Man U rejected Mascherano.....Very strange...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_utd/5309852.stm

Even on loan aswell, perhaps the money issue, they didnt want to buy him for 30 millions....tho buying him would have balance the midfield somewhat more...

ahahahahaha i like how they say "We decided he wasnt needed at the club"...

Lets see what the man utd fans make of that

If Ferguson really passed up on Mascherano becuase he decided "he wasn't what the club needed" then he has completely lost the plot. He is exactly what Man U require - a ball winning, combative midefielder, with brilliant distribution. A midfield of Mascherano sitting in with Carrick would have given them a really solid platform for the more expansive players to build on.

So...I am thinking....They did not want to pay over 25 millions for him.....gotta be the money issue, if anything else....

There's the off-chance that he's simply a knee-jerk reactionary and blinded by a good start to the season

Freddie Or Not wrote:If Ferguson really passed up on Mascherano becuase he decided "he wasn't what the club needed" then he has completely lost the plot. He is exactly what Man U require - a ball winning, combative midefielder, with brilliant distribution. A midfield of Mascherano sitting in with Carrick would have given them a really solid platform for the more expansive players to build on.

You could perhaps understand a bit if they were offered a shit contract by MSI on the doorstep of the transfer window, but the piece also says they were offered him at the beginning of the summer.

Where's Senna now then? They'd have to offer him a Mascherano-like deal anyway after they pissed him, the club and his agent off.

IF this is true I think our management has completely lost it!

Javier > O'Shea & Fletcher FFS!!

Does it not occur to you that perhaps by "We decided he wasnt needed at the club" they meant that they couldn't be bothered with all the MSI hassle that would come with him?

On the pitch there's no obvious reason for Man U to not be interested. But off the pitch (i.e. the fee itself and/or the additional clauses) there could have been any number of reasons.

Also, Fergie's made it clear that he wants committed players or no one. He got rid of Van Nistelrooy because he'd lost his drive to be successful for the sake of Manchester United. Mascherano is willing to put his career in the hand of a company who will just try to use his talent for profit - is this really the sort of spirit that Fergie wants in what could be a make or break season, regardless of how talented the player is?

No. West Ham can afford the risk, because Mascherano is better than any of their existing midfielders. However, Fergie would have to leave out either Carrick or Scholes to accomodate a player who could leave a year down the line because he fancies a different offer and MSI want to make some more money. West Ham will leave out Hayden Mullins in order to play him.

See my point?

OK someone shoot Gill, please!!

@ saintgoingmarching

you do have a point..

@saintsgoingmarching

The problem with your hypothesis is that Mascherano will leave anyway in a year. Well he will leave West Ham in a year coz with all due respects they arent a big club. Man U is in a different league to West Ham.

The rejection has got to do with money IMHO.

BTW, happened to catch this discussion, 606 style...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb606/F4472020?thread=3431930

Could have steal taken him on loan even though I know Man u's policy of not taking loans.

Also this may just a ruse to justify not going after him due to money constaints and what not.

This bit annoys me:

David Gill

"We were offered Mascherano for a significant sum at the start of the summer and also last week on a loan deal.

"We had watched him last season but the manager (Alex Ferguson) and his staff didn't want to pursue him.

"While he is clearly a very good player it was decided he wasn't required at the club."

- what was the significant sum of money (i read last month, they wanted £25M .. maybe this is to much.)
- I know SAF does not like loans, so that rules that out

== To but the best (or potential) you have to pay!!

- Didn't want to pursue him ... 'stupidity'
- Not required - don't worry United have Flethcer (10 times better and O'Shea )

...Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Kuszack eventually sign on loan? Swallow your pride for chrissakes.

Obispo wrote:...Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Kuszack eventually sign on loan? Swallow your pride for chrissakes.

Manchester United insist keeper Tomasz Kuszczak's has signed a four-year deal with them, despite the first season being spent on loan from West Brom.

Paul McShane and Luke Steele went the other way as part of the deal.

"He has come to us on loan for the first year and then will join us permanently in July 2007," said United chief executive David Gill.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_utd/5252406.stm

That's such a stupid policy for a club to adopt. I don't care how big you are and how big your pride is. It's just foolish.

Even if the Mascherano deal was suspect in the extreme, they would have still had his service for a season, and next year they could pursure Hargreaves (or another) again and probably have more of a chance of securing a deal.

aby_gooner wrote:@saintsgoingmarching

The problem with your hypothesis is that Mascherano will leave anyway in a year. Well he will leave West Ham in a year coz with all due respects they arent a big club. Man U is in a different league to West Ham.

Perhaps so, and I am a little surprised that West Ham took the risk, but on the other hand they have less to lose than Man U because if it does go wrong then the players leave next summer and West Ham are back to where they are now (i.e. a competitive Premiership club). If it went wrong at Man U then we're talking about them dropping out of the top 3 and not winning anything, which would be a very poor season for them.

The rejection has got to do with money IMHO.

I think it's a combination of a massive asking price and a lack of certainty about the player. If you spend big then you want to ensure you get a talented, committed player. Look at Reyes - very talented, but spent most of his Arsenal career trying to get a move to Real Madrid.

This has to be one of the stupidest things i've ever read!

Obispo wrote:That's such a stupid policy for a club to adopt. I don't care how big you are and how big your pride is. It's just foolish.

Even if the Mascherano deal was suspect in the extreme, they would have still had his service for a season, and next year they could pursure Hargreaves (or another) again and probably have more of a chance of securing a deal.

Completely agree, I would have LOVED to loan him, that way if he didn't fit into the system, learn the language, adopt to the country that's ok, it would be a minor loss.

Obispo wrote:That's such a stupid policy for a club to adopt. I don't care how big you are and how big your pride is. It's just foolish.

Even if the Mascherano deal was suspect in the extreme, they would have still had his service for a season, and next year they could pursure Hargreaves (or another) again and probably have more of a chance of securing a deal.

Please tell this to David Gill and the board..

It's all to do with the image of United and the influence of MSI

If Man Utd had signed masherano, surely they would have also bought the entire player from the fgrasps of MSI.

I know its a lot of money but you're getting the best young DM in the world!

Bad move united

@ Tweedledum

Another blunder by SAF

chance to sign a player -- that can fill the void left by Keane, what does he do; turn him down!

What does he see in Fletcher and O'Shea??

Tweedledum wrote:If Man Utd had signed masherano, surely they would have also bought the entire player from the fgrasps of MSI.

I know its a lot of money but you're getting the best young DM in the world!

Bad move united

maybe they just really really really really really want hargreaves so are prepared to wait

we don't really know the ins and outs of this so hard to be too critical of united.. gotta be something very very fishy that put them off

dam COTR your pic scares me...

Another thing I don't understand is this. If Glazer's don't splash the funds to compete, then why the hell aren't we taking loan signings!

It's not enough to stab us, they also must twist the knife in as much as possible!

personally i still think Hargreaves is the better option, and that we will get him January...

the fee was probrably huge for Mascherano something like 25 million. It's a lot for an unproven player...

Yeh, lets get this straight - O'shea and Fletcher are alright but hardly top class players.

As COTR mentions, maybe they are waiting until next summer then they'll go for Hargreaves

poiuy1 wrote:It's all to do with the image of United and the influence of MSI

That's far too simplistic an approach to take to it at the moment though, IMHO.

Think of it like this - if you were in desperate need of a striker, and someone offered you, I don't know, say, Ronaldo on loan. A proven striker in every league, but a slight gamble nonetheless. The previso was that you could only have him for a season - no more.

Now, perhaps I'm being a little naive here, but surely you JUMP at that chance - even if it is just a loan.

Apart from Makelele and Emerson (If he can regain form) genuinely can't think of many players better in the holding role than Mascherano. Albelda perhaps, but Masherano is one of the top 5 in the world and will one day be the best.

Gill may want to save face, but he'd have a much better chance of doing that if he took Mascherano on loan and challenged for the title. I don't see how a 4th place finish - a realstic possibility at the moment, though I'm am not saying it will happen - would be less embaressing than a club the size of Utd taking a top class player on loan.

Like I said - it could be an incredibly suspect deal, but it wouldn't matter. You get a season out of Maschearno - on loan - without paying a penny of a transfer fee... then you move on and go for another player.

I really don't see what was at risk from atleast taking him on loan. I can see the downfalls of signing him, for sure. But when offered on loan - you grab that chance with both hands.

Emerson!

Emerson has been 2nd tier for two seasons now IMO - Mascherano and makalale are ahead of him.

I don't get all this Emerson hype - he seems very average every time I see him play!