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

[The Uncle of All Uncles]

There's a well-documented link between the most successful sports teams and the highest wages/salaries in their respective sports.

I've always had a sneaking suspicion that Woodward has misunderstood this to mean that he needs to pay Man Utd players top dollar and that then, as if by magic, they'll be successful.

Of course, this is putting the cart before the horse, as the reason the top teams have the highest wages is usually because they have the best players. So, first you get the best players, then you pay them the best salaries. You don't just start by paying the best salaries to the players that you already have, as if that will make them the best players.

As such, even fringe players at this club get paid far in excess of what they'd get elsewhere - making it difficult/impossible to move them on.

 

[GlasgowCeltic]

Couldn't bear to sell Donny, Jesse, Jamesy, Tuanzebe-ey, Williamsy and Anto

 

[Alex99]

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?

Chelsea didn't start seeing any sustained success at youth level until the mid 10s, so really they've not done badly given a good chunk of the young players in their side, or that have been sold for good fees to good clubs, in the last couple of seasons will be from those youth teams.

I'm not sure they're faring any worse than any other club, and are probably doing better than most.

Loads of players drop off to lower levels of the game simply because youth football to senior football is a massive step up and there isn't as much space in squads.

If you consider that basically any club with an academy will have teams for all age groups, there will be hundreds of kids signed up.

Each age group needs a full squad of players, but those players can obviously only play in an age group for a limited time before they age out of it. You get to the sides closest to the senior side (under 18s and under 23s in England), and the next jump is into a squad with no upper age limit and is going to have a whole host of experienced players in it. Room isn't being created because a quarter of the squad are going to be too old next season.

Top level academy players is the topic of discussion, not top level players. Most players at top level clubs didn't come through their current club's academy, but because they were top level talents, it was obviously easier for them to find a place in the senior side of a lower level club where they'd have played and gained experience, before transferring. If you're an academy player at a top level club, the comparitive route to this is being loaned out until you're good enough. The fact is, many aren't good enough.

United are Fernandes' fifth club at senior level. City are De Bruyne's fifth. Liverpool are Salah's sixth. Changing club is fine.

On the topic of our deadwood, we've simply missed the window where we'd maximise value on most of them because they are/were active squad members that would have needed replacing anyway. They're on wages reflecting previous usefulness to a wealthy, top level side, and the clubs that would be interested now can't afford them.

 

[#07]

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.

Completely agree.

Whether its at #8 or #10 I'd trust the likes of Garner, Levitt, Hannibal or Amad over Andreas. Its been obvious for years that he would not make the grade. When he got his last deal I was stunned.

We have renewed contracts in so many cases where it just wasn't needed. You have to believe there is some reason. Yet I can't see it.

I would rather have jettisoned these players and diverted their wages to Fernandes to keep him happy. At least then I would feel we're actually paying for something worthwhile.

How are we spending like half a million a week on goalies? That's another baffling one.

Then when we need to buy players we're told there's no space on the wage bill.

 

[Red Royal]

We give them stupid wages, want too much of a fee.

This is it.

 

[acnumber9]

Top level academy players is the topic of discussion, not top level players.

You were the one that said players going on loan two or three times before breaking into the first team was common in the modern game at the top level. It isn’t. You changed the topic.

Regarding your examples of Salah et al. Yes they may have moved around, but they haven’t generally changed teams on a yearly basis. If we look at the most ridiculous example from Chelsea of Lucas Piazon who played for five different teams in five years. I don’t see how that was good for him or would be for any player.

My point is that Chelsea’s model is good for Chelsea and nobody else. And it’s a bad thing for football.

 

[clarkydaz]

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

Which made the 5 year Rooney contract under Moyes so ridiculous. A sign of things to come

 

[reelworld]

We were pretty good in selling players in the Fergie days. I think it helps that United were winning everything so we can ask for decent amount of money for fringe players who contributed in a title one way or another.

Also Fergie was a master at judging players ability and hunger. If he knows he can't relied on you week in week out, you either accept your place as a squad player or you're out.
Remember when John O'Shea was looking like a world beater in his first season? We see a dip in the next season and United lose the title that season. He didn't wait whether O'Shea could recaptured his first season form, he went out and brought Heinze. When Heinze began to show his limitation, he went out and bought Evra. Once Evra established himself as clear number one choice who can be relied every season, it's just a matter of who can accept the role of role players, and Heinze couldn't accept it, so off he went.

Point is, Fergie's knows exactly when to move players and when to hold on to them, and he keep a competitive environment which ensure that only the best players raised to the top.

 

[Alex99]

You were the one that said players going on loan two or three times before breaking into the first team was common in the modern game at the top level. It isn’t. You changed the topic.

Regarding your examples of Salah et al. Yes they may have moved around, but they haven’t generally changed teams on a yearly basis. If we look at the most ridiculous example from Chelsea of Lucas Piazon who played for five different teams in five years. I don’t see how that was good for him or would be for any player.

My point is that Chelsea’s model is good for Chelsea and nobody else. And it’s a bad thing for football.

Mount was loaned out twice, Zouma three times, Chalobah three times, and that's just Chelsea this season.

Hell, Lukaku was loaned out twice by Chelsea and then sold, and he's back there. Then there's Kane who was loaned out four times by Spurs, once playing for two sides in a single season.

It's common enough.

The point is that the loan process is basically the only way a lot of young players will get any football while signed for a top side.

Players move about all the time. The main thing when they're developing is that they're playing football. You can think it's bad for football for a club to be loaning out so many players, but ultimately they're still in the game. I bet if you looked at most they're still carving out decent careers, even if they didn't make it at the very top.

 

[acnumber9]

Mount was loaned out twice, Zouma three times, Chalobah three times, and that's just Chelsea this season.

Hell, Lukaku was loaned out twice by Chelsea and then sold, and he's back there. Then there's Kane who was loaned out four times by Spurs, once playing for two sides in a single season.

It's common enough.

The point is that the loan process is basically the only way a lot of young players will get any football while signed for a top side.

Players move about all the time. The main thing when they're developing is that they're playing football. You can think it's bad for football for a club to be loaning out so many players, but ultimately they're still in the game. I bet if you looked at most they're still carving out decent careers, even if they didn't make it at the very top.

Zouma is about to be sold and Chalobah has played the grand total of one competitive game for Chelsea. Like, I said it isn’t that common.

It’s fine for you to believe the loan system works. I’m just stating I don’t think it’s in the best interests of the players or good for the game as a whole. Stockpiling talent is not improving the game and for me it should be monitored.

 

[Alex99]

Zouma is about to be sold and Chalobah has played the grand total of one competitive game for Chelsea. Like, I said it isn’t that common.

It’s fine for you to believe the loan system works. I’m just stating I don’t think it’s in the best interests of the players or good for the game as a whole. Stockpiling talent is not improving the game and for me it should be monitored.

Zouma featured pretty regularly the past two seasons though. Lingard was loaned out a few times for us and then broke into the side. I'm fairly sure the same is true for the likes of Welbeck and Cleverley.

I don't even really disagree with you in regards to stockpiling talent needing to be monitored, but when you look at it from the perspective of players it's not as clear cut as just saying that clubs can't sign players. Ultimately, these players want their shot at making at the top and are happy (to a degree) to be part of a loan process to get there.

 

[bosnian_red]

They're on high wages relative to talent so other teams don't want to match their salaries even if they like the player, and the players don't want to drop their salary.

 

[acnumber9]

Zouma featured pretty regularly the past two seasons though. Lingard was loaned out a few times for us and then broke into the side. I'm fairly sure the same is true for the likes of Welbeck and Cleverley.

I don't even really disagree with you in regards to stockpiling talent needing to be monitored, but when you look at it from the perspective of players it's not as clear cut as just saying that clubs can't sign players. Ultimately, these players want their shot at making at the top and are happy (to a degree) to be part of a loan process to get there.

I can understand that it’s difficult for the players. They see their chance at a big club and jump at it. I think the lawmakers should be doing more for young players though. Let’s not forget they’re basically children when they make these decisions.

 

[Alex99]

I can understand that it’s difficult for the players. They see their chance at a big club and jump at it. I think the lawmakers should be doing more for young players though. Let’s not forget they’re basically children when they make these decisions.

This is where I think agents need more regulations. An agent shouldn't be pocketing millions when a client is transferred because, as we've seen, it just encourages the agent to be constantly chasing transfers. I imagine they're profiting similarly from young players.

 

[DJ_21]

Probably because we over pay them so when we do want to sell them no one can match there wages or they don’t want to leave because they’ll be getting less.

 

[SadlerMUFC]

We have trouble selling these players because they make too much money and other teams don't want to pick up those contracts...

 

[Lastwolf]

Letting them go or offering smaller contracts? Nobody is forcing us to pay Nemanja Matic and Juan Mata nearly 300k a week combined. Nobody forced us to offer Phil Jones a 5 year contract in 2019. Nobody forced us to offer Pereira 75k a week, or whatever he's on. Brandon Williams had about 3 good games and we offered him 60k a week. Do you really think he would've turned down 20k a week? We just massively overpay our players.

Nobody is forcing us but you can't just throw everyone in the bin every season, we need to have a squad of ~22 players that you wouldn't mind starting and then whatever amount U21's who can step up.

Reports are that Mata took a 70k cut in the last bizarre extension, they seem to be wanting to groom him for some behind the scenes role over the next year or so. I don't understand it at all but there is some plan at least and it's fractionally not as bad as it looks (paying 5mil a year for someone to play 10 games and as many subs.

Matic, I'll give you someone got rinsed there, I'd have let the contract expire personally, but I can't find any mention of how much it is apart from his original contract, you would hope it's been heavily reduced or restructured to be on a appearances. Garner isn't ready, Declan Rice is apparently 100mil player currently, Saul/ Neves are touted at 50m and weren't avaible for double that last year, so suddenly that 7mil to keep Matic, isn't so bad.

Phil Jones, I've said this like 80 times, wasn't a techinically bad idea on paper, we'd already persevered with him through multiple long term injuries, he was "on the mend" at the time and there was that faint dream he still had time to live up to the hype. Bonus, he took a 50% wage cut, it being 4+1 years was the insane part and ofcourse he immediately broke his knee, which made it look like the most boneheaded move ever. If it had been the pay-cut and 2+1 it wouldn't have been anywhere near the risk and we'd be releasing him about now. Mengi and Tuanzebe aren't ready, so we renew Bailly and Jones.

I don't see why Williams is in there, he only looks bad if you're real harsh. He played in 36 games that season as an 18/19 year old and was genuinely the boot up the hole that started the Shawissance. He had 1 year left on his deal, we offered him 40 rising to 60 based on some milestones I'm assuming he hasn't hit seeing as he played like 14 times since. We then went and bought Telles less than a month later, who is on 90k and not alot better. He's 20, he's the least of our worries, if he has a good season an Norwich, it's all good.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

Clearly sometimes it's a matter of wages, but I think the club's media profile, the massive expectations and the subsequent hyperfocus on poor performances plays a big part. If some of the squad players the fanbase want rid of were at smaller Premier League clubs they'd probably be considered good players, but at United their every flaw and mistake is put under a microscope, opposition fans trash them constantly and United fans take out their frustrations about not being able to afford a stacked squad like City on them, so it's not surprising their stock isn't high.

A lot of the time though I think the club probably isn't as keen to sell players as the fans are because because in reality it's a lot more complicated than 'sell X, buy Y'. A lot of the squad players we have on big wages could probably be replaced with equally good players on lower wages, but there are other costs involved in signings that would make them less economical overall, off-the-field factors which make our current players important to the club and risks associated with replacing players the club knows inside and out with unknown quantities. If these decisions were being made by fans I imagine as a group we'd probably be more willing to take risks, but a group of people running the club as a business are obviously more likely to be risk-averse.

But then again, I'm sure some of it is just stupidity and sunken-cost fallacy.

 

[Abraxas]

Clearly sometimes it's a matter of wages, but I think the club's media profile, the massive expectations and the subsequent hyperfocus on poor performances plays a big part. If some of the squad players the fanbase want rid of were at smaller Premier League clubs they'd probably be considered good players, but at United their every flaw and mistake is put under a microscope, opposition fans trash them constantly and United fans take out their frustrations about not being able to afford a stacked squad like City on them, so it's not surprising their stock isn't high.

A lot of the time though I think the club probably isn't as keen to sell players as the fans are because because in reality it's a lot more complicated than 'sell X, buy Y'. A lot of the squad players we have on big wages could probably be replaced with equally good players on lower wages, but there are other costs involved in signings that would make them less economical overall, off-the-field factors which make our current players important to the club and risks associated with replacing players the club knows inside and out with unknown quantities. If these decisions were being made by fans I imagine as a group we'd probably be more willing to take risks, but a group of people running the club as a business are obviously more likely to be risk-averse.

But then again, I'm sure some of it is just stupidity and sunken-cost fallacy.

I don't think the initial argument makes sense because I don't think media analysis and fan opinion can be conflated with the very real and hard data clubs go through in a recruitment process.

We're talking tens of millions of pound deals involving recruitment teams that have far more information than we do. I think they'd very much trust their own analysis.

Seems much more farfetched than the idea they have scouted these guys, they have all the data, but they just don't think many represent good value for money as a package.

 

[TheRedHearted]

What’s the alternative though?

When it’s time for a squad player to negotiate find a hot prospect who could break through to the starting 11 for the old squad players ridiculously high wage.

 

[Stacks]

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.

I would rather some of them walk for free and free up cap space. Our selling is awful as we are constantly loaning players. Jones, Williams, Pereira, Lingard all had recent loans

Because Chelsea sell them at decent prices. Yes they’ve sold Tamouri and Abraham for good fees because they are valuable players with plenty of time ahead of them. Then they sell others for reasonable prices.

The only Fringe players we know that are for sale are Lingard and Perreria. Perreria has left which leaves Jesse. We want 20+ mil for him. West Ham want him for as little as possible. They’ll wait till the very end to make their move to see if we are desperate enough to take a much lower valuation.

I mean the way I see it there is no place for Jesse in the squad. West Ham probably look at our rosta and think the same. If someone came for Phil Jones we’d probably pay them to take him off our hands.

Abraham managed 18 in 47 and 12 in 32 and goes for 34 million. Morata (flop) went for 30m, We would struggle to get 30m for Martial. Mario Pasalic went for 13m (never heard of him) Liverpool sold Harry Wilson for 12.6m, Solanke for 19m and Danny Ward for 12.6m

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

The status and stress aren’t any different to say Liverpool or Chelsea, or even the Spanish big two, but as far back as Moyes, we’ve constantly had our managers as one of the highest paid in the world, more often than not being paid higher than better managers at equivalent ranked clubs.

It’s still not the best approach.

This is an illogical way to think about it though. So what, a manager that as a club you went out and hired and has had relative success you want to go to and say “sorry mate but you aren’t as good as X” to be cheap? Manager wages have no impact on how the club is run nor our transfer strategy so it’s not really a big deal whether Ole is the 4th or 8th highest paid manager and it has no bearing on our willingness to pay players who never contribute

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

I would rather some of them walk for free and free up cap space. Our selling is awful as we are constantly loaning players. Jones, Williams, Pereira, Lingard all had recent loans

Abraham managed 18 in 47 and 12 in 32 and goes for 34 million. Morata (flop) went for 30m, We would struggle to get 30m for Martial. Mario Pasalic went for 13m (never heard of him) Liverpool sold Harry Wilson for 12.6m, Solanke for 19m and Danny Ward for 12.6m

We wouldn’t struggle to get 30m for Martial at all, that’s ridiculous. He’s probably one of the easiest “expendable” players to sell in the squad. And Chelsea do a great job of selling younger players with “potential” that they don’t see fitting in, but this can also backfire a la De Bruyne while United would rather give a younger player every opportunity to make it at the expense of his future transfer value.

If we were Chelsea we would have sold Williams after his decent season coming up with us, Pereria much earlier, Tuanzebe a year ago, and Dalot this summer as well as Lingard instantly to West Ham instead of having this delusion that he’ll play a role in our squad this year.

 

[rollingstoned1]

I haven't followed all that much of our transfer activity this summer but i'm surprised we haven't been able to convince West Ham to part with 20 odd million for Lingard even after he looked like a superstar over there albeit briefly. It was a situation that was begging for us to take advantage of and he is still on our bench and playing for us when he might have been probably the second best player there after Antonio. An optimist would have predicted us getting around 50mn all in at least for whichever players we felt had value and could be sold but here we are with all of them still here and the few who did part only doing so on loan.

 

[Danish Wizard]

We can't sell the players we want, as they are on to big salaries at the moment.
And some of them are just not good enough to attract attention from clubs with finances to pay what we want.
And add a difficult market this summer due to Covid etc.
But yes, United must improve. The squad has at least a handful of players who whorls all be sold. The squad is to big

 

[Stacks]

We wouldn’t struggle to get 30m for Martial at all, that’s ridiculous. He’s probably one of the easiest “expendable” players to sell in the squad. And Chelsea do a great job of selling younger players with “potential” that they don’t see fitting in, but this can also backfire a la De Bruyne while United would rather give a younger player every opportunity to make it at the expense of his future transfer value.

If we were Chelsea we would have sold Williams after his decent season coming up with us, Pereria much earlier, Tuanzebe a year ago, and Dalot this summer as well as Lingard instantly to West Ham instead of having this delusion that he’ll play a role in our squad this year.

would be happy with all of this. The De Bruyne thing was more because of Jose preferring Oscar and having a personal issue with KDB. The actual wonderkids we keep e.g. Rashford Greenwood, McTom (not a wonderkid), etc and try to incorporate them where as Jose was never known for patience with young players.

 

[RoyH1]

Many top clubs suffer from this problem. Just look at Barcelona paying players who are borderline irrelevant massive wages and they cannot even give them away for free. At least we can afford their wages.

 

[Mercurial]

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.

Imo, last few years starting with Moyes the club has had to increase the wages as a way to attract and maintain players. We weren't exactly the most prime destination for different reasons (rebuild, no SAF, loss of momentum etc). The club was in an awkward position where heritage and expectations didn't match the results and output. That and no sporting direction of note created some of this mess. At the same time we aren't a feeder club and everyone knows how good the economy is and expect a big pay coming here despite much of above, making them un-sellable.

Also Fergie was cutthroat in getting rid of players he saw early signs of decline or expected a decline for various other reasons (fat father DNA, no yoga, diva attitudes, rotten agents and so on) he was a great judge of character with a clear task orientation to build a squad lacking post his retirement.

Post Fergie era has more been one of desperation with pathetic public begging from the likes of Moyes and Van Gal where we more or less got declined by fairly mediocre or completely wrong players linked with devaluing us further. Think what you will of Mourinho but he attracted some fresh momentum when he arrived wich he lost to later on.

Ole has some of that old stability and mentality back and that's his biggest strength for me at least. He is a great anchor to the Saf days but more modern and adapted to the new times. Hopefully we bargain from a new position of strength going forward. Already we are first choice for likes of Sancho & Varane. This will then trickle down on the lesser players that will fall in line.

 

[Stacks]

Imo, last few years starting with Moyes the club has had to increase the wages as a way to attract and maintain players. We weren't exactly the most prime destination for different reasons (rebuild, no SAF, loss of momentum etc). The club was in an awkward position where heritage and expectations didn't match the results and output. That and no sporting direction of note created some of this mess. At the same time we aren't a feeder club and everyone knows how good the economy is and expect a big pay coming here despite much of above, making them un-sellable.

Also Fergie was cutthroat in getting rid of players he saw early signs of decline or expected a decline for various other reasons (fat father DNA, no yoga, diva attitudes, rotten agents and so on) he was a great judge of character with a clear task orientation to build a squad lacking post his retirement.

Post Fergie era has more been one of desperation with pathetic public begging from the likes of Moyes and Van Gal where we more or less got declined by fairly mediocre or completely wrong players linked with devaluing us further. Think what you will of Mourinho but he attracted some fresh momentum when he arrived wich he lost to later on.

Ole has some of that old stability and mentality back and that's his biggest strength for me at least. He is a great anchor to the Saf days but more modern and adapted to the new times. Hopefully we bargain from a new position of strength going forward. Already we are first choice for likes of Sancho & Varane. This will then trickle down on the lesser players that will fall in line.

we could have signed Toni Kroos but LVG vetoed it. apparently lots of players get offered to us

 

[Mercurial]

we could have signed Toni Kroos but LVG vetoed it. apparently lots of players get offered to us

He got us Schweinsteiger instead

 

[meamth]

There's a well-documented link between the most successful sports teams and the highest wages/salaries in their respective sports.

I've always had a sneaking suspicion that Woodward has misunderstood this to mean that he needs to pay Man Utd players top dollar and that then, as if by magic, they'll be successful.

Of course, this is putting the cart before the horse, as the reason the top teams have the highest wages is usually because they have the best players. So, first you get the best players, then you pay them the best salaries. You don't just start by paying the best salaries to the players that you already have, as if that will make them the best players.

As such, even fringe players at this club get paid far in excess of what they'd get elsewhere - making it difficult/impossible to move them on.

That's not it.

The reputation of the club determines the contract you're getting when signing for that club.

Elite clubs have to pay their signings high wages, that's normal.

Unless we're signing youngsters.

 

[diarm]

We wouldn’t struggle to get 30m for Martial at all, that’s ridiculous. He’s probably one of the easiest “expendable” players to sell in the squad.

Martial is on £250k a week. I reckon he'd be tougher to shift than you think.

 

[100]

Wages are a problem but I think it goes deeper than that.

It has felt for years that there's a lack of expertise or confidence in player recruitment. There's a huge emphasis on retaining the value of players, and that often results in completely misjudging their value.

We talk about trusting in youth but it feels more like we're scared to sell a young player now incase they come good. Fewer cut throat decisions being made. Someone like Tuanzebe will spend a few years floating about - need a new contract to protect his value, and the cycle repeats.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Have we really sold nobody this summer? That really is an accomplishment given how large the squad is.

 

[Stacks]

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.

Guehi had only played in the championship. Chelsea sold some dude to Atalanta for 13m that I had never heard of as he had been loaned out the entire chelsea contract. Never played a match for Chelsea. Its amazing really and I give them full credit.

Martial is on £250k a week. I reckon he'd be tougher to shift than you think.

forgot about that. Thats crazy he was able to negotiate such a high wage in Jan 2019 at that point in time but realistically he will be lucky to get 150

 

[Rozay]

Guehi had only played in the championship. Chelsea sold some dude to Atalanta for 13m that I had never heard of as he had been loaned out the entire chelsea contract. Never played a match for Chelsea. Its amazing really and I give them full credit.

Guehi had only played in the Championship but he had been fairly impressive in the Championship. Manchester United would never, in the same circumstances, put a player on the market. Would always be a position of ‘he is not going on loan and will be involved with us next season’. Guehi wasn’t in a position that dissimilar to Axel after a season in the Championship, only our own position was very different to Chelsea’s. Since refusing to sell to Villa for £20m+, we have seen little to no value from our decision to keep Axel with us.

Pasalic who they sold to Atalanta has been there for a few years on loan and done well so that move makes sense. I think they probably get a little more credit than they deserve for generating money in the market. I give them credit for the youth players, but people seem to be conveniently forgetting that they paid for the others in the first place. They haven’t just banked £18m profit, these players cost them money. Batshuayi cost £35m. He’s been a bad investment for them regardless of if they get £22m for him. Pasalic cost them money. Bakayoko cost money. So if you look at it from another perspective, they have wasted a lot of money in the market too.

 

[diarm]

forgot about that. Thats crazy he was able to negotiate such a high wage in Jan 2019 at that point in time but realistically he will be lucky to get 150

Martial's Agent: "Look Ed, Tony has had an excellent season - he's scored 20 odd goals and a decent number of assists. There is interest from Spurs and from abroad so we really think he has to be looking around the one hundred thousand pounds per w...

Woodward (interrupting): "I'm not going to be strong armed here. We like the lad, hell Joel has his poster up on the wall by his bunk beds - but you need to be realistic in terms of what his real value is after one good season. We're prepared to offer 5 years at two hundred thousand pounds per week and not a penny more."

Agent: "er.... ok then. We can certainly work with that. What's the situation with his loyalty bonus?"

Woodward: "Jesus Christ you lads drive a hard bargain. Look, we'll stretch to £250k and a £10m loyalty bonus if you'll shake hands on it now"

Agent: "Done."

 

[Crustanoid]

Couldn’t we take the likes of Jones, Pereira et al on a ‘training exercise’ in the Himalayas and….you know….’lose’ them? It would at the very least save us a fortune in wages

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

our negotiation skills are ludicrous

 

[Chesterlestreet]

There's a well-documented link between the most successful sports teams and the highest wages/salaries in their respective sports.

I've always had a sneaking suspicion that Woodward has misunderstood this to mean that he needs to pay Man Utd players top dollar and that then, as if by magic, they'll be successful.

Good point.

That's indeed what it looks like - or has looked like, at least, for most of the post-SAF era.

The reason why we find it hard to get rid of certain players is as obvious as it gets: they're on huge money, relatively speaking. This goes back years (Nani springs to mind). Likely buyers (clubs that would otherwise be very interested in Manchester United fringe players) simply can't afford the wages. It's not that complicated.