Manchester United FC - Page 1249

Anathematic · 03-07-2009, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laurencioso

Balotelli would be very expensive and dislike being benched. Klose is the wrong side of 30. Lukas Podolski just moved back home and is definitely not going anywhere. Ibisevic would cost a lot. Gomis would cost a lot, plus he's been poor this season. Chamakh wouldn't like being benched and neither would Dean Asthon, plus both are central figures for their teams. (plus the majority of them wouldn't be good enough. In addition they would cost money, as where Owen is free)

Balotelli would cost alot, but did anyone actually think that you would replace Ronaldo's goals for free? He wouldn't like being permanently second choice, but if you told him he'd make 15 league starts a season he'd be happy, and he's easily good enough to do that.
Owen is barely the right side of 30.
Podolski whilst unlikely to want to move immediately could be tempted, Koln wouldn't but up too much resistance either.
Ibisevic would cost less than Valencia.
Gomis would cost less than Valencia, and has terrific potential.
Chamakh would accept rotation for a season whilst he proves his worth.
Ashton would accept being benched at a CL team, he'd get a fair few games, and put himself in the spot light for the England squad.
All of them would cost money, but they are all better than Owen.

X3F Maxi · 03-07-2009, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ViVaRooney

check my edit,

anyway its pointless talking to you as every single post you make here is negative. if we signed torres you still would have something negative to say. i still dont understand why you post here

how lalalalaing pathetic are you

i checked your edit...your point?

no, i post here because a lot of united fans are fickle... jump on a band wagon, think they already have a player.. when they dont... or think owen is a good signing... your manchester united lalala, you should be signing star players.. not fricken michael owen

smeltzerinho · 03-07-2009, 03:41 PM

Dean Ashton is not better than Michael Owen. < fullstop

ViVaRooney · 03-07-2009, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by X3F Maxi

he is no longer in the "start of his newcastle days"

we are now, he flopped and has flopped for 4 years...

you will be lucky to have him on the pitch to be able to score 10, let alone 30, so keep dreaming

He scored 8 for newcastle. now you honestly think he cant get ATLEAST 10 at united?

what a joke this forum is

X3F Maxi · 03-07-2009, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ViVaRooney

He scored 8 for newcastle. now you honestly think he cant get ATLEAST 10 at united?

what a joke this forum is

No, because he will spend most him time injured, or on the bench

what a joke delusional united fans are

Anathematic · 03-07-2009, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smeltzerinho

Dean Ashton is not better than Michael Owen. < fullstop

That's a matter of opinion... Owen has done absolutely nothing worth talking about since joining Newcastle and Ashton when fit is actually a really good striker.

Reaver · 03-07-2009, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFCtorresLFC

Listen, I've watched Owen all his career. He was a great striker, one of the best in the world when he was in his prime. No one was as good at outpacing defenders as he was, but he was never a deadly finisher.

I hated our style of play under Houillier, lalalala on a stick football. The gameplan was stick ten men behind the ball and get Gerrard to knock long balls up the pitch along the ground for Owen to run onto. He got many chances which is why his record is so good, but he wasn't a great finisher, many many times he missed easy one on ones where a striker of his calibre is expected to score.

I'm not saying he's lalalala finisher, just not great. For example Adebayor-he showed 2 seasons ago that you don't have to be a great finisher to score a lot of goals, like Owen did.

My view as a supporter of Liverpool while Owen played there.

Fair enough but if he is as bad at one-on-ones as you say then at least he isnt costing £12M like Afonso Alves.

I still think he'll do okay for us. Not exactly a title winner but not the worst signing ever either.

LFCtorresLFC · 03-07-2009, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rooneh

Fair enough but if he is as bad at one-on-ones as you say then at least he isnt costing £12M like Afonso Alves.

I still think he'll do okay for us. Not exactly a title winner but not the worst signing ever either.

True, but you have plenty of cash left over, why not spend it on a better striker?

ViVaRooney · 03-07-2009, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by X3F Maxi

No, because he will spend most him time injured, or on the bench

what a joke delusional united fans are

[Removed - please do not be abusive towards other members] cant wait till owen proves the doubters wrong. also you seem to forget HE IS FREE! ofcourse for £10m i wouldnt have liked owen here but for free it is a gamble worth taking

another plus to this signing, the match at liverpool at anfield

if owen scores and kisses the united badge in front of the kop he would go down as a legend even if that was his only goal

who do you support anyway? all you seem to do is post here

ViVaRooney · 03-07-2009, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 7_Robert_Pires

That's a matter of opinion... Owen has done absolutely nothing worth talking about since joining Newcastle and Ashton when fit is actually a really good striker.

Aston has been more injured then owen in the last 2 years

Anathematic · 03-07-2009, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFCtorresLFC

True, but you have plenty of cash left over, why not spend it on a better striker?

Because as I called it when it happened, Fergie isn't getting all of the money...

If you've got £100 million, you don't sign Michael Owen.

MixtapeManiac · 03-07-2009, 03:47 PM

I wouldn't judge this deal until we know how much he's earning a week, and how much we're paying for his signing-on bonus, which will probably be in the million region as theres no transfer fee involved.

I'm extremely suprised we've gone for him.. looks like we've hit the panic button quite urgently.. this gamble is massive if he's the only striker we sign this summer, but it gives us another striker with still 80m to spare.. so it's not all bad.

If Fergie does spend the 80m across the squad, then I see Owen as an 'okay' deal, as long as he doesn't see it as a long-term fixture, and more of a short-term replacement, for a season. Because obviously this is in reaction to the Benzema deal going down the pan.

I'm not going to hype up Owen or defend his poor time at Newcastle, it all depends on whether he stays fit. But Owen & Valencia alone won't make up for Ronaldo & Tevez, so thankfully we got 80M for Ronnie, or this would be a problem..

Anathematic · 03-07-2009, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ViVaRooney

Aston has been more injured then owen in the last 2 years

Doesn't make him a worse player... Owen's been more injured that I have, I wouldn't use that as a reason why I'm the better striker...

ViVaRooney · 03-07-2009, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 7_Robert_Pires

Doesn't make him a worse player... Owen's been more injured that I have, I wouldn't use that as a reason why I'm the better striker...

but owen has also scored more then ashton if i am not mistaking in those 2 years

Aston would be aLOT worse signing as we would also have to pay a transfer fee

Owen > Ashton without a doubt even if they both required transfer fees

Reaver · 03-07-2009, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFCtorresLFC

True, but you have plenty of cash left over, why not spend it on a better striker?

Ask Fergie not me.

After missing out on Benzema I dont know who we should realisticly go for.

Pogrebnyak would be worth a try but there is too much chance of him being a Pavlyuchenko and not an Arshavin.

Laurencioso · 03-07-2009, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 7_Robert_Pires

Balotelli would cost alot, but did anyone actually think that you would replace Ronaldo's goals for free? He wouldn't like being permanently second choice, but if you told him he'd make 15 league starts a season he'd be happy, and he's easily good enough to do that.

He's not good enough for the price, and he's shown he's got quite the temper as well. He might be class, but there's a reason Italians consider him a troublemaker.

Quote:

Owen is barely the right side of 30.

You either are, or you aren't. Owen is, plus he's free, and Klose would cost quite a bit more.
He's a lot better, but he's not one for the future. Neither is Owen, but he's free. So the risks and cost are far lower than they would for Klose.

Quote:

Podolski whilst unlikely to want to move immediately could be tempted, Koln wouldn't but up too much resistance either.

The guy paid to leave Bayern, why would he come to us? I'd love to get him, but honestly I don't think he'll want to leave Koln this soon.

Quote:

Ibisevic would cost less than Valencia.

Hoffenheim doesn't need the money, all they want to do is do well in Germany and CL. But yes I'll give you that.

Quote:

Gomis would cost less than Valencia, and has terrific potential.

True, but then again who is to say Michael Owen is the only striker we buy?

Quote:

Chamakh would accept rotation for a season whilst he proves his worth.

I don't see him as good enough to be honest. I know you find Owen rubbish and therefore he would be better. But he will cost money and I don't see him sliding into the team. As money goes he's a bigger risk.

Quote:

Ashton would accept being benched at a CL team, he'd get a fair few games, and put himself in the spot light for the England squad.

I've never liked Ashton. But that's me personally. I can't really comment on him.

All of them would cost money, but they are all better than Owen.[/QUOTE]

Owen still represents better value for money. Lower wages and no transfer fee. It might be a risk worth taking. But yes, there are a lot of players out there that are better than Owen.

vimtojoe · 03-07-2009, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 7_Robert_Pires

Because as I called it when it happened, Fergie isn't getting all of the money...

If you've got £100 million, you don't sign Michael Owen.

the thing is, he's free so we still have 100m to spend and now a average striker and who knows, with luck of injuries he might proove to be a great signing

Anathematic · 03-07-2009, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laurencioso

Owen still represents better value for money. Lower wages and no transfer fee. It might be a risk worth taking. But yes, there are a lot of players out there that are better than Owen.

Don't get me wrong, if your only arguement is that signing Owen isn't a bad piece of business then I'd agree. No free player is ever bad purely because if they fail, you've lost their wages, if they succeed, then you could even potentially make a massive profit from selling them, however if you are telling me in footballing terms Owen is a good signing for a team of United's calibre then I think you may be deluding yourself.

X3F Maxi · 03-07-2009, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ViVaRooney

but he had injuries at newcastle too you lalalala and he still managed 8 goals

god damn you are a thick lalalala, cant wait till owen proves the doubters wrong. also you seem to forget HE IS lalalalaING FREE! ofcourse for £10m i wouldnt have liked owen here but for free it is a gamble worth taking

another plus to this signing, the match at liverpool at anfield

if owen scores and kisses the united badge in front of the kop he would go down as a legend even if that was his only goal

who do you support anyway? all you seem to do is post here

your point? owen WILL struggle to get 10-15 goals. mark my words.

Reaver · 03-07-2009, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by X3F Maxi

your point? owen WILL struggle to get 10-15 goals. mark my words.

Wouldnt you be happy with 8 goals from a backup anyway?

Anathematic · 03-07-2009, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vimtojoe

the thing is, he's free so we still have 100m to spend and now a average striker and who knows, with luck of injuries he might proove to be a great signing

I'm just saying if you've got £100 million in your pocket you don't sign Michael Owen. I doubt Owen would sign if he knew he'd be lower down the pecking order than 3rd choice.

Laurencioso · 03-07-2009, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 7_Robert_Pires

Don't get me wrong, if your only arguement is that signing Owen isn't a bad piece of business then I'd agree. No free player is ever bad purely because if they fail, you've lost their wages, if they succeed, then you could even potentially make a massive profit from selling them, however if you are telling me in footballing terms Owen is a good signing for a team of United's calibre then I think you may be deluding yourself.

My argument is that he's a good piece of business. He won't mind being benched, be paid lower wages and he's free. In addition he can't be too bad of an influence on the younger batch of strikers either. He was after all, once considered the best striker England had.
I don't think Owen is what we need, it's obvious that we need more class than him, but I don't think he'd be terrible backup player either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 7_Robert_Pires

I'm just saying if you've got £100 million in your pocket you don't sign Michael Owen. I doubt Owen would sign if he knew he'd be lower down the pecking order than 3rd choice.

His best chance to perform in CL. Best chance to perform at a top club before the WC. Best chance to win a trophy. Best chance to get back in form without being rushed out too early because he's "the best we've got" (read Newcastle) I don't see why he wouldn't want to sign, even if he was considered fourth in the pecking order.

Anathematic · 03-07-2009, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rooneh

Wouldnt you be happy with 8 goals from a backup anyway?

Funny how Bendtner got 9 in only the league and gets nothing but abuse on here then isn't it?

OscarNiner · 03-07-2009, 04:01 PM

He may very well get 10 goals a season, he may not.

The season hasn't started yet, so stop acting like you are all psychics.

X3F Maxi · 03-07-2009, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rooneh

Wouldnt you be happy with 8 goals from a backup anyway?

Thats not the point, the point is YOU are MANCHESTER UNITED, you SHOULD be signing BIG players...

03-07-2009, 03:41 PM	#31203 (permalink)
smeltzerinho Festive know-it-all Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: In your face Gender: Male Posts: 20,372	Dean Ashton is not better than Michael Owen. < fullstop __________________ Rutter Out

03-07-2009, 03:47 PM	#31212 (permalink)
MixtapeManiac Forum Regular Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 739	I wouldn't judge this deal until we know how much he's earning a week, and how much we're paying for his signing-on bonus, which will probably be in the million region as theres no transfer fee involved. I'm extremely suprised we've gone for him.. looks like we've hit the panic button quite urgently.. this gamble is massive if he's the only striker we sign this summer, but it gives us another striker with still 80m to spare.. so it's not all bad. If Fergie does spend the 80m across the squad, then I see Owen as an 'okay' deal, as long as he doesn't see it as a long-term fixture, and more of a short-term replacement, for a season. Because obviously this is in reaction to the Benzema deal going down the pan. I'm not going to hype up Owen or defend his poor time at Newcastle, it all depends on whether he stays fit. But Owen & Valencia alone won't make up for Ronaldo & Tevez, so thankfully we got 80M for Ronnie, or this would be a problem.. __________________ Celebrate Originality. Last edited by MixtapeManiac; 03-07-2009 at 03:49 PM..

03-07-2009, 04:01 PM	#31224 (permalink)
OscarNiner Forum Regular Join Date: May 2009 Location: London Age: 19 Gender: Male Posts: 554	He may very well get 10 goals a season, he may not. The season hasn't started yet, so stop acting like you are all psychics.