Best Replacement for Scholes?

Second City goal stemmed from Scholes' mistake.  It smacks of United needing a midfielder and Scholes coming out of retirement being the cheapest option.  Well played, Glazer!

its nothing to do with money!!!! what fergie wants, fergie gets. look at the money he has been given each year!!!! fergie runs the football club and what he says goes, the glazers would not say no to him, he has proven to buy smart and well and deliver success. fergie constantly says no value in the market or that they are strong enough. january is not a time to sign many players for utd. he likes to do it at the beginning of the summer so players get to have a full pre season and get used to the united philosphy! 

newrynyuk wrote: Second City goal stemmed from Scholes' mistake.  It smacks of United needing a midfielder and Scholes coming out of retirement being the cheapest option.  Well played, Glazer!

 

dotts101 wrote: its nothing to do with money!!!! what fergie wants, fergie gets. look at the money he has been given each year!!!! fergie runs the football club and what he says goes, the glazers would not say no to him,

devondudley wrote: interesting stat in todays examiner is scholes is fergies first midfielder fergie has signed(if you wanna call it that) since 2007, if thats true its an incredible fact.

Stoked Up wrote: newrynyuk wrote: Second City goal stemmed from Scholes' mistake.  It smacks of United needing a midfielder and Scholes coming out of retirement being the cheapest option.  Well played, Glazer!   dotts101 wrote: its nothing to do with money!!!! what fergie wants, fergie gets. look at the money he has been given each year!!!! fergie runs the football club and what he says goes, the glazers would not say no to him,   devondudley wrote: interesting stat in todays examiner is scholes is fergies first midfielder fergie has signed(if you wanna call it that) since 2007, if thats true its an incredible fact. There's definitely some merit in the argument that Man U are not keeping up with their rivals in the transfer market. An interesting statistic I read in the Times yesterday, is that Man U have spent a lesser net amount on transfers than either Sunderland or Stoke over the past five seasons. I realise that transfers are not the whole picture these days, as wages can have a much greater affect on clubs overall budgets. I'm not up to date on Sunderland's finances but given that Stoke are one of the few premier league sides to operate within their earning potential, this is a staggering stat.

I didn't see the Times yesterday but I think the old adage about lies, damned lies and statistics might be appropriate here.  I think the figures will show utd spent over 200 million but earned arounf 175 million from sales making them one of the higher gross spenders but one of the lower net spenders.

The outlay United are spending on players hasn't decreased since the Glazers came in - in fact it has increased!

But the fact remains that the money Man City and Chelsea have been spending, thanks to their sugar daddy's, has dwarfed United's spend...

But Ferguson is still signing who he wants to sign...no doubt about that.  His philosophy on the types of players he signs hasn't changed. Plus - it's working.  The players he's brought in are winning more medals than the multi-million pound signings that Chelsea and City have brought in.

I'm mostly baffled by the Man United supporters' lack of backing to this philosophy though.  "Fans' who give out about signing the likes of Phil Jones and demanding we sign players like Wes Sneijder and stuff!  Just doesn't make sense...guys playing Fantasy Manager in their head.







Edited by Siralex - 09 Jan 2012 at 2:33pm

What was GingerBalls goal like?
Masterstroke by Fergie

Was his peno gank?

Carrick was superb today as was Johnny Evans and Valencia I might add

Edited by ShamtheRam - 14 Jan 2012 at 4:57pm

My old buddy Nani was woeful again today, his corners and general play were terrible, if he keeps his current form up he'll be struggling to cross the road soon enough.