• PostpostshoegazeLUVR@alien.topBEnglish
      1·
      10 months ago

      Yeah but Chelsea got him for free. Even if he had been garbage he would’ve been valuable for culture. Cavani, Thiago Silva, Zlatan, Larsson, etc all good signings. Even someone like Gary Mac for Liverpool.

      If United had signed him for free they’d still be going on about how good he is. But on the flip slide Chelsea would never have spent £70m on Casemiro.

    • Blue_winged_yoshi@alien.topBEnglish
      1·
      10 months ago

      You guys are a money-no-object club, you can absolutely afford to take the gambles and pocket the wins. United are having to budget carefully for FFP and they’ve blown a fortune on transfer fee/wages here!

      • ThatWontFit@alien.topBEnglish
        1·
        10 months ago

        I assume there is a /s here lol.

        We signed Silva on a free…and we also stay within FFP by selling/loaning players.

            • a_lumberjack@alien.topBEnglish
              1·
              10 months ago

              What part of that doesn’t mean giving a huge contract to an aging player is a risk? You seem to be arguing that it’s not a risk because he was signed on a free transfer.

      • jamieaka@alien.topBEnglish
        1·
        10 months ago

        You guys are a money-no-object club, you can absolutely afford to take the gambles and pocket the wins.

        huh wasn’t thiago silva was a free transfer though?

      • Livinglifeform@alien.topBEnglish
        1·
        10 months ago

        United have even more money than chelsea, just chelsea sometimes actually sell players they’ve spunked away all their money on so they can spunk away some more money