the two.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the sale of Elanga is unrelated to the purchase of Antony. Antony wasn’t bought to replace Elanga.
It’s like complaining that you made a mistake in throwing out your old snow shoes, because the flip flops you subsequently bought are no good.
posted 1 day, 5 hours ago
(And we actually bought Antony a year before we sold Elanga, didn’t we?)
posted 1 day, 5 hours ago
Cunha and Mbuemo should do well for us but I think we need to be realistic about their output. They are going from a small pond to a big pond with far more pressure and won't be taking penalties.
I'd expect their output to decrease a little from the
seasons they have just had. However even if they are just 10-15% down on last season it will still be a huge improvement on what we had last season.
posted 1 day, 5 hours ago
comment by EVERYTHING’S POTE! (U17054)
posted 3 minutes ago
(And we actually bought Antony a year before we sold Elanga, didn’t we?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He went there on loan first. So it was 5 months after the season started with Antony signing first. Clearly wasn't room for the two of them..
posted 1 day, 4 hours ago
comment by EVERYTHING’S POTE! (U17054)
posted 16 minutes ago
If we’re on the Elanga vs Cunha comparisons, Elanga notched 17 G+A in 38 PL appearances last season (0.45 per game) in what was a breakout season for him.
Cunha racked up 21 G+A in 33 appearances (0.64 per game) having contributed almost exactly the same figures the previous season. In a worse side. And in a role which actually suits our setup.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for confirming similar numbers.
Elanga is 23. Heading to a better team. Playing under a manager who has shown he can get the best out of his players.
Bearing in mind how poor we were, I find it bizarre the arrogance our fan base still have bearing in mind he is heading to a club playing their trade in the champions league.
Yeah right he won’t cut it at 15th place Manchester United. He went on to bigger things!
Wake up
posted 1 day, 4 hours ago
comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by EVERYTHING’S POTE! (U17054)
posted 16 minutes ago
If we’re on the Elanga vs Cunha comparisons, Elanga notched 17 G+A in 38 PL appearances last season (0.45 per game) in what was a breakout season for him.
Cunha racked up 21 G+A in 33 appearances (0.64 per game) having contributed almost exactly the same figures the previous season. In a worse side. And in a role which actually suits our setup.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for confirming similar numbers.
Elanga is 23. Heading to a better team. Playing under a manager who has shown he can get the best out of his players.
Bearing in mind how poor we were, I find it bizarre the arrogance our fan base still have bearing in mind he is heading to a club playing their trade in the champions league.
Yeah right he won’t cut it at 15th place Manchester United. He went on to bigger things!
Wake up
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CL or no CL. Playing for Manchester United invites more pressure than any other club in the league. That is a fact.
posted 1 day, 4 hours ago
£45m for Elanga.
posted 1 day, 4 hours ago
comment by Ali - 🇪🇦 🏴 (U1192)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by EVERYTHING’S POTE! (U17054)
posted 16 minutes ago
If we’re on the Elanga vs Cunha comparisons, Elanga notched 17 G+A in 38 PL appearances last season (0.45 per game) in what was a breakout season for him.
Cunha racked up 21 G+A in 33 appearances (0.64 per game) having contributed almost exactly the same figures the previous season. In a worse side. And in a role which actually suits our setup.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for confirming similar numbers.
Elanga is 23. Heading to a better team. Playing under a manager who has shown he can get the best out of his players.
Bearing in mind how poor we were, I find it bizarre the arrogance our fan base still have bearing in mind he is heading to a club playing their trade in the champions league.
Yeah right he won’t cut it at 15th place Manchester United. He went on to bigger things!
Wake up
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CL or no CL. Playing for Manchester United invites more pressure than any other club in the league. That is a fact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He never got given a fair chance to perform. Whilst Antony given ample chance to stink the joint.
I am not sure the relevance of this point. Elanga never struggled because of expectations. He never got going in the first place due to limited chances.
Page 1 of 4