Money over Bullsh*t

What? Posting something, me... it's almost unheard of recently.  Anyway, I'm thinking of a summer revamp, and a proper posting schedule ready for next season, but until then I'm going to try and post sporadically.  I'm thinking of writing something on the Glazers and money and other clubs and rich men, hopefully I'll have something ready for next week, though in this case the problem is not so much writing, but working out what to write.

Until then, here's a little thought on something on The Guardian website this morning, about our possible signing of Shinji Kagawa, entitled "Shinji Kagawa typifies Manchester United's new age of austerity"

I'm not going to get into arguments about money, or the lack thereof, here, that's for what I'm intending to write.  I just wanted to point out the logical flaw in this writer's arguments.  Logical flaw that would seem to stem from an agenda - an agenda of debt and Glazers and suchlike - an agenda that means when the facts don't fit they must be ignored.

Here's what the writer says:

If United were to offer £45,000 a week this would more than double Kagawa's current wage, so his salary should not prove a serious hitch. But the suspicion lingers that Kagawa's imminent presence at Old Trafford confirms a new era of austerity is under way. Fans and seasoned watchers of the club wonder if this is now how it will be. Are the effects of the Glazer family's cash-burning buyout that cost United £500m alone in leverage fees and which continues to drain resources finally showing?

Chelsea's first European Cup probably swung Hazard away from Manchester to London. But his fee and the money he could earn at Stamford Bridge were also deal breakers for United. When it came to it Ferguson could not countenance paying the £32m and the £100,000-a-week salary Roman Abramovich rubber-stamped at Chelsea for a 21-year-old who is still raw potential. United may have the finance for one splurge in the market, and with the vagaries of football Ferguson has to be as sure as he can.

Most of this is probably up for discussion.  Maybe we don't have too much cash.  However the logic of one sentence is ridiculous.  It's this: "But his fee and the money he could earn at Stamford Bridge were also deal breakers for United. When it came to it Ferguson could not countenance paying the £32m and the £100,000-a-week salary Roman Abramovich rubber-stamped at Chelsea for a 21-year-old who is still raw potential."  The "fee and the money he could earn... were deal breakers."  And that's why he ended up at Chelsea?  Really.  Let's have a look at the news from Monday:

Eden Hazard has announced that he is set to sign for Chelsea. The 21-year-old Lille playmaker will join the newly crowned European champions for £32m on a five‑year deal worth £100,000 a week after tax. The Chelsea owner, Roman Abramovich, who does not have a permanent manager at the club, drove the purchase personally, in what is a stunning statement of intent.

The fee and package for such a young player is eye-watering but Chelsea's coup is also reflected in their having seen off strong competition from the Premier League champions, Manchester City, and the runners-up Manchester United – who were, by some distance, England's most consistent clubs last season.

Yes, Chelsea beat off Manchester City to his signature.  Manchester City, those renowned skinflints... Let's ignore that in favour of the "new age of austerity" for Manchester United story.