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

Tweedledum wrote: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!

i rate emerson as highly as i rate lampard

Personally, I would prefer Hargreaves to Mascherano. Owen is hardworking, professional, about to get in his prime, proven, captain material and is in perfect physical condition. If you can get his allegiance to your club, he'd win it hands down too.

Compared to Hargreaves, Mascherano is just an expensive talent, who appears to have attitude problems too (the way he left Corinthians), and a dodgy owner too.

Tweedledum wrote: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!

Yet he was far better for Juventus than Vieira all season. Emerson at Roma > Makelele. He's not as good as he was, but he's still a fantastic holding midfielder. Just did poorly against you lot in the CL and had a poor world cup.

Unfortunately, first Chelsea - after a whistlestop scouting trip by Jose Mourinho - and then Manchester United, Sevilla, AS Roma and Arsenal refused to meet the asking price. By the early hours of Thursday morning, MSI had been reduced to offering what amounted to glorified loan deals to Portsmouth and West Ham until Pompey balked at the stringent terms.

Though Corinthians received nothing from the deal, the club's president, Alberto Dualib, travelled to London last week to sign over the players' registrations.

"Do you know why they are at West Ham? Because they were the only club that would take them," he said

All these clubs rejected them for obvious reasons, i'm glad man utd did aswell.
We are not west ham no msi is going to own our players, or tell us players must play whenever they are fit no chance.

To anyone who thinks Fergie thinks we dont need a midfielder or this is the reason why did he try to sign hargreaves.

Distinguished Dutchman wrote:Personally, I would prefer Hargreaves to Mascherano. Owen is hardworking, professional, about to get in his prime, proven, captain material and is in perfect physical condition. If you can get his allegiance to your club, he'd win it hands down too.

Compared to Hargreaves, Mascherano is just an expensive talent, who appears to have attitude problems too (the way he left Corinthians), and a dodgy owner too.

But the point is that after Hargreaves was certain not to move, Mascherano on loan must have looked - to the average fan - as the holy grail of transfers. Short term or otherwise.

Obispo wrote:

Distinguished Dutchman wrote:Personally, I would prefer Hargreaves to Mascherano. Owen is hardworking, professional, about to get in his prime, proven, captain material and is in perfect physical condition. If you can get his allegiance to your club, he'd win it hands down too.

Compared to Hargreaves, Mascherano is just an expensive talent, who appears to have attitude problems too (the way he left Corinthians), and a dodgy owner too.

But the point is that after Hargreaves was certain not to move, Mascherano on loan must have looked - to the average fan - as the holy grail of transfers. Short term or otherwise.

If United have had signed Javier on loan, i would have done back flips...

i dont care where they end up in a year for what reason we have them.....all i know is we have them both for a season which cant be moaned at can it?

isnt my fault your chief executive is a wanker

l r d wrote:Unfortunately, first Chelsea - after a whistlestop scouting trip by Jose Mourinho - and then Manchester United, Sevilla, AS Roma and Arsenal refused to meet the asking price. By the early hours of Thursday morning, MSI had been reduced to offering what amounted to glorified loan deals to Portsmouth and West Ham until Pompey balked at the stringent terms.

Though Corinthians received nothing from the deal, the club's president, Alberto Dualib, travelled to London last week to sign over the players' registrations.

"Do you know why they are at West Ham? Because they were the only club that would take them," he said

All these clubs rejected them for obvious reasons, i'm glad man utd did aswell.
We are not west ham no msi is going to own our players, or tell us players must play whenever they are fit no chance.

To anyone who thinks Fergie thinks we dont need a midfielder or this is the reason why did he try to sign hargreaves.

Long term deal is not the issue here, i'm sure it was a dodgy deal. I'm talking about a loan appearance. We couldn't get Heagreaves. So then why not put in a temporary solution in place until we can either get OH or whoever else.

The conditions robert. Portsmouth pulled out of a loan deal because of stringent terms.
He had to play whevever fit, it doesnt matter how good you are, man utd cannot allow players to have this in the contract.
Gill said we were never interested in tevez, he didnt say the same about Mascherano

Could be, but we don't know that and I don't see how they could have gone through all the terms and conditions of a loan deal in such a short time.

Obispo wrote:

Distinguished Dutchman wrote:Personally, I would prefer Hargreaves to Mascherano. Owen is hardworking, professional, about to get in his prime, proven, captain material and is in perfect physical condition. If you can get his allegiance to your club, he'd win it hands down too.

Compared to Hargreaves, Mascherano is just an expensive talent, who appears to have attitude problems too (the way he left Corinthians), and a dodgy owner too.

But the point is that after Hargreaves was certain not to move, Mascherano on loan must have looked - to the average fan - as the holy grail of transfers. Short term or otherwise.

If what we've read today is true, that means that United already declined the offer for Mascherano early summer. That basicly left only Hargreaves and Senna. Senna knew of ManU's interest (& 1st choice promise) and kept waiting by the phone, while United wanted Hargeaves - knowing Bayern is not a selling club. IMO, they managed to bungle the Senna deal on their own. Then got offered Mascherano (on a loan) again, which they rejected.

In any case, if Hargreaves were their ultimate target (I can see something in that) wouldn't they at least re-inforce their midfield with one good physical utility player meanwhile? I think they're gambling on Hargreaves for January by not acquiring anyone now. However, the soonest Bayern would let Hargreaves go would be next summer...
It doesn't add up, and someone did something wrong somewhere. The most delusional thing the United big guns could do now, is to think that because they flogged relegation candidates so far that they didn't need re-inforcements for this year.

Obispo wrote:

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.

The thing is could you imagine Mascherano playing for United for a season under a loan deal, the players get used to the system and there is a big void left in the team by his absence, then MSI decide to sell the player and demand 30 million plus a sell on clause. These two players have a history of being erratic, we all know Fergie doesn't tolerate behaviour which undermines him and/or the club. If another top club came in for him, and let's say offer more then United do for him , it would be seen as United being beat by a rival club financially which doesn't do the Glazers or United's image very good. (although its probrably not looking the best at the moment)

Ferguson's looking to build a team that can compete realistically for 5 or 6 years for all major honours he wants loyal players, Mascherano would prorably have a massive impact this season but there would be no guarentee's that he will be there the next. The whole dynamic of the team will change Mascherano would sit deep with Carrick prehaps playing a bit further foward prehaps even the creative force in a midfield two. IMO this is not Fergie's ideal system he wants a midfield of Carrick and Hargreaves who would be more dynamic and versatile then Mascherano and more importantly loyal and English. Even in that statement Gill basically implies that Bayern may be willing to sell Hargreaves in january, prehaps this is ultimately who they are holding out for....

interesting.........

Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano will start every game for West Ham they are fit to play, it has been revealed.
The Sunday Times says for as long as the pair remain at Upton Park, the Hammers will pick up half of their salaries, the relatively modest sums of ?1.5m for Tevez and ?1m for Mascherano.


However, the club is also contractually obliged to start each in the first team whenever they are fit to play. A buyout clause does allow West Ham to assume "normal" control over the players, but for a prohibitively high payment of about ?60m.

While West Ham officially trumpeted Thursday's acquisitions as "a massive coup for the Hammers, who have beaten off some of Europe's biggest clubs to secure the services of the duo", the reality of the deal was rather different. MSI's original intention had been to use the World Cup to maximise its profit on the striker and midfielder, bought for Corinthians from Argentine football for about $35m two years previously.

Unfortunately, first Chelsea - after a whistlestop scouting trip by Jose Mourinho - and then Manchester United, Sevilla, AS Roma and Arsenal refused to meet the asking price. By the early hours of Thursday morning, MSI had been reduced to offering what amounted to glorified loan deals to Portsmouth and West Ham until Pompey balked at the stringent terms.

Though Corinthians received nothing from the deal, the club's president, Alberto Dualib, travelled to London last week to sign over the players' registrations.

"Do you know why they are at West Ham? Because they were the only club that would take them," he said

Poiuy mate, I know there's 100's of If's and But's involved with regards to how the team would have had to play and stuff like that, but that's not my point.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that it would destabalise the midfield next summer. But it's a risk worth taking, is it not?

I know being a fan of the club you're trying to see it from their perspective and ultimately trying to find wisdom in their reason. Or, like most fans would, find a good excuse.

But the thing is... if someone came to you just 2 weeks ago - forget 2-3 months - and said "right, you can have Javier Mascherano on loan. You can't buy him at the end of the season, but you'll get a year of good service out of him, then you can try and buy Hargreaves" - your first thoughts wouldn't be how the midfield would be disrupted next season - which would be a minor foot note in the grand scheme of things.

Most fans would be overboard with probably the transfer deal of the summer.

Ultimately a loan of Mascherano would be short-term, but so would the purchase of Senna. Either would have been a good buy though.

Obispo wrote:Poiuy mate, I know there's 100's of If's and But's involved with regards to how the team would have had to play and stuff like that, but that's not my point.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that it would destabalise the midfield next summer. But it's a risk worth taking, is it not?

I know being a fan of the club you're trying to see it from their perspective and ultimately trying to find wisdom in their reason. Or, like most fans would, find a good excuse.

But the thing is... if someone came to you just 2 weeks ago - forget 2-3 months - and said "right, you can have Javier Mascherano on loan. You can't buy him at the end of the season, but you'll get a year of good service out of him, then you can try and buy Hargreaves" - your first thoughts wouldn't be how the midfield would be disrupted next season - which would be a minor foot note in the grand scheme of things.

Most fans would be overboard with probably the transfer deal of the summer.

Ultimately a loan of Mascherano would be short-term, but so would the purchase of Senna. Either would have been a good buy though.

Of course i wuld have but the United board don't just look in football terms in the same way Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal don't. The long term implications of the deal are detrimental to United, the involvement with MSI and the characteristics of a player that has tied himself down to people that are exploiting him.

It was just a possible explanation in football terms that i gave, i'm not sure it is correct, but on the otehr hand i don't see United being all doom and gloom this season, sure i was dissapointed we didn't sign anyone but on face value our squad now compared to last season is much stronger.

i fully expect us to move for Hargreaves in January and although we could have signed Senna as a stop gap, you have got to look at it in the long term, Senna is a very good player and essentially offers almost everything that Hagreaves does, they are almost in teh same mold of player in that both play a defensive role but not one that could be classed as a holding player. You have got to ask yourself with the money constraints that have also seemingly played a part in our transfer activity where Senna sould be once we acquire the long term target which is Hargreaves? Senna is now 30, essentially United would be paying Villareal lets say 5 million for a player in the last year of his contract plus say 2 Million in wages, that's 7 million for a stop gap player in his 30's that in the long term you don't need. Sure he would be useful backup to Hargreaves (in the future) but do you really need that when you have two suitable squad players in Fletch and O'shea who have come through the youth system understand the club ethos and have already proved they can do a job there in the short term. O'shea being even more versatile is cover for both full backs and centre back positions.

TBH gill is just saying this to try and reasure united fans

he's a bastard, he knows united needed him

He's better then Kenyon, he only takes orders from above anyway,

It's all very simple : Mascherano has his own agents, so there's no money to be made by the Ferguson family => hence no interest.

Why would they reject one of the best young D-meds in the world,it is clear to me that they wanted someone like him. because they were after diara for two seasons.

Mabey Ferguson decided he wasn't right for the team?
They've never played with someone sitting in front of defense like Makalele or Emerson. Roy Keane was more of an all-action player who contributed in attack as well as defense. Hargreaves is more this type of player.

I'm with Obispo here, all these explanations are just ifs and buts and maybes, just stretches of the imagination by all of us trying to somehow explain this decision by Man. Utd.

I perhaps understand not being interested in Tevez since the club does have enough strikers and he's a little siilar to Rooney. But to turn down a deal for Mascherano despite all the baggage he may bring, esp. when you're willing to pay 18 million pounds for Hargreaves, is absolutely ludicrous. Further proof that Ferguson has totally lost it, and a big mistake by Gill too to reveal something like this because once again the fans will start questioning the manager.

It does seem somewhat bizarre that it has been revealed like this. Its almost as if they are proud of the fact that they turned him down and that they are boasting about the quality of DMs they presently have ().

Tweedledum wrote:It does seem somewhat bizarre that it has been revealed like this. Its almost as if they are proud of the fact that they turned him down and that they are boasting about the quality of DMs they presently have ().

True - to comment on it at all was folly. They should have just said 'the two are West Ham players and there's no reason to talk about them.'

Axeslammer ! wrote:It's all very simple : Mascherano has his own agents, so there's no money to be made by the Ferguson family => hence no interest.

Again Axe your a cretin who doesn't know what he's talking about. Fergie's son doesn't work for the club anymore.

All deals are done by Gill now.

Parks Lives wrote:

Axeslammer ! wrote:It's all very simple : Mascherano has his own agents, so there's no money to be made by the Ferguson family => hence no interest.

Again Axe your a cretin who doesn't know what he's talking about. Fergie's son doesn't work for the club anymore.

All deals are done by Gill now.

Perhaps Axe would like to explain how Van Der Sar, Park Ji Sung, Gabriel Heinze, Wayne Rooney and Michael Carrick all got signed despite their agents having no ties to the Ferguson family. Just perhaps.

Tweedledum wrote:It does seem somewhat bizarre that it has been revealed like this. Its almost as if they are proud of the fact that they turned him down and that they are boasting about the quality of DMs they presently have ().

their turning down prob had more to do with what was being offered in terms of a deal and ownership rather than the player, and they´ve probably commented cos they smell a chelsea rat (or another party rat) and want them to know they weren´t taken in

Why didnt they come out and say, 'The deal was crap' rather than this bs about Mascherano being too poor for man u?

SteveOoO wrote:Why didnt they come out and say, 'The deal was crap' rather than this bs about Mascherano being too poor for man u?

Maybe cause a needless rift with west ham i duno. What i do know is ballack is still in o shea's pocket

Exactly Frank, They should've just said we aren't happy about the "Terms & Conditions" of the deal - to try and act like the players aren't good enough for the club is just delusionary. A statement like that is indefencable IMHO.

l r d wrote:

SteveOoO wrote:Why didnt they come out and say, 'The deal was crap' rather than this bs about Mascherano being too poor for man u?

Maybe cause a needless rift with west ham i duno. What i do know is ballack is still in o shea's pocket