We've always been bad at selling, either for very low fees or simply not moving them on. It's been an issue for decades.
From a business perspective no. I don’t think it’s good for football for top clubs to stockpile talent with the sole aim of making money. It’s on the lawmakers to stop it from happening though.Is the Chelsea model a bad one? If the players are good enough they end up getting a stint at the club, and if not they get sold and then club makes money off of it. What’s the issue?
All top clubs do it to some extent Chelsea (and I think Juventus) are just more prominent because of the volume of players involved.Is the Chelsea model a bad one? If the players are good enough they end up getting a stint at the club, and if not they get sold and then club makes money off of it. What’s the issue?
If you were a manager at another Premier club which fringe Utd player would you want and how much would you bid for him?It's a strange one for me that the likes of Chelsea can get almost 90 million quid for several of their fringe players this summer, meaning their total outlay on Lukaku is something like 7 million or thereabouts.
We have numerous players on the fringes of the squad who aren't likely to make a positive contribution to our first team but yet we seem to hold on to them for dear life and in several cases, reward them with lucrative long-term contracts, it's a little baffling.
The likes of Matic, Mata and Phil Jones are obvious examples of players whose best days are long behind them but who constantly get new deals.
One other point I would like to make is that we haven't even managed to sell a single player for a fee this summer.
Now in an ideal world, where football isn’t dominated by a few clubs, I would love for there to be a better spread of players throughout the entire football pyramid, as more quality players at other teams makes for more entertaining football overall. However, that isn’t going to happen ever.From a business perspective no. I don’t think it’s good for football for top clubs to stockpile talent with the sole aim of making money. It’s on the lawmakers to stop it from happening though.
If I said to you, you can have a season ticket for full price but you can only watch 40% of the games, you wouldn't sign up for it. People forget contracts are also based on what the players wants in order to sign it. You start dictating to players their contract, don't be surprised if they don't sign it and walk away for nothing. This includes the ones that are playing well cause they'll also think why should I stay around if the club doesn't look after all the players as maybe one day, it might be me? It's a short career and these things matter.You have 2 categories of players, young 20's who have been here for a few years, not got enough appearances, not done enough on loan and now don't have enough of a fee or older players that haven't been properly replaced or we couldn't shift due to their contract/ injuries.
To combat this I truly believe we be more vigorous with these young players like Pereira, Williams, Tuanzabe & co, sell them for cheap and insert buy back and sell on clauses, if they become better we than we thought we have a way to get them back or get a larger fee while getting them off the books for now.
In terms of older players, we should be quite explicit in doing a 1 year contract plus option of 1 more if they have a certain injury ratio, that way we maintain the power.
We seem to be too loyal to players or too insistent on maintaining their initial asset value when it's clear they have depreciated, we need to be more decisive and move players on, no player is bigger than the club.
I get the football argument, but the vast majority of these players end up out on loan at other clubs anyway. It's not like Chelsea are sat there with 60 players not playing any football.From a business perspective no. I don’t think it’s good for football for top clubs to stockpile talent with the sole aim of making money. It’s on the lawmakers to stop it from happening though.
Right, but look at the players Chelsea have moved on for decent fees:It's a strange one for me that the likes of Chelsea can get almost 90 million quid for several of their fringe players this summer, meaning their total outlay on Lukaku is something like 7 million or thereabouts.
We have numerous players on the fringes of the squad who aren't likely to make a positive contribution to our first team but yet we seem to hold on to them for dear life and in several cases, reward them with lucrative long-term contracts, it's a little baffling.
The likes of Matic, Mata and Phil Jones are obvious examples of players whose best days are long behind them but who constantly get new deals.
One other point I would like to make is that we haven't even managed to sell a single player for a fee this summer.
The only reason they could have is that they don't want to replace these guys and/or don't trust the young players to step up. Personally I can't see how someone from our academy couldn't provide us what Periera did. Or how we couldn't sign a cheap replacement squad player. Matic, Mata, at least they have experience and TBH there have been times where they've been good, but again there is no shortage of players available on small fees or free's.Completely agree. Can anyone explain to me why we renewed Bailly's deal? Its obvious as the nose on your face that Ole doesn't rate him. The club knew that we were going to go in for Varane. So why did we do it?
'To protect value'? Why is this going to end up any different than the examples you've given. Who is going to be racing to pay us for an injury prone defender? In the end all we are doing is committing to paying millions to players who, frankly, are unlikely to offer much.
We've seen it time and time again that Ole refuses to use his bench. He clearly, clearly does not trust many players in our squad. Yet, time and time again they get new deals. The way the club is run is crazy.
I can respect that but tell me what players we would have lost if we followed that path, Mata, Matic, Periera, Lingard, Jones - The rules I put forward only really apply to our fringe players..If I said to you, you can have a season ticket for full price but you can only watch 40% of the games, you wouldn't sign up for it. People forget contracts are also based on what the players wants in order to sign it. You start dictating to players their contract, don't be surprised if they don't sign it and walk away for nothing. This includes the ones that are playing well cause they'll also think why should I stay around if the club doesn't look after all the players as maybe one day, it might be me? It's a short career and these things matter.
Also if you want to attract players, how you treat the existing ones matter. Loyalty is a big aspect especially how you are treated when recovering from injuries and lack of form. Some on here want to treat them as commodities.
It was’nt so long ago that we would only give one year contacts to players over 30.You have 2 categories of players, young 20's who have been here for a few years, not got enough appearances, not done enough on loan and now don't have enough of a fee or older players that haven't been properly replaced or we couldn't shift due to their contract/ injuries.
To combat this I truly believe we be more vigorous with these young players like Pereira, Williams, Tuanzabe & co, sell them for cheap and insert buy back and sell on clauses, if they become better we than we thought we have a way to get them back or get a larger fee while getting them off the books for now.
In terms of older players, we should be quite explicit in doing a 1 year contract plus option of 1 more if they have a certain injury ratio, that way we maintain the power.
We seem to be too loyal to players or too insistent on maintaining their initial asset value when it's clear they have depreciated, we need to be more decisive and move players on, no player is bigger than the club.
The players value is reflected on the pitch as much as it is off it. We don't always see this or think it's just about shirt sales. If you are part of the fabric of the club, then the club should respect that. If you are to leave, why shouldn't they attempt to get you not only the best deal for you, but the best deal for the player?If you were a manager at another Premier club which fringe Utd player would you want and how much would you bid for him?
I am thinking a club would possibly pay 15-20mil for Lingard but we will not sell him at that price.
Sadly, I think it also has to do with how big Manchester Utd. is. What I mean is, some players would rather continue to be able to say they are at Man Utd, even on the fringe, rather than say and be a regular Southampton player - other clubs are applicable - I just mention Southampton as your post made me think of this point.this. Take Williams, he had a decent season for us, so we gave him a huge new contract, which apparently would have made him the second highest paid player at Southampton.
He then barely played the next season, so any value he had plummeted.
if he wasn’t in our plans for last season, we should have sold him, without giving him the new contract. We’d have probably got £15 million back then.
We just don’t seem to be able to plan ahead.
Like said, hindsight is an exact science. Many couldn't wait for Rom to leave and now he's looking like the real deal. Im also guessing if we were winning things, this discussion doesn't take place. Can't imagine people are having these discussions on the Chelsea or City forums.Wages are too high and we don't sell at the right time.
A couple of years ago Pereira was playing regularly for us but it was obvious he wasn't good enough. We could have got 20-25 million for him then.
Lingard - Also used play regularly and could have got a good amount for him. Now we could easily get 15-20 million after a good West Ham loan, but we hold out too long.
Martial - 2 or three years ago we could have got 35-40 million as a punt. Everybody has now realized he's rubbish so we're stuck with him.
These are just a few examples. We also now seem to be going the same way with DVB. We should cut our losses now and get money for him. We will end up trying to get rid in 2 years for peanuts and end up keeping him long term.
I think fans forget that this is their jobs. Just like ours 'terms and conditions' mean something as does the working environment. Also it effects what happens off the pitch. Fans forget some players have families with children in the area or business ventures. Playing for a big club promotes your 'brand' and what you go on to do beyond football. Alan Shearer may have a success life but he must reflect on what his standing would be in world football historically if he had signed for Utd.Sadly, I think it also has to do with how big Manchester Utd. is. What I mean is, some players would rather continue to be able to say they are at Man Utd, even on the fringe, rather than say and be a regular Southampton player - other clubs are applicable - I just mention Southampton as your post made me think of this point.
It is a case of having a history working against the club.
But chopping and changing team every year isn’t good for players. And has there not been complaints from players before that they’re forced to sign new contracts before being allowed to go on loan?I get the football argument, but the vast majority of these players end up out on loan at other clubs anyway. It's not like Chelsea are sat there with 60 players not playing any football.
Right, but look at the players Chelsea have moved on for decent fees:
Fikayo Tomori, 23 years old
Marc Geuhi, 21 years old
Tammy Abraham, 23 years old
All three of which have played a decent number of games at a high standard, but are still young enough for "potential" to add a bit to the price tag. The players we have of a comparable nature (Dalot, Williams, Garner, James, Tuanzebe) we simply aren't looking to sell (yet).
Chelsea also had these departures this summer:
Marco van Ginkel, 28 years old (Free)
Danilo Pantic, 24 years old (Free)
Jamal Blackman, 27 years old (Free)
Willy Caballero, 39 years old (Free)
Izzy Brown, 24 years old (Free)
Jon Russel, 20 years old (Free)
Victor Moses, 30 years old (£4.5 million)
Olivier Giroud, 34 years old (£900k)
It's not like they're commanding good fees for every player they don't want. A good chunk they just have to let go.
It's why I laugh when I see posts about us fetching £10 million plus for players like Matic and Mata, 15 million for Pereira, £25 million for Lingard, any money at all for Jones. Clubs just aren't paying those sorts of fees for those sorts of players, and for most of them, there's still room in the squad for them.
People talk as if Chelsea haven't still got Loftus-Cheek and Drinkwater knocking about, and didn't see Willian leave on a free and David Luiz go for about £8 million a couple of seasons ago.
There's definitely room for improvement with United shifting the deadwood, but no club is regularly shifting players they don't want for big sums of money.
It's not hindsight, it's obvious.Like said, hindsight is an exact science. Many couldn't wait for Rom to leave and now he's looking like the real deal. Im also guessing if we were winning things, this discussion doesn't take place. Can't imagine people are having these discussions on the Chelsea or City forums.
Utd have signed many players in the 10 years that some of those players have been here. You will always have players that fit into that category by it's nature. All clubs will have them including the top clubs.I can respect that but tell me what players we would have lost if we followed that path, Mata, Matic, Periera, Lingard, Jones - The rules I put forward only really apply to our fringe players..
That doesn't answer my question at all, if we took the stated approach in theory, we would have gained more than we lost.Utd have signed many players in the 10 years that some of those players have been here. You will always have players that fit into that category by it's nature. All clubs will have them including the top clubs.
Have you got any sources for this? As poorly managed as United's contracts seem to be, I find this incredibly difficult to believe.Because we give them huge contracts.
Players like James, Jones, Williams and Pereira are all on 60k a week minimum. Nobody is going to pay them that. Mata and Matic are both on over 100k. Lingard is around that too. Henderson is on 200k as backup GK.
I remember last year when Southampton wanted Williams on loan, they wouldn't pay his wages because he'd be the highest paid player in the team. We're just illogical and extremely generous with the wages we pay.
I don't know enough about the contracts thing to comment properly, but given the number of players leaving on frees each year from Chelsea it doesn't seem to be too much of a problem. Ultimately the players can choose to not sign the contract, at which point I imagine Chelsea look to cash in or let them play for the under 23s until their deal is through.But chopping and changing team every year isn’t good for players. And has there not been complaints from players before that they’re forced to sign new contracts before being allowed to go on loan?
I'm fairly sure Henderson signed a contract for around 100k per week last summer. Not 200k, as that person has suggested.Have you got any sources for this? As poorly managed as United's contracts seem to be, I find this incredibly difficult to believe.
Like there is no way I believe Dean Henderson earns more than Maguire, Varane, Lindelof, Shaw, Fernandes etc
But it's a contract. The players also have a say to whether they agree to this or not. You also need cover in the squad that can't be filled simply with youth. Also what would you do if the players that aren't first team, won't resign?That doesn't answer my question at all, if we took the stated approach in theory, we would have gained more than we lost.
Chelsea have had the best or up there with the best youth teams for years, but how many of them have successful careers? I know it’s always a lottery for young players, but they don’t seem to have a great track record.I don't know enough about the contracts thing to comment properly, but given the number of players leaving on frees each year from Chelsea it doesn't seem to be too much of a problem. Ultimately the players can choose to not sign the contract, at which point I imagine Chelsea look to cash in or let them play for the under 23s until their deal is through.
I'm not really sure the changing clubs thing is true. Obviously stability and continuity have their merits, but it's very much part of top level, modern football that young players spend at least a couple of years out on loan, likely at different clubs, before breaking into the senior side.