We could actually bid £50m for Son..

tough to get a back up striker of the ilk we want who would be equaly happy to sit on the bench

the solution is to have martial as the 2nd choice cf but first choice lw. What this means is if rashford ever gets injured we push martial upfront to cf if we think greenwood is not ready to lead the line.

If sanchez steps up like I hope he would he can be the 2nd choice LW alternatively we can bring in a back up rw/lw who can cover lingard/martial(when he gets pushed up.

1st choice attack:
martial ----- rasford ---- lingard

if rashford is n/a:
sanchez/new winger-----martial -----lingard

Not sure who, but it needs to be somebody who can link play and run in behind.

I'd love for us to sign Son, who is multi functional, although I know that's not possible.

Son Heung-Min.

He would fit into our team seamlessly, and can be rotated effectively.

The only problem is dealing with Levy...

Rashford IS the 'back up striker'

--------------------------------------------------

In your facked up mind he is but as far as the majority of other people including our current manager are concerned, he is now and will be our main man for years to come.

Lukaku makes me sick.
His lack of movement and effort for a man utd striker is awful.

Son is not exactly a back-up, and plays predominately off of the left.

If we're going to go the route of signing an attacker who can play across the frontline, then he needs to be predominately a right sided player, as that's the weakest side of our attack and the area where we have the least quality depth.

comment by Miguel Ángel Félix Gallardo (U11781)
posted 5 minutes ago
We could actually bid £50m for Son..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We’d be asked to double that

comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 3 minutes ago

Surely greenwood would be better than any of that list.
==========

How can you start that sentence with the word "surely"?

I've listed established PL players who wouldn't cost the earth in a back-up role.

You think it's a "sure" thing that Greenwood, who hasn't yet played against adults, would be better than *any* of them?

Redastomatoes....

Richarlinson is a very, very good player. Wouldn't say no. But as backup? For the price we'd have to pay? I don't think he fits the bill, but he's certainly be a quality edition to the squad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We won’t know until he’s given the chance. And some of those strikers wouldn’t even be interested in a backup role not to mention Mitrovic and Wilson would cost upwards of 50 million. The only one who may be interested is Hernandez but I’d much rather Greenwood be given the opportunity.

He's not a back up at Tottenham, i know that. But if he was to come to United, then he would be used more effectively in a wider range of options.

I feel under normal situation he would be more approachable in price, but because of dealing with Levy, it would make that valuation hurdle that much bigger.

The guy has good Premier league experience and can hack it against the big teams and is of good age.

will anyone take sturridge from liverpool?

I think he is a good technical player, just not as good as he thinks he is. If he is happy to sit on the bench at utd will you take him?

Sell lukaku and Mata. Bring in a quality right winger and promote Greenwood. Alexis can also play down the middle.

comment by mour money_mour problemz (U13920)
posted 4 minutes ago
will anyone take sturridge from liverpool?

I think he is a good technical player, just not as good as he thinks he is. If he is happy to sit on the bench at utd will you take him?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No way

comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 5 minutes ago

comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 3 minutes ago

Surely greenwood would be better than any of that list.
==========

How can you start that sentence with the word "surely"?

I've listed established PL players who wouldn't cost the earth in a back-up role.

You think it's a "sure" thing that Greenwood, who hasn't yet played against adults, would be better than *any* of them?

Redastomatoes....

Richarlinson is a very, very good player. Wouldn't say no. But as backup? For the price we'd have to pay? I don't think he fits the bill, but he's certainly be a quality edition to the squad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We won’t know until he’s given the chance. And some of those strikers wouldn’t even be interested in a backup role not to mention Mitrovic and Wilson would cost upwards of 50 million. The only one who may be interested is Hernandez but I’d much rather Greenwood be given the opportunity.
==================

Again, you used the word "surely" initially, and now you're saying "we won't know unless we give him a chance".

Do you see the inherent contradiction there?

Again, he's a kid who hasn't yet played against adults. He may go on to be an excellent player for us - I hope so - but he's not ready.

Spurs are desperate for any penny they can get because of this ground, they would take £50m

comment by Miguel Ángel Félix Gallardo (U11781)
posted 8 seconds ago
Spurs are desperate for any penny they can get because of this ground, they would take £50m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well they would we should be all over that. They wouldn’t though

comment by Miguel Ángel Félix Gallardo (U11781)
posted 5 minutes ago

Spurs are desperate for any penny they can get because of this ground, they would take £50m
===================

I don't think selling off your best players on the cheap as a very short term solution to paying off the stadium is the sort of thing Levy would likely do given it makes no business sense whatsoever.

Better to keep your best assets, get higher league positions and European competition fees (and the boost in profile and sponsorship revenue that might then follow) as a long term investment.

We aren't signing Son. There's no reason to keep bringing up his name.

comment by Miguel Ángel Félix Gallardo (U11781)
posted 5 minutes ago
Spurs are desperate for any penny they can get because of this ground, they would take £50m
----------------------------------------------------------------------

£50 million for Son in an ideal world would be good business for both parties. But when it's us dealing with them for one of their key players, then that figure is likely to rise to £70 - £85 million.

we currently play with 3 upfront
IMO a club like with the ambition of utd need 6 attackers, one of which can be a promising starlet (greenwood)

rashford and martial are definite first coice
lingard is a good player but at full strength he is not quite a definite first choice

lukaku doest not suit utd and must go unless he performs miracles between now and June. Sanchez seem to be on the decline and Mata is not my cup of tea but I can understand wanting to keep him. Dream summer will be to shift all three and bring in 2 new attackers + greenwood into the squad.

There's no way Spurs would accept £50 million for Son, especially not from us.

Nicolas Pepe the prolific Lille wide forward/winger looks an interesting option if we're looking for a dynamic right sided player who scores a good number of goals. He does take penalties though of which he's scored 5 this season but even still, he's got a decent record in front of goal for somebody who's primarily a wide man.

A goalscoring winger may negate the need for a very good back up striker.

comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by Giggs#11 (U19135)
posted 3 minutes ago

Surely greenwood would be better than any of that list.
==========

How can you start that sentence with the word "surely"?

I've listed established PL players who wouldn't cost the earth in a back-up role.

You think it's a "sure" thing that Greenwood, who hasn't yet played against adults, would be better than *any* of them?

Redastomatoes....

Richarlinson is a very, very good player. Wouldn't say no. But as backup? For the price we'd have to pay? I don't think he fits the bill, but he's certainly be a quality edition to the squad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At this point, we have seen the way we've been playing, this team is going to have lots of rotation. Lukaku has played more than enough games despite not being the obvious first choice.

I like the richarlison because he can actually play across the pitch and is good enough to start probably bench Lingard now. In today's market he is a 70 million player who we add anything from Lukaku sale to. Heck if Lukaku wants to go back make it a switch plus money.

I agree, if we have 3 attackers nudging in 15+ goals a season plus the goals from pogba we will be in a better position to deal with injury to one member of the team

I said this when ruud was at utd. He was a terrific striker but utd were a better team after he left because the goal scoring resposibilities shifted from one player to the attackk as a unit.

Sell Rom.

Go all out for Kane or Icardi.

We should be looking at getting in players who will elevate the first 11, not back up players.

Rashford will have to improve and compete with the best.


I am aaware the likelihood of this happening however is minimal... 😂

Redas,

Like I said, broadening the scope of my OP, I think Richarlinson would/could be an excellent signing for all the reasons you've said.

Wait a minute.... How could I forget!??

Charlie Austin!