Manchester United Transfer News: David Moyes Says Wayne Rooney Not for Sale
Several big names across the world have been the subjects of transfer rumors over the past several weeks, but one of the biggest is unquestionably Manchester United forward Wayne Rooney. He has been linked to several top clubs, but now appears destined to remain at Old Trafford.
According to Sky Sports News, new Manchester United manager David Moyes will not sell Rooney, so the longtime Red Devil will remain with the club with which he has become synonymous.
David Moyes: Wayne Rooney not for sale and will remain at Manchester United #SSN— Sky Sports News (@SkySportsNews) July 5, 2013
Is keeping Rooney the right move for Manchester United?
This past season was a difficult one for Rooney, as he dropped to third on the team in scoring behind Robin van Persie and Javier "Chicharito" Hernandez with 16 goals across all competitions. Rooney also started just 31 matches, though he did lead the team in assists with 13, so he is far from over the hill.
In fact, Rooney is just 27 years old, so he should have plenty left in the tank. It seems as though many observers forget how young he is since he's entering his 10th season with Manchester United.
Rooney is just two years removed from a 34-goal campaign, and while it will be difficult for him to approach that number again as he battles RVP and Chicharito for playing time, he is still a very valuable commodity. The Red Devils ran away with the EPL this past season, and Rooney's steady play had a lot to do with it.
Even if Rooney doesn't start every match, Moyes will find a way to utilize him. There is no such thing as too much depth in soccer, and having a versatile guy like Rooney who can score as a starter or coming off the bench will be huge for United.
It's tough to imagine Rooney wearing another kit, and that is something Manchester United fans won't have to worry about for the immediate future.
Follow @MikeChiari on Twitter
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?