THE CHAMPIONS League returns in football this week and the tie that sticks out is Manchester City's visit to Real Madrid on Tuesday.
Last season City failed to even make the group stages but this time round I am convinced they will do much better - even though they have the unenviable task of coping with Borussia Dortmund and Ajax, as well as Madrid in their group.
I take them to grab a draw - 1-1 or 2-2 in the Bernabeu - to emphasise their credentials.
OK, Madrid have got Ronaldo but have they really got as many other players who are better than City's? I would argue not.
I can see Tevez scoring and Aguero too, if fit.
The only thing I would say that worries me about City is Mancini's continued reliance on the lumbering Edin Dzeko. The striker cost £30million but is too slow of thought and action. Balotelli is your man, Roberto, rather than Dzeko if you want to replace Aguero or Tevez at some stage.
WeeklySport
Wednesday, 12 September 2012
ANDY MURRAY WE SALUTE YOU
IT was wonderful witnessing Andy Murray making tennis history in New York on Monday.
The Scot became our first British Grand Slam champion since Fred Perry in 1936 as he beat Novak Djokovic at Flushing Meadow.
The feat was all the more remarkable because of three factors.
Murray has had to win his Slam in an era that has seen regularly tackling three of the best tennis players of all time in Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and the aforementioned Djokovic.
He has also had to carry the constant weight of being the Brit who would surely break through after all those years of heartache and disappointment since the reign of Perry.
And, thirdly, he has had to overcome his own demons and self-doubts - including the fact that he witnessed the Dunblane massacre as a schoolboy when he was just eight, surviving by hiding under a desk.
No wonder he has seemed such an introverted, serious young man over the years.
Andy Murray - we salute you. Enjoy your success and all the acclaim that comes with it.
You deserve it, sir.
FRANK WORRALL
The Scot became our first British Grand Slam champion since Fred Perry in 1936 as he beat Novak Djokovic at Flushing Meadow.
The feat was all the more remarkable because of three factors.
Murray has had to win his Slam in an era that has seen regularly tackling three of the best tennis players of all time in Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and the aforementioned Djokovic.
He has also had to carry the constant weight of being the Brit who would surely break through after all those years of heartache and disappointment since the reign of Perry.
And, thirdly, he has had to overcome his own demons and self-doubts - including the fact that he witnessed the Dunblane massacre as a schoolboy when he was just eight, surviving by hiding under a desk.
No wonder he has seemed such an introverted, serious young man over the years.
Andy Murray - we salute you. Enjoy your success and all the acclaim that comes with it.
You deserve it, sir.
FRANK WORRALL
GO NOW HODGSON - BEFORE WE FAIL TO QUALIFY FOR THE WORLD CUP
DON'T say I didn't warn you...when Roy Hodgson was appointed England manager in May, I wrote in this very column that the FA had plumped for the man who was a safe pair of hands and who would come cheap.
I pleaded that if, early in his reign, if it was clear he was going to fail, the FA and Hodgson himself should at least have the decency to jointly hold up their hands and admit the recession England manager for these recession times had been a mistake.
That Hodgson shouldn't have been employed in the first place.
That, OK, he is a lovely guy, a decent ambassador - but he has been appointed above his level.
That if he was out of his depth, he would make a swift exit before things got worse.
Well, I believe we are now at that stage - less than five months into Hodgson's tenure.
The lucky 1-1 draw with Ukraine at Wembley last night showed up Hodgson's deficiencies.
The visitors are hardly world beaters - I would suggest that most teams in FIFA's top ten rankings would defeat them (unbelievably, England are ranked THIRD but under Hodgson a ranking of 15 to 20 would be more realistic).
Yet England huffed and puffed and, to be honest, I thought Ukraine deserved to win.
Sure, the Jermain Defoe goal that never was should have stood. No way did he foul that big lumbering brute who got in his way as he headed for goal.
But you could as easily argue that it was just karma for the perfectly good Ukraine goal that was disallowed when England had the last laugh against them in Euro 2012.
That it equalled things out.
But last night Ukraine were the better team - and it didn't help that Hodgson fluffed his lines.
He called in every excuse during Euro 2012 (he had not had enough time for the team to gell, he was beset by injuries and he needed patience).
We gave him patience but he rewarded us with a team that would have set the world alight in prehistoric times - a dinosaur outfit bedevilled by his own insistence on sticking to a rigid, dull 4-4-2 format.
Last night his team was slightly more fluid but not good enough overall.
Again, the old bloke was at it - blaming the injuries that had robbed him of the likes of Rooney and Terry.
But, putting that to one side, he hardly helped himself with some truly questionable personnel decisions.
Can you explain to me why Aaron Lennon wasn't in the squad - that he is behind even Raheem Sterling in the pecking order is a joke.
Also, what was the point of going to all that aggro in getting Michael Carrick back in the squad - and then not using him from the start?
Surely, Hodgson accepted England's problem was their lack of ball retention in the Euros...but then he goes and leaves out the man who is widely accepted as England's best passer and retainer of the ball!
And why wasn't Rio Ferdinand marshalling that woeful backline in the absence of Terry?
The truth of it all is this: Hodgson is a dinosaur himself so how can we realistically expect England to move with the times?
Would England play like they did last night - with the same personnel - if say Pep Guardiola or even Roberto Mancini were in charge?
The main worry is this: in a lightweight group England may struggle to grab even the runners-up spot if Hodgson stays in command. I am already assuming Ukraine will take one of the two spots up for grabs - but what if Poland or the very real threat that is Montenegro also prove too canny for Dinosaur Roy?
It would take a real act of faith and bravery to boot out Hodgson now...but dare we gamble any further with him? If he wasn't good enough for Liverpool, can he really be good enough for England?
Yes, I know it could prove tricky replacing him now the season is underway.
But wait a minute...isn't there a chappy out there who is out of work and readily available - and who might be able to turn things around?
But appointing Harry Redknapp now would be an even braver move - and an acceptance from the FA suits that they got it wrong in the first place.
Come on David Bernstein...you're 70 and are about to leave as your legacy the failure of Roy Hodgson, the man you stubbornly - and wrongly - went for despite all the evidence that he wasn't up to the job.
You still have a chance to go down in history as the man who then admitted he had messed up - and saved England - by bringing in 'Arry, the man who took us to Rio with smiles and style.
FRANK WORRALL
I pleaded that if, early in his reign, if it was clear he was going to fail, the FA and Hodgson himself should at least have the decency to jointly hold up their hands and admit the recession England manager for these recession times had been a mistake.
That Hodgson shouldn't have been employed in the first place.
That, OK, he is a lovely guy, a decent ambassador - but he has been appointed above his level.
That if he was out of his depth, he would make a swift exit before things got worse.
Well, I believe we are now at that stage - less than five months into Hodgson's tenure.
The lucky 1-1 draw with Ukraine at Wembley last night showed up Hodgson's deficiencies.
The visitors are hardly world beaters - I would suggest that most teams in FIFA's top ten rankings would defeat them (unbelievably, England are ranked THIRD but under Hodgson a ranking of 15 to 20 would be more realistic).
Yet England huffed and puffed and, to be honest, I thought Ukraine deserved to win.
Sure, the Jermain Defoe goal that never was should have stood. No way did he foul that big lumbering brute who got in his way as he headed for goal.
But you could as easily argue that it was just karma for the perfectly good Ukraine goal that was disallowed when England had the last laugh against them in Euro 2012.
That it equalled things out.
But last night Ukraine were the better team - and it didn't help that Hodgson fluffed his lines.
He called in every excuse during Euro 2012 (he had not had enough time for the team to gell, he was beset by injuries and he needed patience).
We gave him patience but he rewarded us with a team that would have set the world alight in prehistoric times - a dinosaur outfit bedevilled by his own insistence on sticking to a rigid, dull 4-4-2 format.
Last night his team was slightly more fluid but not good enough overall.
Again, the old bloke was at it - blaming the injuries that had robbed him of the likes of Rooney and Terry.
But, putting that to one side, he hardly helped himself with some truly questionable personnel decisions.
Can you explain to me why Aaron Lennon wasn't in the squad - that he is behind even Raheem Sterling in the pecking order is a joke.
Also, what was the point of going to all that aggro in getting Michael Carrick back in the squad - and then not using him from the start?
Surely, Hodgson accepted England's problem was their lack of ball retention in the Euros...but then he goes and leaves out the man who is widely accepted as England's best passer and retainer of the ball!
And why wasn't Rio Ferdinand marshalling that woeful backline in the absence of Terry?
The truth of it all is this: Hodgson is a dinosaur himself so how can we realistically expect England to move with the times?
Would England play like they did last night - with the same personnel - if say Pep Guardiola or even Roberto Mancini were in charge?
The main worry is this: in a lightweight group England may struggle to grab even the runners-up spot if Hodgson stays in command. I am already assuming Ukraine will take one of the two spots up for grabs - but what if Poland or the very real threat that is Montenegro also prove too canny for Dinosaur Roy?
It would take a real act of faith and bravery to boot out Hodgson now...but dare we gamble any further with him? If he wasn't good enough for Liverpool, can he really be good enough for England?
Yes, I know it could prove tricky replacing him now the season is underway.
But wait a minute...isn't there a chappy out there who is out of work and readily available - and who might be able to turn things around?
But appointing Harry Redknapp now would be an even braver move - and an acceptance from the FA suits that they got it wrong in the first place.
Come on David Bernstein...you're 70 and are about to leave as your legacy the failure of Roy Hodgson, the man you stubbornly - and wrongly - went for despite all the evidence that he wasn't up to the job.
You still have a chance to go down in history as the man who then admitted he had messed up - and saved England - by bringing in 'Arry, the man who took us to Rio with smiles and style.
FRANK WORRALL
Wednesday, 5 September 2012
FRANKIE'S FLUTTERS
I'M planning a wee flutter on Andy Murray to break his Grand Slam jinx by winning the US Open on Sunday.
Having said that, knowing Murray he'll probably go and lose his quarter-final to Marin Cilic today!
Seriously though, Murray seems a different player since he won the Olympics gold medal at Wimbledon - it is as if a huge weight has been lifted from his shoulders.
So come on, Andy, don't blow it again - we're expecting you to do the business for us in America this week.
Football-wise, the focus turns to the international game. I expect England to win both their opening World Cup 2014 qualifying ties - against Moldova on Friday and Ukraine next Tuesday.
Certainly anything less would throw immediate doubt on the job being done by new boss Roy Hodgson, who must do without the injured Wayne Rooney and Andy Carroll. I would have thought those two injuries would have provided Hodgson with the perfect opportunity to have given the prolific goalscorer Darren Bent a recall.
Let's hope the failure to do so does not rebound badly on Hodgson.
FRANK WORRALL
Having said that, knowing Murray he'll probably go and lose his quarter-final to Marin Cilic today!
Seriously though, Murray seems a different player since he won the Olympics gold medal at Wimbledon - it is as if a huge weight has been lifted from his shoulders.
So come on, Andy, don't blow it again - we're expecting you to do the business for us in America this week.
Football-wise, the focus turns to the international game. I expect England to win both their opening World Cup 2014 qualifying ties - against Moldova on Friday and Ukraine next Tuesday.
Certainly anything less would throw immediate doubt on the job being done by new boss Roy Hodgson, who must do without the injured Wayne Rooney and Andy Carroll. I would have thought those two injuries would have provided Hodgson with the perfect opportunity to have given the prolific goalscorer Darren Bent a recall.
Let's hope the failure to do so does not rebound badly on Hodgson.
FRANK WORRALL
LIVERPOOL: RODGERS OUT, REDKNAPP IN
IT is going from bad to worse for Brendan Rodgers at Liverpool.
The dream job he left Swansea for just a couple of months ago is rapidly turning into a nightmare.
A big part of the problem is that owner John Henry (who likes to show off his smart-looking wife and act the big shot) does not want to spend any more big money on turning Liverpool around.
His attempt to win over the fans through an open letter on the club's website was a Machiavellian move - the idea being that he trusts them and wants to appeal to them directly when, in reality, the letter merely confirmed the fact that he wants to pull the wool over their eyes and takes them for mugs.
Every point he made on the letter could have been argued against or been used to show him in his true colours - from his claim that he wants to run the club better than any previous administration (ie spend no money to ensure no debts are incurred) to his belief you cannot buy talent but should produce it with young kids (again spend no money).
Basically, Henry is a bean counter who wants to run Liverpool on the cheap and is praying he can get away with it - but I know Liverpool fans are canny and many pals of mine who support the club say they have already marked Henry's card.
The fact that he would not cough up the extra £2million needed to buy Clint Dempsey from Fulham only served to confirm he was a cheapskate - and that he did not back the judgment of Rodgers.
Which in itself is bad news for Rodgers. He was under the impression that he was coming to Liverpool as the man in charge of ALL footballing matters. Hence his stubborn refusal to accept Louis van Gaal in the role of Director of Football.
But now Rodgers finds Henry himself is taking on that role - with numerous ill-informed 'advisers' helping him decide transfer policy.
I personally do not believe that Brendan Rodgers is up to the task of being the manager of such a world-renowned, iconic club as Liverpool FC.
What has he done and what has he won? Eleventh place in the Prem last season - with a Swansea team set up for him by the much more talented Roberto Martinez - and the sack at Reading.
Is that enough to be over-promoted to Liverpool FC?
Was that enough to earn Kenny Dalglish the boot (Last season Kenny won the League Cup, took Liverpool to the FA Cup Final and 8th in the Premier League...I say it again, Rodgers has NEVER WON ANYTHING.)
I also despise the way Rodgers is also trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the fans, the Press and anyone who will listen by consistently pleading for patience as he tries to improve the standard of football at Liverpool. This really stinks - it is a disgrace that Rodgers is being allowed to get away with comments such as 'The job is bigger than I thought, it will take time to get the passing game I want.' The implication being that the passing game is alien to Liverpool - that the club has never witnessed good football and that only he can put that right.
What absolute crap! It is insulting to the work done by Dalglish and the likes of Bob Paisley and Shankly before him - Liverpool have always played good football and been admired for their passing skills. How dare some nobody like Rodgers claim to be the man who is going to be the messiah of style at Anfield - the man who brings decent football to a club that has been universally renowned for it over the years!
His arrogance is staggering. But the truth is he really offers nothing more than the king's new clothing.
I say again - what did he win at Swansea or elsewhere and what right has he to claim that he will bring better, more successful football than Dalglish?
How can Liverpool fans be expected to trust the words of a man who farms out on loan their most improved player of the last season, Andy Carroll? Rodgers does not fancy Carroll because he is big - and that would supposedly be at odds with the football he wants to play. But Carroll is one of the most impressive big men with the ball at his feet; he is skilfull and can pass as well as anyone. He is certainly in a different league to the laboured Fabio Borini whom Rodgers splashed £10million for.
And isn't he a much better footballer than the journeyman Danny Graham who 'starred' regularly for Rodgers at Swansea? Yet Graham is also a six-footer like Andy Carroll - so why didn't Rodgers get rid of him too?
It seems to me that Rodgers is trying to carve out an image for himself as the new Pep Guardiola with all this crap about passing football. Rodgers might be better served allowing his Liverpool team first to play football that gets results. By allowing his backline to defend as they did (so successfully) under Dalglish and by trying to sort out the basics of the team before aiming for the beautiful game. Liverpool are not in the bottom three for nothing.
But I doubt he will be able to do it...he is not good enough.
There is a way out of this torment - for both Rodgers and Henry - before it staggers on to an even worse state and Liverpool even get embroiled in a real relegation dogfight.
Rodgers can resign on the grounds that the job description he was provided with has not been adhered to. He can point to Henry's unwillingness to back his judgment on the aforementioned Dempsey.
Rodgers then leaves with a wad in his back pocket for constructive dismissal and his head held high. He can then go on to deliver his 'magic' with some other club in the bottom half of the Premier League or the Championship.
And Henry can bring in the man who is truly suited to the wheeler-dealing he so craves - the man who would bring in money to buy new players from sales. And the man who would no doubt bring back Andy Carroll and help develop a devastating partnership between him and Suarez.
Yes, Harry Redknapp. The man who took Spurs from the bottom of the table to the top four.
You might ask how Henry would sell this to the Liverpool fans. How could he present such an obvious U-turn given that he has stated he wants a young, bright manager to bring entertaining football?
Given the hole Liverpool are in, does it really matter about saving face?
Henry could keep his trap shut and let 'Arry do the talking.
If we cut the crap, Henry wants success without spending big bucks. Can Rodgers do that? Are Liverpool fans willing to applaud regular 11th place finishes in the league?
Rodgers out, Redknapp in - it is the obvious solution...and I can guarantee the Kop would love 'Arry. A true footballing man...like Kenny Dalglish, funnily enough...
FRANK WORRALL
The dream job he left Swansea for just a couple of months ago is rapidly turning into a nightmare.
A big part of the problem is that owner John Henry (who likes to show off his smart-looking wife and act the big shot) does not want to spend any more big money on turning Liverpool around.
His attempt to win over the fans through an open letter on the club's website was a Machiavellian move - the idea being that he trusts them and wants to appeal to them directly when, in reality, the letter merely confirmed the fact that he wants to pull the wool over their eyes and takes them for mugs.
Every point he made on the letter could have been argued against or been used to show him in his true colours - from his claim that he wants to run the club better than any previous administration (ie spend no money to ensure no debts are incurred) to his belief you cannot buy talent but should produce it with young kids (again spend no money).
Basically, Henry is a bean counter who wants to run Liverpool on the cheap and is praying he can get away with it - but I know Liverpool fans are canny and many pals of mine who support the club say they have already marked Henry's card.
The fact that he would not cough up the extra £2million needed to buy Clint Dempsey from Fulham only served to confirm he was a cheapskate - and that he did not back the judgment of Rodgers.
Which in itself is bad news for Rodgers. He was under the impression that he was coming to Liverpool as the man in charge of ALL footballing matters. Hence his stubborn refusal to accept Louis van Gaal in the role of Director of Football.
But now Rodgers finds Henry himself is taking on that role - with numerous ill-informed 'advisers' helping him decide transfer policy.
I personally do not believe that Brendan Rodgers is up to the task of being the manager of such a world-renowned, iconic club as Liverpool FC.
What has he done and what has he won? Eleventh place in the Prem last season - with a Swansea team set up for him by the much more talented Roberto Martinez - and the sack at Reading.
Is that enough to be over-promoted to Liverpool FC?
Was that enough to earn Kenny Dalglish the boot (Last season Kenny won the League Cup, took Liverpool to the FA Cup Final and 8th in the Premier League...I say it again, Rodgers has NEVER WON ANYTHING.)
I also despise the way Rodgers is also trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the fans, the Press and anyone who will listen by consistently pleading for patience as he tries to improve the standard of football at Liverpool. This really stinks - it is a disgrace that Rodgers is being allowed to get away with comments such as 'The job is bigger than I thought, it will take time to get the passing game I want.' The implication being that the passing game is alien to Liverpool - that the club has never witnessed good football and that only he can put that right.
What absolute crap! It is insulting to the work done by Dalglish and the likes of Bob Paisley and Shankly before him - Liverpool have always played good football and been admired for their passing skills. How dare some nobody like Rodgers claim to be the man who is going to be the messiah of style at Anfield - the man who brings decent football to a club that has been universally renowned for it over the years!
His arrogance is staggering. But the truth is he really offers nothing more than the king's new clothing.
I say again - what did he win at Swansea or elsewhere and what right has he to claim that he will bring better, more successful football than Dalglish?
How can Liverpool fans be expected to trust the words of a man who farms out on loan their most improved player of the last season, Andy Carroll? Rodgers does not fancy Carroll because he is big - and that would supposedly be at odds with the football he wants to play. But Carroll is one of the most impressive big men with the ball at his feet; he is skilfull and can pass as well as anyone. He is certainly in a different league to the laboured Fabio Borini whom Rodgers splashed £10million for.
And isn't he a much better footballer than the journeyman Danny Graham who 'starred' regularly for Rodgers at Swansea? Yet Graham is also a six-footer like Andy Carroll - so why didn't Rodgers get rid of him too?
It seems to me that Rodgers is trying to carve out an image for himself as the new Pep Guardiola with all this crap about passing football. Rodgers might be better served allowing his Liverpool team first to play football that gets results. By allowing his backline to defend as they did (so successfully) under Dalglish and by trying to sort out the basics of the team before aiming for the beautiful game. Liverpool are not in the bottom three for nothing.
But I doubt he will be able to do it...he is not good enough.
There is a way out of this torment - for both Rodgers and Henry - before it staggers on to an even worse state and Liverpool even get embroiled in a real relegation dogfight.
Rodgers can resign on the grounds that the job description he was provided with has not been adhered to. He can point to Henry's unwillingness to back his judgment on the aforementioned Dempsey.
Rodgers then leaves with a wad in his back pocket for constructive dismissal and his head held high. He can then go on to deliver his 'magic' with some other club in the bottom half of the Premier League or the Championship.
And Henry can bring in the man who is truly suited to the wheeler-dealing he so craves - the man who would bring in money to buy new players from sales. And the man who would no doubt bring back Andy Carroll and help develop a devastating partnership between him and Suarez.
Yes, Harry Redknapp. The man who took Spurs from the bottom of the table to the top four.
You might ask how Henry would sell this to the Liverpool fans. How could he present such an obvious U-turn given that he has stated he wants a young, bright manager to bring entertaining football?
Given the hole Liverpool are in, does it really matter about saving face?
Henry could keep his trap shut and let 'Arry do the talking.
If we cut the crap, Henry wants success without spending big bucks. Can Rodgers do that? Are Liverpool fans willing to applaud regular 11th place finishes in the league?
Rodgers out, Redknapp in - it is the obvious solution...and I can guarantee the Kop would love 'Arry. A true footballing man...like Kenny Dalglish, funnily enough...
FRANK WORRALL
FABREGAS WANTS TO RETURN TO ARSENAL!
IT'S one of those weeks when you hear some crazy inside tips about star players and their futures.
The Ronaldo to United with Rooney to Madrid story was staggering enough but there's one brewing down in London that could prove equally as mind-blowing.
My sources at Arsenal tell me that Cesc Fabregas is unhappy at Barcelona and that he has told pals at Arsenal that he would love to return to the Emirates.
His story is the one of the big fish in the smaller pond who is lost and lonesome when he becomes the small fish in the bigger pond.
His dream move back to his hometown club has not worked out as he would have hoped - he is not a guaranteed starter and his form has suffered.
The John Snag he faces is obvious: Arsenal could not afford to buy him back, or pay his wages. So would they be willing to offer Barca Jack Wilshere in a straight swop deal?
Or will he end up returning to England and playing for Man City or Chelsea?
I would not be at all surprised to see Cesc back here by this time next year. He is a class act.
FRANK WORRALL
The Ronaldo to United with Rooney to Madrid story was staggering enough but there's one brewing down in London that could prove equally as mind-blowing.
My sources at Arsenal tell me that Cesc Fabregas is unhappy at Barcelona and that he has told pals at Arsenal that he would love to return to the Emirates.
His story is the one of the big fish in the smaller pond who is lost and lonesome when he becomes the small fish in the bigger pond.
His dream move back to his hometown club has not worked out as he would have hoped - he is not a guaranteed starter and his form has suffered.
The John Snag he faces is obvious: Arsenal could not afford to buy him back, or pay his wages. So would they be willing to offer Barca Jack Wilshere in a straight swop deal?
Or will he end up returning to England and playing for Man City or Chelsea?
I would not be at all surprised to see Cesc back here by this time next year. He is a class act.
FRANK WORRALL
RONALDO SWOP FOR ROONEY AND £25MILLION
I HEAR from my spies at Old Trafford that Sir Alex Ferguson may indeed be planning to show Wayne Rooney the door.
The relationship between the United boss and his star player has been an uneasy one for some time now.
Recently, Fergie dropped him for being overweight and out of condition - and as we watched Wayne labour for England in the Euros we could all see that the self-styled 'big man' was not fit.
Now, as Fergie enters the last two years of his dictatorship at United, the boss wants to leave with one (or even two) final Champions League trophy wins.
That was why he bought Robin Van Persie - to secure the goals that would ensure United would not be dumped at the group stages once again.
The Champions League remains the holy grail for Fergie, as I discovered when I did his biography two years ago.
He believes that a team and manager are ultimately judged by their domination (or lack of it) in Europe. That a team like United should have won the trophy five or six times on the run, rather than just three overall (including two under his tenure).
That is why all the whispers behind the scenes at United are now concentrated on WHEN Ronaldo will return and not IF.
The big problem, of course, for Fergie is that the Glazers would never sanction the £80million transfer fee Madrid would want for their star man...a like for like cash return on their investment after they paid that for the Portuguese in 2009.
That is why Fergie bought Van Persie - to replace Rooney, not to work alongside him. The idea is that he could use Rooney as part of the carrot to bring Ronaldo back. Rooney would be rated at £55 or even £60 million - so the Glazers would have to fork out a further £25million. Fergie is allowed that figure for incoming transfers each summer, so could take it in one early slab in January as long as he agreed he would not spend anything in the summer unless he sold someone from his existing squad to bring in cash.
That plus Rooney would pay the fee for Ronaldo - but then you have the problem of his wages. United are working on the plan that the commercial value of Ronaldo would provide a hefty chunk and that they could also offload Nani for £25million to make up the difference in cash coming in and the freeing up of his salary.
The Glazers are up for the plan - it would in one swoop get many of their critics off their backs and leave them looking like heroes for once. They would be the men who brought back to United their best player since Georgie Best.
And the partnership of Van Persie and Ronaldo would lead Fergie to those final two Champions League wins he so craves before he retires - while the fact that Ronaldo was back at Old Trafford would provide yet another justification in Mourinho's mind that he too should quit Madrid to take over at United in the summer of 2014.
Truly a case of trebles all round!
FRANK WORRALL
The relationship between the United boss and his star player has been an uneasy one for some time now.
Recently, Fergie dropped him for being overweight and out of condition - and as we watched Wayne labour for England in the Euros we could all see that the self-styled 'big man' was not fit.
Now, as Fergie enters the last two years of his dictatorship at United, the boss wants to leave with one (or even two) final Champions League trophy wins.
That was why he bought Robin Van Persie - to secure the goals that would ensure United would not be dumped at the group stages once again.
The Champions League remains the holy grail for Fergie, as I discovered when I did his biography two years ago.
He believes that a team and manager are ultimately judged by their domination (or lack of it) in Europe. That a team like United should have won the trophy five or six times on the run, rather than just three overall (including two under his tenure).
That is why all the whispers behind the scenes at United are now concentrated on WHEN Ronaldo will return and not IF.
The big problem, of course, for Fergie is that the Glazers would never sanction the £80million transfer fee Madrid would want for their star man...a like for like cash return on their investment after they paid that for the Portuguese in 2009.
That is why Fergie bought Van Persie - to replace Rooney, not to work alongside him. The idea is that he could use Rooney as part of the carrot to bring Ronaldo back. Rooney would be rated at £55 or even £60 million - so the Glazers would have to fork out a further £25million. Fergie is allowed that figure for incoming transfers each summer, so could take it in one early slab in January as long as he agreed he would not spend anything in the summer unless he sold someone from his existing squad to bring in cash.
That plus Rooney would pay the fee for Ronaldo - but then you have the problem of his wages. United are working on the plan that the commercial value of Ronaldo would provide a hefty chunk and that they could also offload Nani for £25million to make up the difference in cash coming in and the freeing up of his salary.
The Glazers are up for the plan - it would in one swoop get many of their critics off their backs and leave them looking like heroes for once. They would be the men who brought back to United their best player since Georgie Best.
And the partnership of Van Persie and Ronaldo would lead Fergie to those final two Champions League wins he so craves before he retires - while the fact that Ronaldo was back at Old Trafford would provide yet another justification in Mourinho's mind that he too should quit Madrid to take over at United in the summer of 2014.
Truly a case of trebles all round!
FRANK WORRALL
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)