Official Signings Thread - Summer 2007

[asajoseph]

Hargreaves is definitely a lot better than Flamini, but not a monstrous amount better than Sidwell if you ask me.

I also think Darren Fletcher is a pretty decent player, but Scholes surely can't have that long at the top, so a central midfielder must be on their 'to do' list. £17million though? That's a ludicrous amount!!!

Anyhow, just a reminder - please make sure you only post official signings, and make sure you add a link to an appropriate story (i.e. from a reliable news source).

 

[belgianfan]

Hargreaves is far superior to Flamini and Sidwell. They don't have to worry about where they will fit him; it's called having a strong squad.

Yes a strong squad but for what amount of money. Indeed he improves their options but for that amount of money you would expect a huge improvement in the squad and he's not .

For the likes of 17 mil you could get players of greater calibre.

This is already a huge transfer amount for manutd without making them so much stronger. Bayern made a good money for him

 

[Captain]

But in reality, who cares how much they spend and on who?

They have identified Hargreaves as the player they need and have signed him for the required amount.

Sometimes you pay over the odds, sometimes you get a bargain; it's the same at all clubs.

 

[asajoseph]

Well, I suppose a club has to consider two things :-

1) - is the premium price they're playing matched by premium talent?

2) - are they getting the maximum return for their budget?

So, if Man Utd. reckon Hargreaves is a premium talent, fair play to them, but I'd beg to differ.

Secondly, I don't know how large the budget Utd. have is, but if they're looking at a top winger (like Nani or Ribery), and a top striker (like Villa or Eto'o), I'd really be surprised if they could afford all three and Hargreaves.

 

[Captain]

I would say that Hargreaves was the priority signing and indeed someone they would have brought in last summer if possible.

That would suggest to me that his signing comes from 'last summers' budget rather then the one for this off-season. Last summer they barely spent anything, so I think that's feasible.

 

[Tony Montana]

They spent 18.6m quid on Carrick....

 

[asajoseph]

Which also would have looked very expensive, had Giggs and Scholes not really stepped back up this season...

 

[Captain]

The majority of the money for carrick came from an imaginary deal for Mikel though. Chelsea bought them carrick.

 

[Tony Montana]

You can say that about anything. It was still their money that they spent. If I sold my old laptop for half its price and bought a new one, I could say my the money from my old one helped buy my new one. It is still essentially my money.

 

[Captain]

Not really, no.

If they had a budget of say £20M last summer and they bought Carrick out right, then their budget would be finished.

If they had a budget of £20M and someone gave them carrick for free (which is essentially what happened), then they would still have £20M left for Hargreaves.

In turn that would mean that they aren't using this years budget to fund the Hargreaves deal, rather they are just putting an end to unfinished business and will have a further £20M budget to spend on other players this summer (this was my initial point).

 

[Tony Montana]

Not really, no.

If they had a budget of say £20M last summer and they bought Carrick out right, then their budget would be finished.

If they had a budget of £20M and someone gave them carrick for free (which is essentially what happened), then they would still have £20M left for Hargreaves.

In turn that would mean that they aren't using this years budget to fund the Hargreaves deal, rather they are just putting an end to unfinished business and will have a further £20M budget to spend on other players this summer (this was my initial point).

Yeah, i know what you mean. But that's just one way of looking at it.

You say Mikel paid for United's purchase of Carrick. How much did they get for Mikel; £12m?

That money was just added on to last year's budget but it was STILL their money. So their transfer budget was increased. Manure didn't get Carrick for free, it was £18.6m of their own money, not Chelsea's, otherwise it would have come out of Chelsea's bank account. It doesn't matter where the money came from originally because it's not in that origin's ownership anymore. It's like saying the new tv money that's coming in will help buy clubs their players and it won't be, say Arsenal's money paying for Ribery (if that happens).

 

[Tony Montana]

Wait a minute. Was Mikel actually on United's books as a bought player? I mean did Chelsea just pay United to not buy him effectively. If not then I see your point.

 

[asajoseph]

You're both right, just from different perspectives (how wishywashy can you get? )

Anyhoo, can we keep to topic?

Cheers.

 

[Captain]

Wait a minute. Was Mikel actually on United's books as a bought player? I mean did Chelsea just pay United to not buy him effectively. If not then I see your point.

Last off-topic post.

As Mikel's old club got £4M (or whatever it was), it suggests to me that Chelsea paid to sign Mikel from them and gave ManU the other £12M as hush money to avoid a transer embargo. So, no, I don't think ManU ever 'owned' Mikel.

 

[qs]

The majority of the money for carrick came from an imaginary deal for Mikel though. Chelsea bought them carrick.

Mikel is already better than Carrick and has much much more potential. United fans i know were happy with the compensation for Mikel when it happened but most are very bitter about it now.

I think United will have another £10m to spend plus whatever they make from sales. i think it'll be a decent striker like Huntelaar or a winger. Nani appears out of the question now. Hopefully all the money they spent on Hargreaves will mean they wont go in for Ribery.

 

[dos1986]

Why do you guys rate Mikel so highly,he brings nothing to chelsea team imo,very lazy,cant really tackle and is no goal threat what so ever...

 

[Tony Montana]

I doubt United fans are bitter about Mikel yet, given that they're league champions. Has Mikel really had a better season than Carrick?

 

[Asterix]

Stop it now you lot.

This topic is for confirmed signings only.

 

[Asterix]

Hargreaves signing confirmed confirmed. Like Scholes's vision.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 546939.stm

 

[Tony Montana]

The thing is with this thread is it's like the 'Realistic Transfer Talk' thread. If there is a specific player coming to Arsenal or there is a rumour you can start a thread in Transfer talk anyway like the Ribery thread. Other rumours can go in football talk, specifically the 'English Football' thread. I mean can we talk about transfers between different Spanish clubs as well as Italian clubs? Why not put them in their respective threads in Football Talk rather than having a new thread about confirmed signings in this forum? Particularly when before we weren't allowed or supposed to start threads on transfers not concerning Arsenal.