Daniel Munoz

taylors lovechild said:
Some pundits like Michael Owen put Munoz in their PL Team of the Season, so did Munoz have an average season? I seem to remember he was really good before his injury and seemed to struggle a bit to get up and down the pitch as much on his return. But then he was arguably the best right-back at the World Cup.

I think Forest will be very happy with this deal, but I do also think in the long run investing in Khalaili is wise, as he does look a proper talent.
Click to expand...
Reckon we will do well to keep him for two years.
 
Painter said:
Players don't stay forever, I guess Munoz doesn't suit the way Sage wants to play. Basically Munoz is a poor defender, but a good attacking wing back. So getting a decent fee to cover a 21 year olds fee is good business.
Click to expand...

Some seem very keen to see Munoz go and seem to question his abilities.

Firstly he is ideal as a wing back and that is the formation we are currently playing (might change at some point, who knows).

I think he was a decent defender, and his heading ability was exceptional for his height, however, agree he is better going forward.
As for last season he was exceptional until his injury and then perhaps was rushed back too quickly. He wasn't as great 2nd half of the season but who was? His performances in the WC were impressive.

As for his age , yes he has just turned 30 but he doesn't show any signs of slowing down - i suspect he will give Forest a minimum of 2 good years, maybe 3.
Ollie Watkins is almost 31 and has just gone for £50m and his pace is his greatest assist. Vardy was still doing a decent job in his late 30s and outpaced Guehi only a couple of years ago when he scored at Selhurst. Players can maintain their fitness for longer these days if they look after themselves.

For me the concern is Munoz, Sarr and Mateta scored the majority of our goals last season, and we didn't score many. If we finish the window with say only 1 of them left i can't see where the goals will come from.

Obviously it is difficult to keep a player who wants to leave but we don't need to panic the moment a half decent bid comes in. Look at Brighton as a perfect example.
 
If the player wants to leave I sort of get there is not a lot we can do. Personally I think it is complete madness selling him. He is crucial to making the wing back system work, is our main attacking provider and one of the few who is up for the fight.

We’ve already spent the money on his replacement who could be great or could be pony. We don’t know. If he’s good it will look like ok business. If he isn’t as good as Munoz we are in a lot of trouble.

if this was our only main ioutgoing I’d get it but given we already sold Lacroix I think it is a crazy decision.
 
JHB said:
If the player wants to leave I sort of get there is not a lot we can do. Personally I think it is complete madness selling him. He is crucial to making the wing back system work, is our main attacking provider and one of the few who is up for the fight.

We’ve already spent the money on his replacement who could be great or could be pony. We don’t know. If he’s good it will look like ok business. If he isn’t as good as Munoz we are in a lot of trouble.

Of this was our only main ioutgoing I’d get it but given we already sold Lacroix I think it is a crazy decision.
Click to expand...
Need to balance the books. Don't forget the club spent £80m in January. Imagine if SP was very loose with the money and we got a points deduction as a result? Imagine the criticism.
 
Last edited:
StandbyPalace said:
Need to balance the books. Don't forget the club spent £80m in January. Imagne if SP was very loose with the money and we got a points deduction as a result? Imagine the criticism.
Click to expand...
But in Munoz’s case we have already spent all his transfer money on his replacement. So we end up financially neutral having got rid or one of our own best performers and a player whose unique energy was critical and then replaced them with an unknown quantity. It could work out but as it stands at this moment in time it looks like a poor decision to set us up to compete this season
 
And with this sale, the club are in profit on transfers over the last three years. Meanwhile, Ipswich have a net deficit of about £250 million over the same period, with one of those years in the Championship! Make it make sense.
 
JHB said:
But in Munoz’s case we have already spent all his transfer money on his replacement. So we end up financially neutral having got rid or one of our own best performers and a player whose unique energy was critical and then replaced them with an unknown quantity. It could work out but as it stands at this moment in time it looks like a poor decision to set us up to compete this season
Click to expand...
I guess the player's age and whether he wanted to leave influenced the decision making. I try to remain positive rather than criticise the club. After all they will always have more information about the situation than we do.
 
taylors lovechild said:
And with this sale, the club are in profit on transfers over the last three years. Meanwhile, Ipswich have a net deficit of about £250 million over the same period, with one of those years in the Championship! Make it make sense.
Click to expand...
Thats amazing news then if you want a financially stable club. We have got where we on breaking even on transfers but Ipswich have had to go into debt by £250m. I didnt know that Ipswich are the benchmark, until three years ago they have been well out of the picture including a few years in League 1.

If they dont stay up, they could be in the s***. Big gamble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top