Man United - won't spend big money on older players? [article]

ShoulderChip

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/17/manchester-united-transfer-policy

It seems Ribery, Eto'o villa and Ibra will have to find another club.

Looks like a future of buying young south american talent, and that always works :eek:

Boggles

Was posted yesterday in the United Thread.

But...

How exactly does it make them a feeder club?

ShoulderChip

well feeder club in the ajax sense, buying players while they are young so they have a high sale value in the future, not specificallya feeder for one club etc.

Its a pretty bad sign not to be able to buy players like villa ribery and maicon especially who are at the start of the prime of their careers if you ask me.

Boggles

ShoulderChip wrote: »

well feeder club in the ajax sense, buying players while they are young so they have a high sale value in the future, not specificallya feeder for one club etc.

But they have always adopted the policy of buying youth and developing them or moulding them if you like, into the United way.

Nothing new here.

ShoulderChip

Well players like Berbatov, Van der saar etc will no longer be signed.

Its new that exceptions wont be made for players that would fit perfectly like Ribery. ho is just 26 and 2 months.

Boggles

ShoulderChip wrote: »

Well players like Berbatov, Van der saar etc will no longer be signed.

But they were exceptions to the rule that was in place anyway.

I don't think United would have any problem signing a goalkeeper who is above 27, they only generally peak then. The article seems to suggest big money signings, Van Der Saar cost 2-4m.

ShoulderChip wrote: »

Its new that exceptions wont be made for players that would fit perfectly like Ribery. ho is just 26 and 2 months.

I'm sure if it is true, there will be some tolerance, as if Ribery would fit perfectly or not is another debate.

I repeat nothing really new here.

ShoulderChip

Boggles wrote: »

But they were exceptions to the rule that was in place anyway.

I don't think United would have any problem signing a goalkeeper who is above 27, they only generally peak then.



I'm sure if it is true, there will be some tolerance, as if Ribery would fit perfectly or not is another debate.

I repeat nothing really new here.

Well it is described as a "new" age policy

with Berbatov being described as "the last f his kind"

so to me it certainly appears like something new.

The Hustler

God bless Carlos Queiroz- Spunking 30 mil + on Nani and Anderson and doing a runner

Boggles

ShoulderChip wrote: »

Well it is described as a "new" age policy

with Berbatov being described as "the last f his kind"

so to me it certainly appears like something new.

It can describe Uniteds policy whatever way it wants, It has not got qoutes, no official press release from the club and doesn't even suggest a source.

That policy has been in the club for the past 5-6 years, Berbatov aside. How can that be considered "NEW"??? Seriously??

2008: Ljajic, Tosic, Berbatov (17, 21, 27)
2007: Macheda, Rafael & Fabio, Possebon, Anderson, Nani, Tevez, Manucho, Hargreaves (16, 17 & 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26)
2006: Carrick, Kuszczak (24, 24)
2005: Foster, Park, Vidic, Evra, Van der sar (22, 24, 24, 24, 34)
2004: Pique, Rossi, Rooney, Smith, Miller, Heinze (17, 17, 18, 23, 23, 26)
2003: Ronaldo, Howard, Saha (18, 24, 25)

Mitch Connor

ShoulderChip wrote: »

Well players like Berbatov, Van der saar etc will no longer be signed.

Its new that exceptions wont be made for players that would fit perfectly like Ribery. ho is just 26 and 2 months.

Your van der Sar comment is complete crap. The ARTICLE (not United, no official communication on this) say United won't sign players over 26 for BIG fees. van der Saar was signed for a couple of million, that is not a big fee, that is a bargain. It also doesn't state United won't sign players over 26 - it says, again, just not for BIG fees - with 30million being used as the measurement. Eto'o, for example, may be available at around 20million, so he would still fit the purchasing strategy.

As for not being in for players like Maicon and Ribery.... when was the last time United spent big on a currently world class player (or one thought to be)?

Berbatov last summer maybe, and before that? Who? United have never really been a position to compete for the very very best - Veron is the only player I can think of that was in the world class bracket when we signed him. It didn't work out but that is not the point.

United have always been about signing players for decent fees and moulding them into top players in a top side.

There really isn't anything new to the article, if true. Also, I would suggest that it is basically crap (the article). I would imagine that there is a philosophy or intent to not spend big on players that will have poor resale value (this type of thing HAS to be taken into account when you don't have a billionaire bankrolling you like Chelsea or City (or a government like Real...)) but I would be shocked to find out it was a hard and fast rule that would never be broken under any circumstances. If Ribery was available at a more reasonable price - lets say 30million so it would/should fall foul of the new 'rule', I would say United would be very interested in doing the deal. I think the bigger reason for not going for Ribery would be the fact Bayern want 50 to 60million, and United don't think he is worth that.

mike65

Uts finances are such that they have no choice, while everyone bangs on about Liverpools debt the position of MU is no better in many respects. Prudence is the new tone.

The Hustler

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Your van der Sar comment is complete crap. The ARTICLE (not United, no official communication on this) say United won't sign players over 26 for BIG fees. van der Saar was signed for a couple of million, that is not a big fee, that is a bargain. It also doesn't state United won't sign players over 26 - it says, again, just not for BIG fees - with 30million being used as the measurement. Eto'o, for example, may be available at around 20million, so he would still fit the purchasing strategy.

As for not being in for players like Maicon and Ribery.... when was the last time United spent big on a currently world class player (or one thought to be)?

Berbatov last summer maybe, and before that? Who? United have never really been a position to compete for the very very best - Veron is the only player I can think of that was in the world class bracket when we signed him. It didn't work out but that is not the point.

United have always been about signing players for decent fees and moulding them into top players in a top side.

There really isn't anything new to the article, if true. Also, I would suggest that it is basically crap (the article). I would imagine that there is a philosophy or intent to not spend big on players that will have poor resale value (this type of thing HAS to be taken into account when you don't have a billionaire bankrolling you like Chelsea or City (or a government like Real...)) but I would be shocked to find out it was a hard and fast rule that would never be broken under any circumstances. If Ribery was available at a more reasonable price - lets say 30million so it would/should fall foul of the new 'rule', I would say United would be very interested in doing the deal. I think the bigger reason for not going for Ribery would be the fact Bayern want 50 to 60million, and United don't think he is worth that.

Ferdinand was World Class when you signed him

ShoulderChip

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Your van der Sar comment is complete crap. The ARTICLE (not United, no official communication on this) say United won't sign players over 26 for BIG fees. ....

I must admit I agree with you.

Boggles

mike65 wrote: »

Uts finances are such that they have no choice, while everyone bangs on about Liverpools debt the position of MU is no better in many respects. Prudence is the new tone.

Right will repeat again, this is not new. :mad:

It may be excellent business and an excellent policy but it ain't new.

When Liverpool borrow 400 million for the new stadium, I think they will officially eclipse United in the up shít creek stakes.

Mitch Connor

The Hustler wrote: »

Ferdinand was World Class when you signed him

Many would disagree with that. I think he was very good when we signed him and a player that certainly had the potential to be world class, but not amongst the very best. Nesta moved to Milan that summer, he was a lot better at the time. Rio did have an excellent world cup. When United signed him, he was still quite prone to switching off in games and making errors due to this, and general positional errors on occasion too.

In fact, as an aside, a lot of people don't think Rio is world class now, and he is a crap load better now than he was when we signed him.

The Hustler

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Many would disagree with that. I think he was very good when we signed him and a player that certainly had the potential to be world class, but not amongst the very best. Nesta moved to Milan that summer, he was a lot better at the time. Rio did have an excellent world cup. When United signed him, he was still quite prone to switching off in games and making errors due to this, and general positional errors on occasion too.

In fact, as an aside, a lot of people don't think Rio is world class now, and he is a crap load better now than he was when we signed him.

A lot of people I've spoke to, not just Leeds fans, would say he played his best football at Leeds. I can't remember one incident of him switching off or a high profile mistake at Leeds- he was a model of consistancy. Helped that he had players like WOodgate and Radebe around him though I suppose

Headshot

ShoulderChip wrote: »

I must admit I agree with you.

So we're not offically a feeder club then :rolleyes:

Spud83

Rio was like 23 when we signed him though. Surely that fits into the buy them young policy. I bet we could still sell Rio now and make a sizable chunk of that money back.

Anyway, its not that United have become a feeder club. Its just that the club feels they get better value for money in a younger market. You get more years out of a player, i.e 30 mill to have a player for 4 years is a lot, have them for 8 years and it doesn't seem so bad (i.e Rio).

Mitch Connor

alanmurphy83 wrote: »

Rio was like 23 when we signed him though. Surely that fits into the buy them young policy. I bet we could still sell Rio now and make a sizable chunk of that money back.

Anyway, its not that United have become a feeder club. Its just that the club feels they get better value for money in a younger market. You get more years out of a player, i.e 30 mill to have a player for 4 years is a lot, have them for 8 years and it doesn't seem so bad (i.e Rio).

The Rio comments are with regards to whether he was world class or not when we signed him, not if he fits the transfer policy.

kida

wonder who the OP supports, waste of a thread

Spud83

Mitch Connor wrote: »

The Rio comments are with regards to whether he was world class or not when we signed him, not if he fits the transfer policy.

Ah right. My point was that it doesn't really make a difference in realtion to this argument. World class or not he fits into the clubs "transfer policy", which has been around for donkeys years.

PHB

So Man Utd are pursuing a policy that ensures that they keep afloat and have a constant supply of top players for a cheaper price. I'm failing to see what the problem is.

And the point is not that we'll sell them on, its that if we have to sell them on, we won't lose money on them. Even Nani or Anderson, were they to be sold, they'd easily for for 13+ million, easily. As such, we make very little loss on them. If the same failure happened with Eto, we'd lose lots more money. Seems to make some sense.

_blank_

What is this "Officially" bullshít?

Quotes in article from anyone connected with Manchester United : 0

jaykay74

This thread promises something it can't deliver.

elshambo

ShoulderChip wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/17/manchester-united-transfer-policy

It seems Ribery, Eto'o villa and Ibra will have to find another club.

Looks like a future of buying young south american talent, and that always works :eek:

Thats a pretty standard policy to be fair, well was until a few years ago
eg:
Liverpool broke their own policy of never paying big money for over 28's
when they signed Paul Ince

Des wrote: »

What is this "Officially" bullshít?

Quotes in article from anyone connected with Manchester United : 0

Des article written by the biggest fanboy on the planet
HE NEVER SLAGS OF UNITED!

Dave!

Great thread, would read again

Nalz

PHB wrote: »

S Even Nani or Anderson, were they to be sold, they'd easily for for 13+ million, easily

I'm not so sure, Nani 13m...

_blank_

elshambo wrote: »

Des article written by the biggest fanboy on the planet
HE NEVER SLAGS OF UNITED!

What?

I take issue with people posting bullshít as if they are a bleedin tabloid journalist.

What is "official" about this?

Nothing, that's what.

elshambo

Des wrote: »

What?

I take issue with people posting bullshít as if they are a bleedin tabloid journalist.

What is "official" about this?

Nothing, that's what.

Life's too short and the day is too long!

Thanks btw:D

Royale with Cheese

Nani £13m? Ha. United would be doing well to get £13k for him.

IvySlayer

If United were a feeder club..explain Tevez? Also United didn't want to sell Ronaldo. He was desperate to leave.

~Rebel~

IvySlayer wrote: »

If United were a feeder club..explain Tevez? Also United didn't want to sell Ronaldo. He was desperate to leave.

Did you read the article? Its just saying ManU are gonna try to stick to the 'Ronaldo' model in future, buy em young and talented and then worst case if you have to sell, you get back loads of moolah.

Not sure where Tevez comes into it..

Mitch Connor

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Did you read the article? Its just saying ManU are gonna try to stick to the 'Ronaldo' model in future, buy em young and talented and then worst case if you have to sell, you get back loads of moolah.

Not sure where Tevez comes into it..

If anything Tevez would prove the concept - MSI park him at United for a couple of seasons and sell him on for big bucks...

therecklessone

Provocative thread title changed.

Paul Tergat

therecklessone wrote: »

Provocative thread title changed.

wp sir.


And Hustler, no matter how much you like to think it Rio at the time we bought him from our 'feeder club' was not World Class. He was a player who imo was still quite raw but had all the right attributes to go on and become the World Class defender he now is.

Liam O

For anyone saying Nani wouldn't go for 10m+ then you aren't living on the same planet as me. If Darren Bent can be sold for 16m and Robbie Keane for 20m, I see Nani, who has a load of talent going for at least a Dirk Kuyt

Boggles

Liam O wrote: »

, I see Nani, who has a load of talent going for at least a Dirk Kuyt

Is that Cockney Rhyming Slang?

Raskolnikov

Liam O wrote: »

I see Nani, who has a load of talent going for at least a Dirk Kuyt

Nani scored 1 goal in 12 Premier League games for Manchester United last season.

Kuyt scored 12 goals in 38 Premier League games for Liverpool last season.

Kuyt is one of the most underrated players in Europe. He's a good player who is on a par with Tevez and certainly better than Nani.

TonyD79

Raskolnikov wrote: »

Nani scored 1 goal in 12 Premier League games for Manchester United last season.

Kuyt scored 12 goals in 38 Premier League games for Liverpool last season.

Kuyt is one of the most underrated players in Europe. He's a good player who is on a par with Tevez and certainly better than Nani.

He does a great job for Rafa due to their style of play but he has nowhere near Tevez's ability for crying out loud. He is like Park plus is a good poacher.

Morzadec

Not to drag this OT into yet another debate about whether Dirk Kuyt is a good player or not, but Nani has a long way to go to command a transfer fee anywhere near Kuyt. I'm telling you now Rafa would not accept 15m for Kuyt and he'd be damn right not to.

Ok Nani is faster than him and can do a few pointless tricks, but lets face it he's been a massive dissapointed. He didn't even make it into the United B team that crashed out to Everton, with young Wellbeck (a striker) being preferred out left. I think this is a mark of where he is in his career at United. He has a lot to prove. Maybe Ronaldo's departure will give him a chance to shine this year, but at the moment you'd be a fool or a reckless gambler to spend double figures on him.

As for Kuyt, he had one bad season when his Dad died and people seem to be judging him on this. Anyone who watches Liverpool can see what he brings to the team. I could quote you statistics but we've all seen them before. He may not be flashy, but the guy does not give the ball away, works his bollocks off in attack and defence and comes up with important goals (any time I see Nani score it's usually at the end of a 4-0 rout). If Kuyt maintains his form into next season (which I'm confident he will) then hopefully all this talk will be put to rest and Liverpool fans won't have to come on here defending him every other week.

As to the OP, I would say this changes little. United will still be prepared to splash out big money on players who are on the verge of being world class (Rooney, Ferdinand). as has been pointed out, Berbatov is really the only exception to this rule in recent years. This is nothing new and is no surprise, they will still be competing at the highest level in the market when it comes to those under 26.

PHB

Lads seriously, why Kuyt? Why not ya know, any other non-Liverpoo player.

Whatever Rafa would accept for Kuyt is irrelevant, the simple fact of the matter in relation to Nani is that he is a young talented winger, with a lot of raw ability and some goals in him. Can't see some goodish clubs not being interested in him. As such, I'd expect at least 13mill plus.

Morzadec

PHB wrote: »

Lads seriously, why Kuyt? Why not ya know, any other non-Liverpoo player.

Whatever Rafa would accept for Kuyt is irrelevant, the simple fact of the matter in relation to Nani is that he is a young talented winger, with a lot of raw ability and some goals in him. Can't see some goodish clubs not being interested in him. As such, I'd expect at least 13mill plus.

But what club who can afford to gamble 13m+ would sign Nani? I couldn't see any of the big money teams (Chelsea, City, Barca, Real) wanting him as they would be looking for more proven quality, and every other team would surely have more sense than to spend what will possibly be their whole transfer budget on him. Would a top Portugese club, or a mid-table Premiership, Serie A, or Spanish League club spend that much on a player who can barely make the United bench?

Spurs possibly, just might be the type of club who would go for him for that type of fee. But with savvy Harry in charge now I can't see it. Really can't see how, right now, he could go for 13m+. 7-9m is more realistic IMO.

Liam O

I said Kuyt because he was signed for £10m btw

Also, Nani was United's top assister last season for those with short memories. While not my cup of tea, definitely not the talentless piece of crap people are making him out to be.

TonyD79

any time I see Nani score it's usually at the end of a 4-0 rout

Really? Well going by his first season (2nd was a write off) he scored important goals vs Spurs and Boro, a 4 nil rout vs Arsenal when he walked all over Arsenal and a cracker against liverpool.

If he performs like he did in his first season next year I will be happy. His crossing was excellent towards the end pity it wasnt there last year.

ecoli

We bought him because of his similarities to Ronaldo when he was first bought and i feel he had too much to live up to. Personally i dont feel he could command much of a transfer fee certainly not in the same realm as Kuyt who is an integral part of Liverpool team at the moment

PHB

Dirk Kuyt is 29. Nani is 22. Comparing them in terms of transfer fees is utterly utterly utterly retarded. Just stupid. Please eveyrone stop doing it. If you absolutely must compare him to a Liverpool player, compare him to Babel. Though why you would is beyond me.

As for what clubs would take a chance on him. Spurs have always been interested. Then there are clubs, ya know, outside of the premiership. With the utter lack of quality wingers available, taking a chance on him would be a better bet than most.

ecoli

PHB wrote: »

Dirk Kuyt is 29. Nani is 22. Comparing them in terms of transfer fees is utterly utterly utterly retarded. Just stupid. Please eveyrone stop doing it. If you absolutely must compare him to a Liverpool player, compare him to Babel. Though why you would is beyond me.

As for what clubs would take a chance on him. Spurs have always been interested. Then there are clubs, ya know, outside of the premiership. With the utter lack of quality wingers available, taking a chance on him would be a better bet than most.

Ronaldo is 23 and 80mil transfer fee should he not be compared to everyone in the world just because of the age?

Mitch Connor

a mod may as well lock this up, another thread turned into, and ruin by, needless United vs Liverpool comparisons.

Boggles

ecoli wrote: »

Ronaldo is 23 and 80mil transfer fee should he not be compared to everyone in the world just because of the age?

He could be compared to Messi, but the Argie will prob retire at Barca.

So that would probably be a no, Ronaldo at 80 million cannot at this moment in time be compared to anyone in World Football. He is out on his own, holds the record in fact by quite some distance.

ecoli

Boggles wrote: »

He could be compared to Messi, but the Argie will prob retire at Barca.

So that would probably be a no, Ronaldo at 80 million cannot at this moment in time be compared to anyone in World Football. He is out on his own, holds the record in fact by quite some distance.

What i mean is if a 28 year old was bought tomorrow for the same money then the previous comments logic stands that they should not be compared as ronaldo is so much younger. It was more a dig at the logic

Boggles

ecoli wrote: »

What i mean is if a 28 year old was bought tomorrow for the same money then the previous comments logic stands that they should not be compared as ronaldo is so much younger. It was more a dig at the logic

Yeah but if you look at this way, a younger player will have a sell on fee. A younger player is generally more marketable. a younger player is less injury prone.

So 80 million - Sell on fee - big bucks from Marketability - Success money = prob profit.