Our policy on homegrown players

[Nani Nana]

The past few years witnessed a lot of changes for Manchester United but the confidence in homegrown players remains.

Rashford, Greenwood, McTominay are part and parcel of our squad rotation. We tried our best to have Lingard in the mix recently, and always have academy products playing. Some would argue homegrown talent is prioritised at the expense of players from elsewhere both for financial reasons and sporting reasons.

United have been struggling with many intangible elements that made the club unique, mostly due to poor leadership and governance turnovers. This is reflected on the pitch, with the team playing less attractive football than under Ferguson and losing its playing identity.

I wonder what the Caf thinks of our homegrown players policy, whether insisting with it in times of crisis might be counter-productive, or whether it is one of the distinctive features that make watching United so special?

At this time of unprecedented instability, is time to ditch academy products in favour of more established players?

 

[eire-red]

Producing home grown talents like Rashford and Greenwood give the club a lift from top to bottom, and also encourage other young players to come and play here cause they'll get a chance.

Giving youth a chance is part of our identity as a club, and always should be.

 

[Cloud7]

Even looking past all the intangible things like the spirit of the club and what not, the academy is worth it in itself if it produces a Rashford or a Greenwood ever so often. We would be looking at spending around 200 million if we tried to sign the two of them from another club.

 

[RedSky]

The importance of homegrown players will be even more appartent in the next decade or so with the proposed changes by the FA. It's also in the clubs DNA, I for one fully support it.

 

[Lash]

The past few years witnessed a lot of changes for Manchester United but the confidence in homegrown players remains.

Rashford, Greenwood, McTominay are part and parcel of our squad rotation. We tried our best to have Lingard in the mix recently, and always have academy products playing. Some would argue homegrown talent is prioritised at the expense of players from elsewhere both for financial reasons and sporting reasons.

United have been struggling with many intangible elements that made the club unique, mostly due to poor leadership and governance turnovers. This is reflected on the pitch, with the team playing less attractive football than under Ferguson and losing its playing identity.

I wonder what the Caf thinks of our homegrown players policy, whether insisting with it in times of crisis might be counter-productive, or whether it is one of the distinctive features that make watching United so special?

At this time of unprecedented instability, is time to ditch academy products in favour of more established players?

No.

It's the optimal time to focus on bringing people through. No one can guarantee buying an established player will be a success. I'd rather we focus on coaching talented players and integrating them into the first team, rather than letting the incompetent people at the top try and fail to buy established players.

 

[Web of Bissaka]

It's never been a problem, despite the meal of drama people like to make out of making that Mou will lead to the end of it which he didn't and instead continue that policy.

Anyhow, how it is being implemented is already good enough.
= We always open the door but never let the incompetent homegrown players remain... unless if you're Lingard.

Fact is not many of our HG players make it and we mix our first team up well with players from outside, both young and older players.

Currently, Rashford is arguably the best one, followed by McTominay (the two of them are definite big parts players of the first team squad no doubt) while Greenwood is just a bag of huge potential but still remained under questions, same with Axel, Dean, Williams and TFM. We're already seeing many players failing or under threat eg. Pereira, Gomes, etc so it's not always rosy.

 

[Sky1981]

No.

It's the optimal time to focus on bringing people through. No one can guarantee buying an established player will be a success. I'd rather we focus on coaching talented players and integrating them into the first team, rather than letting the incompetent people at the top try and fail to buy established players.

It works both ways, no one can guarantee coaching talented youngster will work.

No one can even guarantee if they're actually talented

We've had our massive shares of overrating our youth from Chris Eagles to Macheda to CBJ and TFM, our success with youth apart from CO92 is too far between to be reliable. We've had Rashford/McT and Greenwood, but they're actually got found accidentally instead of a very focused progression, so I think we're quite lucky to earth them by 2-3 years faster.

With established player at least their succcess rate it bigger, because they've already established themselves.

 

[Sky1981]

It's never been a problem, despite the meal of drama people like to make out of making that Mou will lead to the end of it which he didn't and instead continue that policy.

Anyhow, how it is being implemented is already good enough.
= We always open the door but never let the incompetent homegrown players remain... unless if you're Lingard.

Fact is not many of our HG players make it and we mix our first team up well with players from outside, both young and older players.

Currently, Rashford is arguably the best one, followed by McTominay (the two of them are definite big parts players of the first team squad no doubt) while Greenwood is just a bag of huge potential but still remained under questions, same with Axel, Dean, Williams and TFM. We're already seeing many players failing or under threat eg. Pereira, Gomes, etc so it's not always rosy.

I wonder why it's so.

Modern manager (or coach) doesn't deal with academy progression. They've had their hands full with first teamer, at the very best he'll be notified if a certain player is ready to make a jump, and probably that's about that. It's not their job, it's not in their authority to revamp or gut the academy, I don't even think coaches like Pep/Klopp has the hierarchy to actually fire a youth coach.

Just like any other top clubs academy, they work independence of who's in charge.

And I don't believe certain manager actively shun youth players, they have no incentives to discriminate. If a player is ready and not hampering the team he will play, young / old talent is talent. Now some manager took extreme risk to do extra (like SAF) but I've yet to see a manager that does extra to suppress a potential youth break through. Infact playing them will more often than not looks favourable to the fans and often bought them more time in a cutthroat industry like football.

 

[Lash]

It works both ways, no one can guarantee coaching talented youngster will work.

No one can even guarantee if they're actually talented

We've had our massive shares of overrating our youth from Chris Eagles to Macheda to CBJ and TFM, our success with youth apart from CO92 is too far between to be reliable. We've had Rashford/McT and Greenwood, but they're actually got found accidentally instead of a very focused progression, so I think we're quite lucky to earth them by 2-3 years faster.

With established player at least their succcess rate it bigger, because they've already established themselves.

I totally agree, but it's a lot cheaper and easier in the long run to correct mistakes that we continually appear to make with purchasing established players. I'm not saying do away with purchasing established players, but I think it should be kept to a lower number.

 

[11101]

and also encourage other young players to come and play here cause they'll get a chance.

Exactly. The once much vaunted City academy has fallen flat on its face precisely because of this reason, none of them get to play.

 

[Andycoleno9]

Producing top players is the best thing which club can do. It gives you identity, pride and in these crazy days it can save you (and earn you) hundreds of millions. When you produce one Rashford or Greenwood you saved 100mil for attacker, when you produce one Tuanzebe you saved 30-40 mil for new defender etc...

But, and that is my criticsm regarding this, you must stay objective in doing that. You must be patient with them but club must always come first. If player is not United quality then sell him on time and earn money. Don't give him 5 years contracts just because he is from academy.
If good offer comes then sell him on time.
I hate using Liverpool as example but they did right calls in right time regarding their youth. Ibe, Brewster and one or two other players were sold for excellent money.
This summer i had one very unpopular opinion here; i would have sold Henderson if someone offered crazy money. Why? Because we have first choice gk for next 5,6 years in De Gea. There is no need to have that expensive second gk on the bench. I mean, it is great to have two excellent options for gk of course but it is luxury option while you need money for some other positions.

Anyway; youth yes, it is great policy but by doing it smart.

 

[Sky1981]

I totally agree, but it's a lot cheaper and easier in the long run to correct mistakes that we continually appear to make with purchasing established players. I'm not saying do away with purchasing established players, but I think it should be kept to a lower number.

Not really

Its actually a lot cheaper to buy established player. Other than prestige and cultural value it's always easier to buy ready made. Off course assuming they're real deal established player, not a stupid flop.

Players like Lingard 5 years ago are deemed as potential, by the time we realised he's a flop we've already spend 5 years, 100k/week for 5 years = 25M, and not to mention the loss of points by playing him week in week out.I believe it's called opportunity cost, we can't buy back those 5 years giving Lingard chances after chances to prove himself, nor we can erase the teething problem we have when we decided to give Perreira a chance.

Madrid bought Ronaldo for 100M, we develop them, we get 2 years tops, they got a good chuck of Ron's career. Money well spent.

Academy players are bonus, if one or two of them good enough to be a squad player (O'shea, Fletcher, Wes Brown, Fortune) then it saves the club millions in the long run, because we don't have to experiment and buy back up and can concentrate on a few star players.

Not saying it's wrong, but to take things into moderation and there's always a catch to every decision.

 

[Lash]

Not really

Its actually a lot cheaper to buy established player. Other than prestige and cultural value it's always easier to buy ready made. Off course assuming they're real deal established player, not a stupid flop.

Players like Lingard 5 years ago are deemed as potential, by the time we realised he's a flop we've already spend 5 years, 100k/week for 5 years = 25M, and not to mention the loss of points by playing him week in week out.I believe it's called opportunity cost, we can't buy back those 5 years giving Lingard chances after chances to prove himself, nor we can erase the teething problem we have when we decided to give Perreira a chance.

Madrid bought Ronaldo for 100M, we develop them, we get 2 years tops, they got a good chuck of Ron's career. Money well spent.

Academy players are bonus, if one or two of them good enough to be a squad player (O'shea, Fletcher, Wes Brown, Fortune) then it saves the club millions in the long run, because we don't have to experiment and buy back up and can concentrate on a few star players.

Not saying it's wrong, but to take things into moderation and there's always a catch to every decision.

You can't really bring contract cost into it for Lingard and not Ronaldo. Plus the closest thing we had to Ronaldo on the market last year, was Sancho - he was no where near the same level as Ronaldo, but would have cost more. We still couldn't get that deal over the line.

The opportunity cost could be levelled at established players far more. There's very few examples of Ronaldo type signings.

Anyway, I'm more in the boat of us spending money on the likes of Pellistri, Diallo, Fernandez, Mejbri, etc. every year, as opposed to chasing many established signings, where we never get our first choice. Most people like the model of RB Leipzig or Dortmund, but don't have the patience to set up that way. A DOF would help as well. If we could sign established players like Liverpool do and have a fantastic hit rate, then I'd be all for it, but I don't trust us right now.

 

[Ekeke]

The past few years witnessed a lot of changes for Manchester United but the confidence in homegrown players remains.

Rashford, Greenwood, McTominay are part and parcel of our squad rotation. We tried our best to have Lingard in the mix recently, and always have academy products playing. Some would argue homegrown talent is prioritised at the expense of players from elsewhere both for financial reasons and sporting reasons.

United have been struggling with many intangible elements that made the club unique, mostly due to poor leadership and governance turnovers. This is reflected on the pitch, with the team playing less attractive football than under Ferguson and losing its playing identity.

I wonder what the Caf thinks of our homegrown players policy, whether insisting with it in times of crisis might be counter-productive, or whether it is one of the distinctive features that make watching United so special?

At this time of unprecedented instability, is time to ditch academy products in favour of more established players?

My concern is with the selection of homegrown players rather than the idea of giving them chances. We may have put some young players in, but they werent always the ones that I thought deserved a chance. And some have now left because of that.

I think its good to continue to do both sign quality players and give chances to your own young players. But you've got to pick the ones that will truly stand out and make a difference if they make it. Sometimes we've gone with players who if they make it, they'll be standard fairly solid players rather than ones that could take us forward a level.

For example McTominay when he was first put in. Now years later he's a decent option, but he's still a fairly ordinary player. Brandon Williams is another one. McNair and a bunch of others before that under LVG. Blackett, etc

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

My concern is with the selection of homegrown players rather than the idea of giving them chances. We may have put some young players in, but they werent always the ones that I thought deserved a chance. And some have now left because of that.

I think its good to continue to do both sign quality players and give chances to your own young players. But you've got to pick the ones that will truly stand out and make a difference if they make it. Sometimes we've gone with players who if they make it, they'll be standard fairly solid players rather than ones that could take us forward a level.

For example McTominay when he was first put in. Now years later he's a decent option, but he's still a fairly ordinary player. Brandon Williams is another one. McNair and a bunch of others before that under LVG. Blackett, etc

you have to give players a chance. Some will make it, some won’t, and you don’t always know the answer.

furthermore, when some players have come in and players only a handful of games, they are still making a contribution, and it means you don’t have to buy players to cover those eventualities.

McT is the perfect example of a great squad player who has come through. To buy a player like him would cost us £30-50m. Look at longstaff a couple of years ago. It’a so important to have these guys in the squad, as even average players are £30m+ to buy these days.

Henderson, McT, Williams, Tuanzebe, Laird (potentially), Greenwood and Rashford are all good examples. Even TFM coming in and playing a few games here and these means we don’t have to go and buy some average player for a few games a year.

Williams and McT may not be world beaters, but you need squad players, and we need players like that. and I’d far rather have them than some of the utter crap that we’ve bought that have been worse than our home grown squad players.

 

[Ekeke]

you have to give players a chance. Some will make it, some won’t, and you don’t always know the answer.

furthermore, when some players have come in and players only a handful of games, they are still making a contribution, and it means you don’t have to buy players to cover those eventualities.

McT is the perfect example of a great squad player who has come through. To buy a player like him would cost us £30-50m. Look at longstaff a couple of years ago. It’a so important to have these guys in the squad, as even average players are £30m+ to buy these days.

Henderson, McT, Williams, Tuanzebe, Laird (potentially), Greenwood and Rashford are all good examples. Even TFM coming in and playing a few games here and these means we don’t have to go and buy some average player for a few games a year.

Williams and McT may not be world beaters, but you need squad players, and we need players like that. and I’d far rather have them than some of the utter crap that we’ve bought that have been worse than our home grown squad players.

It might cost us that now, but when he was first being used it would have been half as much. Thats the point. We could have spent less on a player further in development with more outstanding qualities that wouldnt need 2 years to become a player that might save us money.

Someone like Greenwood with outstanding qualities, you want to push him to see how far he can go. Players like McTominay and Williams you can find plenty of

 

[Mr. MUJAC]

The past few years witnessed a lot of changes for Manchester United but the confidence in homegrown players remains.

Rashford, Greenwood, McTominay are part and parcel of our squad rotation. We tried our best to have Lingard in the mix recently, and always have academy products playing. Some would argue homegrown talent is prioritised at the expense of players from elsewhere both for financial reasons and sporting reasons.

United have been struggling with many intangible elements that made the club unique, mostly due to poor leadership and governance turnovers. This is reflected on the pitch, with the team playing less attractive football than under Ferguson and losing its playing identity.

I wonder what the Caf thinks of our homegrown players policy, whether insisting with it in times of crisis might be counter-productive, or whether it is one of the distinctive features that make watching United so special?

At this time of unprecedented instability, is time to ditch academy products in favour of more established players?

I'm not sure whether this is a wind-up or not.

Firstly, if you look at our history I think you find that this is not the time of 'unprecedented instability'.

Secondly, since 1939, United have pretty much had a 50:50 mix between home grown players and bought players. That mix has led us to being the number one club in England with league titles, numerous FA Cup's, five European trophies etc etc. Most other clubs buy their players on a consistent basis and they win nothing. So why would we change? Every club goes through cycles and the five managerial changes in the last seven years has impacted any consistency we might otherwise have had.

I have never seen any homegrown talent prioritised as a form of strategy. I have no idea who is arguing this. I would say it is the opposite...we have regularly bought average players which the manager then plays at the expense of youngsters coming through. It certainly isn't for financial reasons...the money we have spent on average players over the last seven years is ridiculous. So we are not playing youngsters to save money. Nor have I seen any insisting with it in time of crisis.

Crisis? A very subjective term. I think lot's of fans around the world would argue that 3rd in the league, qualifying for the Champions League, and three cup semi-finals last season whilst disappointing in terms of expectations at a club like United, hardly constitutes a crisis.

Additionally, there have been times with Mourinho particularly where he played older players out of position rather than give a youngster a chance.

In most cases when things go wrong, the youngsters are blamed and yet it's the bought players who come with high profiles, high expectations, high salaries and then under-perform. So when all these bought players suddenly lose form or turn out to be average...what do we do...just buy more? Surely youth players are picked on merit. If they are good enough and show potential then they will get a chance. There is no guarantee that a bought player is going to turn out to be a great transfer for the club either...our history has shown loads of examples of that.

Ditching quality homegrown academy products in favour of more established players has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

 

[Mr. MUJAC]

It might cost us that now, but when he was first being used it would have been half as much. Thats the point. We could have spent less on a player further in development with more outstanding qualities that wouldnt need 2 years to become a player that might save us money.

Someone like Greenwood with outstanding qualities, you want to push him to see how far he can go. Players like McTominay and Williams you can find plenty of

McTominay and Williams might be easier to find...but there is no guarantee that bought alternatives will be successful, regardless of the fee. Then you just start stockpiling average players who won't make it anyway. You just need to look at all the transfers over the last ten years to see that. Ferguson and Busby before him trusted homegrown players who were vital members of the team and yet not necessarily outstanding in their own right. Those players played a role, understood the club and the culture, didn't complain when they were left out of the team, were on significantly lower wages and didn't cost anything in the transfer market.

It's always about balance.

 

[Gabagoo]

I love it. Adds to our unique identity.

My only issues are the generally small proportion of players that actually impact the first team positively (that has changed in the last 18 months), the massively over-hyping from our fans about any bang average player, and most of all the fact that we haven't produced a great winger since Giggs back in 1992 (and he's more of a product of City's academy).

 

[TwoSheds]

Just as an example, I reckon most fans probably rate McT marginally less than they do Fred. But Fred cost £52m and is older. Nothing against Fred at all but that isn't really value for money if you can get an academy kid at the cost of a few years' development instead. Fred took a couple of years to get going anyway.

They need to be the right kid of course, and some will fail along the way for sure. But it's a much less expensive error than buying Schneiderlin for example. Assuming you don't have a spanner with no understanding of football in charge handing out 5 year contracts like confetti to people whose time at the club is drawing to an end.

 

[Ekeke]

McTominay and Williams might be easier to find...but there is no guarantee that bought alternatives will be successful, regardless of the fee. Then you just start stockpiling average players who won't make it anyway. You just need to look at all the transfers over the last ten years to see that. Ferguson and Busby before him trusted homegrown players who were vital members of the team and yet not necessarily outstanding in their own right. Those players played a role, understood the club and the culture, didn't complain when they were left out of the team, were on significantly lower wages and didn't cost anything in the transfer market.

It's always about balance.

There was no guarantee that McTominay would be good enough 3 years down the line either. Both ways are a gamble, one inlcuding more money (if signed from another club) and potentially a greater yield for success - the young player brought in with outstanding qualities, and the other one taking more time and giving more first team oppertunities to someone who isnt as good and we might not do as well overall.

So for example McTominay would be someone who doesnt have those outstanding qualities who might make it and he had lots of playing time when he might not have been ready several seasons ago, whereas Angel Gomes had more outstanding qualities but didnt get much play time when he also might not have been ready. If McTominay makes it you have a fairly solid player. If Gomes makes it you have potentially a player a few grades above that. I want to see us focus on developing the 2nd kind because you can't have an entire team full of kids, you can only give a certain amount chances at once. The McNairs and McTominays are players we can find from other clubs.

An example would be Alan who went to Everton this summer for £22.4 million

Instead of 3 years of McTominay to get to this point where he's a fairly solid but not outstanding choice in midfield, or spending £52 million on Fred and then another 2 seasons for Fred to be where he is at, we could have signed Ander's replacement for less then £25 million and given young players more in the mould of Greenwood and Gomes with some outstanding qualities the first team chances that wouldnt be available if we have other young players in the team.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

It might cost us that now, but when he was first being used it would have been half as much. Thats the point. We could have spent less on a player further in development with more outstanding qualities that wouldnt need 2 years to become a player that might save us money.

Someone like Greenwood with outstanding qualities, you want to push him to see how far he can go. Players like McTominay and Williams you can find plenty of

so you only want homegrown players that are going to be guaranteed superstars?

that’s complete BS. Even someone like Rashford, was by no means a guaranteed first team player. He wasn’t the most promising striker in the youth team, we ended up giving him and Wilson a chance, one turned out great, one didn’t. That’s how it works.

you would be ripping the soul out of United, indeed any club if you advocate buying player after player to be a squad player.

rather than give McT a chance, to give him opportunities to grow as a player and develop, you would rather we bought someone for £10-20m to fill a space. Why on earth would any youth player want to go to United if that’s the case?

not every player is a superstar, and you don’t need them to be in order to have a great team. Butt, Neville, Brown, O’Shea, Januzai, (can’t remember how to spell his name), McT, Williams and many many have played a part in our success, or will play a part in our future success.

it does mean something to come through a play for the club, for both the fans and those players, and long may it continue.

Edit to add Lingard and Cleverly. By no means great players, but one won a title with us, and the other won us the FA Cup final. It’s not just about saving money as you put it, but they meant we didn’t have to go any buy squad players at that time that would have constant us many millions.

 

[Ekeke]

so you only want homegrown players that are going to be guaranteed superstars?

No. Where did I say that? I said they need outstanding qualities. Examples of someone who has outstanding qualities would be Mengi and Laird. Mengi's pace and Laid's pace and ability to run with the ball stand out. They might not end up having enough in other areas not just to make it as a superstar, but they might not even make it at a premier league club. But if they do make it those qualities will stand out and give them a good chance at improving the team in those ways.

McTominay and McNair are players who didnt have oustanding qualities. They might be enough of an all rounder to do the job, but those players are easy to find. Its not worth investing years and years of development on them playing in the first team if its at the cost of young players with stand out qualities getting gametime. They dont even need to be the same position, fact is we arent going to lineup with 6-9 kids in the team very often. So those 2 or 3 spots need to be given to players who have something that could see them be an important improvement to the team. Not a squad player and a backup which we could sign for cheap after another club has developed them for 2 years.

Rashford since you mentioned him has outstanding pace and when he came into the first team he scored a glut of goals in his first performances. If you dont see these as outstanding qualities on display you need to look again

 

[Andycoleno9]

so you only want homegrown players that are going to be guaranteed superstars?

that’s complete BS. Even someone like Rashford, was by no means a guaranteed first team player. He wasn’t the most promising striker in the youth team, we ended up giving him and Wilson a chance, one turned out great, one didn’t. That’s how it works.

you would be ripping the soul out of United, indeed any club if you advocate buying player after player to be a squad player.

rather than give McT a chance, to give him opportunities to grow as a player and develop, you would rather we bought someone for £10-20m to fill a space. Why on earth would any youth player want to go to United if that’s the case?

not every player is a superstar, and you don’t need them to be in order to have a great team. Butt, Neville, Brown, O’Shea, Januzai, (can’t remember how to spell his name), McT, Williams and many many have played a part in our success, or will play a part in our future success.

it does mean something to come through a play for the club, for both the fans and those players, and long may it continue.

Edit to add Lingard and Cleverly. By no means great players, but one won a title with us, and the other won us the FA Cup final. It’s not just about saving money as you put it, but they meant we didn’t have to go any buy squad players at that time that would have constant us many millions.

The truth is somewhere in the middle. Your example Rashy and Wilson is perfect. We gave each a chance, one was a hit other failed. We didn't force anything there. And that is how things should work. And i agree that absolutely worst case scenario is to buy random average sub player. That is why James was the completely pointless and stupid transfer. He blocked Gomes and especially Chong. And for what?

But we must not forget that we are not charity and that club comes first. Williams, McT, Henderson....did you see how much we are paying them? We gave Williams 5 year contract with huge pay rise. For what? For 6 months of solid form? Henderson is maybe future England no1 but 100k contract? McT is solid player but we doubled his wage this year and gave him 5 years contract. And then we are all in big surprise when we can't sell player or when young kid lose focus on football.

Youth absolutely yes but not without using common sense.

 

[Mo Caine]

while its nice to see a kid make it all the way to the first XI, far too many of our fans build these players up before they have a chance to really establish themselves, many of these ''world beater'' turn out to be wank, and as for the ''uniqueness'' of our club bringing through kids, the babes will always special, but can we really be unique if every other club does the same thing, to a sometimes lesser degree?

 

[archiebald]

The truth is somewhere in the middle. Your example Rashy and Wilson is perfect. We gave each a chance, one was a hit other failed. We didn't force anything there. And that is how things should work. And i agree that absolutely worst case scenario is to buy random average sub player. That is why James was the completely pointless and stupid transfer. He blocked Gomes and especially Chong. And for what?

But we must not forget that we are not charity and that club comes first. Williams, McT, Henderson....did you see how much we are paying them? We gave Williams 5 year contract with huge pay rise. For what? For 6 months of solid form? Henderson is maybe future England no1 but 100k contract? McT is solid player but we doubled his wage this year and gave him 5 years contract. And then we are all in big surprise when we can't sell player or when young kid lose focus on football.

Youth absolutely yes but not without using common sense.

Henderson was amazing for Sheffield United last season and will be England #1 once Southgate comes to his senses and pulls Pickford out of goal. He's probably the best academy prospect of the last decade, we should look to steadily increase his playing time seeing as De Gea is entering his 30s and will likely lose some of his killer reflexes soon - which has always been what he plies his trade on as he is passable at best at other key aspects of goalkeeping.

 

[drmuji]

I think the policy is steadily changing. We are trying to recruit top talents from around Europe and then developing them.
We have got Mejbri, Kids from Madrid and Barca, we've raided man City for a striker and looking to get a right winger from Russia or something. Thats good scouting and I think woody has come to senses, if we invest more in academy we will have better outcomes and hence less money will be spent on bigger transfers.