Why do we find it so hard to sell fringe players?

[RedSky]

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.

 

[Nickelodeon]

Lack of Proactiveness: For example, the likes of Williams who, in my opinion, are never going to make it for United should've been sold off before the start of last season. The promoted or mid table sides are encouraged to take up talented youngsters from bigger sides because they can potentially improve their first team while having a decent opportunity of big transfer fees going into the future. That is why the likes of Solanke, Brewster, Ibe were sold off by Liverpool and they found buyers. Throw in 10 odd million for Shaqiri and that sponsors one Sancho. We hold on to the players too long for their actual quality, rather than an inflated potential, is made obvious to prospective buyers.

Contracts: Even at the time of breakthrough, the contract for Williams for the reported ~65k seems unnecessarily over the top. Same is the case with 100k for Lingard. You pay these kind of sums to players if you fear that they might reject a smaller contract. But we seem overly generous for whatever reason making these assets unsellable. This reduces the players motivation to leave United as well. There is no financial incentive for them and they have it all to prove. It isn't surprising that Lingard isn't really itching for a move. He knows what he is and is happy to become the next Juan Mata.

 

[Chairman Steve]

As mentioned before, we hand out stupid contracts with stupid money and stupidly long durations.

Recently it feels like anyone from the academy who shows signs of just hanging in there (let alone excelling beyond expectations) is given £50k a week for 5 years, then when we find out they’re not good enough for the Utd standard, they play much less and the value drops through the floor, and we find it especially hard to shift them (at best, clubs will take a loan on them and reject the obligation to buy at the end of the loan).

In an ideal world as an example going forward, Chong performs well at Birmingham and gets promoted with them, then we sell him
for £10m-£15m next summer. Worst thing to happen would be to think he can replicate it for us which takes us back to square one.

 

[acnumber9]

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?

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.

 

[ghagua]

1) We pay high wages that a lot of teams who could possibly buy them won't pay.
2) We hold on to players too long
3) We set a high transfer fee which ends up backfiring.
4) Some of them are really not that good and other teams know it.

 

[Alex99]

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.

Over the years United have signed a host of young players that spent barely any time featured in the senior side, instead spending most of their time at the club out on loan, before being moved on in their early 20s.

Now United have a director of football I wouldn't be at all surprised if this stepped up.

 

[laughtersassassin]

There are plenty of reasons sure but it's not acceptable. The club constantly uses it as an excuse and we are stuck with players who are no use to us.

Covid has nothing to do with it for the people who are citing that.

 

[Bondi77]

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.

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.

 

[AngeloHenriquez]

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.

 

[Litch]

Hindsight is an exact science which as fans, we have the benefit of. When Chelsea let DB, Salah and Rom walk out the door, they probably didn't think that was 300m+ of talent. We only know (with exceptions) that they were poor judgments based on what we see now. Trust me if this was a Chelsea or City forum, it would be no different and they both have loads of players on loans picking up the majority of their high salaries. These things go under the radar like the discussion of our two goalkeepers when Chelsea have a 75m one, on their bench.

 

[Cloud7]

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.

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.

So, if the club would like to try to actually start making money off of sales I think the Chelsea model is a good model to adopt.

 

[Litch]

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.

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.

 

[Alex99]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Zlatattack]

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.

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.

Phil Jones was renewed in 2019. In that summer Thiago Silva moved to Chelsea on a free. I bet there was an abundance of talent we could have taken a risk on.

 

[Rozay]

The likes of Tomori, Abraham, Guehi etc would all be considered not for sale at United, and the sort of money Chelsea have gotten for them would just be rejected enquiries with us. That is, until the point where they are totally finished and we are paying teams to take them.

Chelsea have gotten £25m for Tomori and £18m for Guehi - we have had a position that Tuanzebe is not for sale for years, although he has never, for one minute, looked like being a long term regular centre half here. Daniel James is fecking rubbish and we have declared him not for sale too. He will eventually leave, of course, but for pennies on the dollar.

 

[AngeloHenriquez]

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.

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..

 

[Lentwood]

Its very, very simple and doesnt really need a thread to be honest because there is a black and white, conclusive answer.

We pay our fringe players too much money.

Example. Brandon Williams. Southampton were interested, but he is on about 60K per week, which would have put him on par with their top earners, like Danny Ings, their top scorer.

Why would a club pay an unproven full back the same wages as an established PL goalscorer? They wouldn't.

Why would Brandon Williams accept a pay-cut? He wouldn't.

So there you have it. And, even IF Southampton thought Williams was an amazing talent worthy of paying £60K per week, they would then have to consider the total value of the transfer, which is commonplace now in football finance departments. £60K per week is, what, about £3m p/a. Multiply that by 5 (5YR deal). That's £15m. Add that to a £20m transfer fee. £35m over 5YRs for an unproven full back? Its not the type of business these clubs can or want to do.

 

[Bondi77]

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.

It was’nt so long ago that we would only give one year contacts to players over 30.

 

[Hughes35]

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.

 

[Litch]

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.

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?

Also why should other prem teams buy our players? Playing for Utd doesn't mean you are better than what they have, just a set of many other variables that are more applicable to us and not them.

 

[JebelSherif]

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.

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.

 

[Massive Spanner]

I'd like to bring a different take to the argument than what I've seen here already.

We pay our fringe players too much money in wages.

You're welcome.

 

[Litch]

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.

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.

 

[Brophs]

The answer is obvious, isn’t it? We pay big wages, on long contracts, in an environment that players won’t find elsewhere. Clubs can’t afford to buy players from us because they can’t pay them the sorts of wages we can and offer us the sorts of fees we expect for players. They also have the commercial uplift of being Manchester United players that they won’t get at a perceived smaller club.

 

[Litch]

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.

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.

Jesse going down to London or say Southampton takes him away from the very reason he plays football. This is even more applicable to those who came to this country for the same reason.

 

[acnumber9]

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.

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?

 

[Hughes35]

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.

It's not hindsight, it's obvious.

We will have the same issues with Lingard, DVB, Lindelof & James. We should sell while their stock is high. We will wait too long and be stuck or let them go for peanuts.

 

[Litch]

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..

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.

 

[AngeloHenriquez]

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.

That doesn't answer my question at all, if we took the stated approach in theory, we would have gained more than we lost.

 

[NotoriousISSY]

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.

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

 

[Litch]

If you are employed by one of the best companies, you generally get paid the best wages. This reflects all aspects of business and you wouldn't sign players without it irrespective if we now don't rate them. I think sometimes you have to cover your assets once you have investing in them. Hard to write off millions off the books as they will reflect on our bottom line.....

 

[Alex99]

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 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.

 

[Alex99]

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

I'm fairly sure Henderson signed a contract for around 100k per week last summer. Not 200k, as that person has suggested.

 

[Noc-Z]

The wages they are on and also not being ruthless enough with them - although on the other hand, you can't force them out. It's our own fault for dishing out contract renewals to guys like Phil Jones. You'd think they would have some drive and ambition to play somewhere else, but we probably make it too comfortable for them to stay here.

 

[Litch]

That doesn't answer my question at all, if we took the stated approach in theory, we would have gained more than we lost.

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?

 

[pascell]

When we value Pereira at €25m and he's probably on £50-60k wages, that's far too much for most clubs out of the top 6 in the PL, never mind smaller clubs abroad, that's just one player, we do it with them all.

Lingards sale should've been the easiest, yet we've overcomplicated it by being greedy yet again.

 

[acnumber9]

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.

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’m not sure it’s much of a thing at the top level. How many top level players have had a couple of loans before breaking into the first team of top clubs and being successful?

 

[balaks]

You pay your fringe players ridiculous wages that's why.

 

[Bebestation]

I don't see our wages dropping with potentially players like Haaland joining and Pogba asking for a 400k contract.

The best improvement we can do is possibly give slightly smaller contracts.

We need to reap the benefits of letting players go on a free rather than paying them wages for not doing anything & expecting transfer fees that will never get met.

Jones, Pereira etc should be going even on free transfers in my opinion. Someone like Brandon Williams could have got a good transfer fee for us during his breakout season - yet instead I wouldn't be surprised if we gave him a overvalued contract now that causes him to stay here even if we don't need him as much.

 

[Nickelodeon]

Frankly, everyone in this thread knows the answer to the question raised by OP. Does the management?