新闻中心分类
《曼晚》建议不靠谱,蜜蜂双煞在曼联合体?别闹了!(曼晚这提案不着调,蜜蜂双星齐投曼联?想多了!)

Evaluating Manchester United's Transfer Options

性掏空前场

Manchester United already has Hojlund, and adding Toney could block him. Mbeumo fits as a right winger, but the need for a defensive midfielder or center-back is more urgent. I could break down rumor sources, fees, and tactical fits, but by late 2025, the manager may be unknown. It's worth noting that Manchester United's recruitment is now led by INEOS, focusing on data-driven younger assets. Overall, I estimate a 1/10 probability for a package deal. Individually, Mbeumo is plausible if fees and wages fit, while Toney's age makes him less likely. Would the user like a quick feasibility checklist?Preparing a Response in Chinese

I need to outline my thoughts on this transfer situation concisely. First, I believe that a combined deal for both players to Manchester United is pretty unrealistic. Reasons include operational aspects, financial implications, and strategy. For instance, Brentford wouldn't part with two core players at once due to stability needs. If it's a choice between the two, Mbeumo seems more reasonable as he fits the right-wing role, while Toney could be a costlier short-term option. Would the user like me to create a rough cost and wage structure?

同感,这种“蜜蜂双煞打包去曼联”的传闻基本不靠谱。

  • 操作层面:布伦特福德很少在同一窗口放走两名进攻核心;补强成本、保级/排名目标都不允许一次性掏空前场。
  • 财务约束:两人合计大概率要过1.1–1.3亿英镑外加高薪;曼联还有PSR/工资结构压力,难以同时消化。
  • 招募策略:INEOS更偏年轻、可增值型资产;Toney年龄与档位更像短期即战力且与霍伊伦德角色冲突。
  • 竞技优先级:曼联更急的是后腰/中卫等补位;同时签两名前场核心的边际收益不高。
  • 新闻源可信度:曼晚多为本地流量向选题,风向更看权威跟队与交易记者;打包转会这类爆点通常是“想象题”。

若只来其一:

  • Mbeumo更合理一些(可打RW/二前锋、无球冲击与反抢适配度高)。
  • Toney即插即用但成本高、年龄曲线与霍伊伦德定位重叠,概率更低。

需要我给你做个更细的可行性小算(转会费区间、税前薪资、PSR影响)或战术适配对比吗?

and

Copyright 2024 乐鱼(leyu)中国官网 - 乐鱼APP官方下载客户端 All Rights by 乐鱼APP