Why did Sevilla loan a player from United for free who they then went on to play 38 times across the league and Europa League? Well maybe because they knew they could get away with not paying?
Again, if he was such a good pick up on loan surely we'd have had a bidding war for him. Just covering his wages was the best we could get.
Yes.
Because we are rank shit at selling our talents. This summer we sold Laird and Iqbal for a pittance whilst City were able to sale an academy graduate with zero senior level experience to Southampton for 15m, for crying out loud.....
What's going on?
By sheer coincidence they've also won the u18 PL 4 seasons in a row.
They are just better talents than ours I mean that's an easy answer, look at the teams wanting to sign their players whereas ours go to Birmingham and Utrecht, of ours were any better there would be clubs lining up to sign them due to the price we sell them at and guess what there aren't and what does that tell you that they aren't that good
Dross like, but hes obviously not dross if hes making 30+ appearances for Europa League winners. Maybe his wages at United were the issue who knows
If you think selling is all about ONLY what people have offered you. And you don’t realise that you as the seller are responsible for generating sales leads and offers then you are missing a big part of the issue.
They are not, clubs paying stupid amounts for average players is not new. Similar things happened for Liverpool's cast offs previously as well. We are just bad at selling, always have been.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Iqbal went for what 800k thats a championship fee, if he was any good many more teams would be looking at him for that fee as it would be a bargain and they weren't, if he was as big of talent as Lavia there would be clubs lining up for him at that price
City’s young players are far better than ours though. They won U18 4 times in a row, and U21 3 times in a row. Lavia for example is already mentioned as a 50m+ player and will get sold for that sum if not more. In the last 10 years, the only 2 players we have produced that could have been sold for over 50m are Rashford and Greenwood.
How many times they have to win U21/U18 competitions in a row for us to finally admit that they are better than our young players? I assume it is more than 3-4 times, considering that is what they have been doing.
The fee is irrelevant, he did not go to a championship side, and it is well known that we accept lower fees if they allow our young players to find a good club. No one here knows how many teams were interested in him. Just that he got a good move to a club that has a chance to play european football.
Winning the U21/U18s is irrelevant to what happens in their pro careers, and that does not mean they have more talent or that they will have better careers. Just that their teams overall were better rounded and more drilled and performed better in that period. It does not guarantee anything.
It is not, at least in terms of talent. The only absurd thing is thing is thinking that U21/U18 football is the be all and end all in a players development.
No, they are not. If anybody is stupid enough to pay that much for a player that was part of a relegated team, then that would be a bad deal. No, both Garnacho and Greenwood would be worth that much at least, much less Rashford who will be even more.
Lavia signed for City when he was 16 from Anderlecht, he has very little to do with their academy. Was there for barely two seasons and then bailed when they couldn't offer him a pathway into the first team.
You obviously don't know how negotiations work
They'll have started by only offering to cover part of his wages.
Classic response when you have lost the argument and cannot actually refute any of the points I have made
No chance, @Cassidy is going to negotiate them up to 15M with his mad skills
I refuted the argument that if someone wanted to pay more for something they would have offered it. And again its clear if you know anything about a negotiation you would know that is false.Classic response when you have lost the argument and cannot actually refute any of the points I have made
Just another trove excuses justifying the indefensible. We just sold a Europa league winning fullback for a pittance. City meanwhile are selling an unknown, never played senior ball, Portuguese under age internartional to west ham for abnormal profits. Let's not pretend his a once in a generation player to justify the fee.....heck! We've seen Po sell the like of Ryan Kent, Harry Wilson and others for double digit figures. Players around the quality of Elanga. But when sell of an elanga like 3m and add one to make 5. Yall will pretend its because his wagers are high and he is supposedly talentless. Rather than the obvious. We are utter rubbish at the transfer business of selling talent. All our top 6 rivals can sell all sorts of players at decent prices. We specialize in selling at abnormal losses for the most part.
So if he was not ours and he was avilable would you pay more than 4M for him?
I know which players I’d rather be buying.
we have been the worst run big club around for far too long. It shows in our inability to sell or market players, the poor contract decisions, our lack of success on the pitch and the crumbling infrastructure within the club. Everything has been off base while the likes of city have pulled far ahead. To be fair the only glimmer of hope around the place is the FAYC winners and we already look to have taken Garnacho and Mainoo straight into the first team on the back of that. City just sell theirs.
Luckily, we seem to start improving in this aspect. The transfers (and fees except Antony’s) seem to make sense. The new players are in reasonable salaries, and we got Rashford to sign in a reasonable salary (if we had Woodward and Judge, we probably would have offered 500k/week and make a story how an academy guy became the most paid player in the league), we did well in getting rid of Ronaldo, De Gea and hopefully soon Maguire, and slowly but surely, we are getting rid of some of the deadwood.
Aren't we selling supposedly Elanga for like 15m? Telles was never going to be sold at a profit - we bought him when he was 28. Borges has performed better than any of our youth players have at youth level, probably bar Greenwood. There's a reason West ham want to pay that much for him and don't care about Elanga - yet we'll probably sell them for about the same price.
To be fair I'm not sure how much negotiating ETH is doing in terms of salaries and fees. If there is credit to be awarded there (and I don't know that there's a huge amount) it's probably more the strategic direction of Murtough and Arnold. We have to consider that even though they're "Glazer men" they haven't actually been in their current high profile roles that long and you can only really assess executives and directors when there is a sufficient body of data. Which means a number of years of transfer windows and renewals rather than match by match analysis on the sporting side.
Yawn.
Same old tired horse shit excuses. Supposedly "Our players are too shit", " their wages are too high", "we can only sale to Saudi Arabia'... Yet everyone around us and in Europe can sale their off form and arguable shit players for good fees not matter to where! (Just check what Juve had just got for Arthur Melo from a mere fiorentina.) Some of y'all give ostriches a run for their money when it comes to putting heads in the sand.....
Who needs him sold at a profit? He just helped win a Europa league, started for Brazil at the recent world cup and we seriously can't sell him for 8-10m? I'm not buying these constant excuses. We are provably rubbish at selling our talents.
