Manchester United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2015 Mod Note Post #2331

Howard the Duck

astradave wrote: »

Do you mind giving your reasons for wanting Hughes in as manager? TSC has basically wrote what I would be saying about him.

Sure, i think he did a fantastic job at Fulham and Blackburn Rovers and just missed out on Euro Qualification with Wales . Think he was sacked too early at Man City where his win ratio was a very good 46.8%. He has Stoke playing excellent football, it's no mean feat changing their style of play and getting results so fast.
But even after saying all that i still agree he would be a risk, and maybe my memories of him as a player is clouding my judgement slightly.

bangkok

ericzeking wrote: »

Read the post again, "one of the main reasons".

yea he is still not in fairness. You said he has been good in both boxes, he only has scored 1 premier league goal all season and that was in an away loss to Bournemouth

brinty

Howard the Duck wrote: »

I think a good risk would be Mark Hughes and i'm sure Giggs would stay on as assistant. But i know it won't happen. Would be great to see an ex Utd player as manager.

Not being funny but how is he a good risk. No track record of winning as a coach, a solid mid table manager who'll always get work but not able for the top level. Bad record when he's had money to spend - didn't he sign Roque Santa Cruz twice and he was almost always injured!!
Loved him as a player but doesn't have it in management..

Giggs needs to go and earn his spurs or start taking the reserves and academy teams on. Hell if his philosophy is great start with the underage system and get all the teams playing the same style that can in time be transferred to the senior team managed by him. There's a reason Barca and Pep succeded. He work with the youths and was able to know what was coming through

ericzeking

bangkok wrote: »

yea he is still not in fairness. You said he has been good in both boxes, he only has scored 1 premier league goal all season and that was in an away loss to Bournemouth

Spot on....the goals scored column is all that counts for a physical central midfielder.

Howard the Duck

brinty wrote: »

Not being funny but how is he a good risk. No track record of winning as a coach, a solid mid table manager who'll always get work but not able for the top level. Bad record when he's had money to spend - didn't he sign Roque Santa Cruz twice and he was almost always injured!!
Loved him as a player but doesn't have it in management..

I've answered in my previous post there why i think he is a good risk. I think he is classed as a solid mid table manager is because he has only managed mid tables teams. Man City were going through a transition when he was there and i think if they gave him more time he would have been successful, he got sacked because they got too many draws in the end. Like i said i think he is a risk but a better risk than the likes of Giggs and i'd prefer him over Jose.

bucketybuck

I'm not advocating for Hughes at all, but I would point out that his record is actually the path that we expect the likes of Giggs to go out and follow. He has went to smaller clubs and done well at them, he has learned his trade and has experience at different levels, including international.

And unlike Moyes he actually has big club and big money experience as well. The City job may not have went well for him, but if managers can develop then surely that experience will stand to him, he will have learned a lot from it so is it really the case that he will fail at every big club he tries at?

We say to Giggs go out and learn your trade and come back when ready. But we also say to the lads that went out and learned their trade that they aren't high level enough for us. Is it any real surprise if Giggs was to feel its a fools errand to go out to the Fulhams of this world first?

bangkok

ericzeking wrote: »

Spot on....the goals scored column is all that counts for a physical central midfielder.

he's a central midfielder now? A while back everyone was saying his best role was just off the striker. Carrick plays the central midfielder role from deep, not really sure what fellaini does now to be honest

Pro. F

bangkok wrote: »

he's a central midfielder now? A while back everyone was saying his best role was just off the striker. Carrick plays the central midfielder role from deep, not really sure what fellaini does now to be honest

There were plenty of people saying that Fellaini's best role was, or would be, as a central midfielder.

Nalz

ericzeking wrote: »

Read the post again, "one of the main reasons".

he be like i see the F word and a positive statement in the same sentence....

Must. reply. with. witty. remark.

Cant fight it!!!!!

bangkok

Pro. F wrote: »

There were plenty of people saying that Fellaini's best role was, or would be, as a central midfielder.

if his best role is indeed Central midfield, we would have been better off holding onto Fletcher and Cleverly as they are both better than him in that position

jayo26

Wooohooooo at least we rich lol.

Pro. F

bangkok wrote: »

if his best role is indeed Central midfield, we would have been better off holding onto Fletcher and Cleverly as they are both better than him in that position

Hi non-sequitur *waves*

brinty

Manchester United have announced that revenue in the three months to 31 December rose 26.6% to £133.8m.

Commercial revenue is up 42.5% to £66.1m, but the Premier League club's debt is up 6% to £322.1m.

Ed Woodward, United's executive vice-chairman, said: "Our solid results off the pitch help contribute to what remains our number one priority - success on the pitch."




The Reds are currently fifth in the Premier League table.

United, majority owned by the American Glazer family, are currently six points adrift of fourth-placed Manchester City.

Broadcast revenue rose by 31.3%, but matchday income was down 1.6%.

Despite their precarious league position and exit from the Champions League, United are still on course to become the first British club to earn more than £500m in one year.


http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/35548741

Lets spend all the money

POKERKING

Howard the Duck wrote: »

I've answered in my previous post there why i think he is a good risk. I think he is classed as a solid mid table manager is because he has only managed mid tables teams. Man City were going through a transition when he was there and i think if they gave him more time he would have been successful, he got sacked because they got too many draws in the end. Like i said i think he is a risk but a better risk than the likes of Giggs and i'd prefer him over Jose.

What about relegating QPR?

TheDoc

If the revenue does transfer into more stellar signing, spearheaded by a manager who is getting results, there is resources there for us to get back being a major domestic force, and assert ourselves as a dominant force in Europe again. And do it right this time.

I can't but be impressed with how Woodward has taken an already massive club and turned it into a behemoth (revenue wise). What happens on the pitch isn't down to him, but with a manager getting results and success, and transfers making a big impact, there would be an arguement he is one of the top operators of CEO's in the business, and that he is only doing it for what, 2 and a bit years is incredibly impressive.

TheDoc

If the revenue does transfer into more stellar signing, spearheaded by a manager who is getting results, there is resources there for us to get back being a major domestic force, and assert ourselves as a dominant force in Europe again. And do it right this time.

I can't but be impressed with how Woodward has taken an already massive club and turned it into a behemoth (revenue wise). What happens on the pitch isn't down to him, but with a manager getting results and success, and transfers making a big impact, there would be an arguement he is one of the top operators of CEO's in the business, and that he is only doing it for what, 2 and a bit years is incredibly impressive.

UnitedIrishman

As unlikely as it is it'd be great to see some of that revenue put towards restoring parity at youth level with the likes of City and Chelsea. A club isn't just the senior squad despite how cost ineffective it can be to have so many full-time coaches at that level. A lot of the young players we're bringing through are in spite of the setup (and due the excellent work of the guys that are already there).

Trigger

So.. Neymar anyone?

Howard the Duck

POKERKING wrote: »

What about relegating QPR?

Well he took over a bad team in January and they were still in with a chance of staying up on the last game of the season so i don't think he done too bad there. The second season didn't work out though. Anyway i think i've talked enough about him, i know he's not going to get the Job over someone like Mourinho . But i think bucketybuck made a good point about managers having to go get experience before getting a big job, the problems with English clubs is that they won't take a chance on British managers anymore, they all want someone who's won leagues so they get foreign managers because foreign teams take more chances on managers.

Mitch Connor

The (likely) lack of CL football again next season will impact on how much use can be made of those revenues.

homerjay2005

United vice-chairman Ed Woodward said: "Our strong commitment to investing in our squad, youth academy and the broader club are ultimately underpinned by our financial strength and the hard work and dedication of everyone at the Club.

"Our solid results off the pitch help contribute to what remains our number one priority - success on the pitch."

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11667/10163107/manchester-united-happy-with-louis-van-gaal-amid-jose-mourinho-job-speculation

ya right, priority if $$$ for the Glazers and everything else comes secondary. they will learn eventually that the money will drop if the football doesnt follow but the last 3-6 months has shown that at the moment, this concept seems lost on them.

Coat22

homerjay2005 wrote: »

United vice-chairman Ed Woodward said: "Our strong commitment to investing in our squad, youth academy and the broader club are ultimately underpinned by our financial strength and the hard work and dedication of everyone at the Club.

"Our solid results off the pitch help contribute to what remains our number one priority - success on the pitch."

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11667/10163107/manchester-united-happy-with-louis-van-gaal-amid-jose-mourinho-job-speculation

ya right, priority if $$$ for the Glazers and everything else comes secondary.

Homer, I get your frustration and every football fan would like to think that success is the highest priority for the people who own their club but reality is that at the PL / Championship level pople only invest in football clubs to make money (unless you own City or Chelsea). The hope for United is that the only way to sustain these revenues (and the share price) is through success on the pitch and that that becomes the primary focus of the board.

Take Everton this week, subject to a £200 million takeover. Is it because the new investors love Everton? Is it f*ck its because they think £200M is worth it considering the potential earning of the club with the new TV deal etc. Same with the Leicester owners only as an added bonus for them, they've found themselves challenging for the title.

Mitch Connor

homerjay2005 wrote: »

United vice-chairman Ed Woodward said: "Our strong commitment to investing in our squad, youth academy and the broader club are ultimately underpinned by our financial strength and the hard work and dedication of everyone at the Club.

"Our solid results off the pitch help contribute to what remains our number one priority - success on the pitch."

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11667/10163107/manchester-united-happy-with-louis-van-gaal-amid-jose-mourinho-job-speculation

ya right, priority if $$$ for the Glazers and everything else comes secondary. they will learn eventually that the money will drop if the football doesnt follow but the last 3-6 months has shown that at the moment, this concept seems lost on them.

I would argue the 250million spent on players in the last couple of years would indicate they do need to spend on players to get success to bring in more money.

The money has been there for players, the players brought in have been the wrong ones or performed badly (in some cases) but the players have been brought in.

I don't think you are correct with your assumptions that money is the problem in buying players - LVG has chosen not to buy players.

Liam McPoyle

Coat22 wrote: »

Homer, I get your frustration and every football fan would like to think that success is the highest priority for the people who own their club but reality is that at the PL / Championship level pople only invest in football clubs to make money (unless you own City or Chelsea). The hope for United is that the only way to sustain these revenues (and the share price) is through success on the pitch and that that becomes the primary focus of the board.

Take Everton this week, subject to a £200 million takeover. Is it because the new investors love Everton? Is it f*ck its because they think £200M is worth it considering the potential earning of the club with the new TV deal etc. Same with the Leicester owners only as an added bonus for them, they've found themselves challenging for the title.

£200m is a nonsense offer for them tbh, sure Lukaka, Stones and Barkley could probably command a fee in and around £150m alone.

Pro. F

homerjay2005 wrote: »

United vice-chairman Ed Woodward said: "Our strong commitment to investing in our squad, youth academy and the broader club are ultimately underpinned by our financial strength and the hard work and dedication of everyone at the Club.

"Our solid results off the pitch help contribute to what remains our number one priority - success on the pitch."

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11667/10163107/manchester-united-happy-with-louis-van-gaal-amid-jose-mourinho-job-speculation

ya right, priority if $$$ for the Glazers and everything else comes secondary.

The club has spent a shed load on transfers and wages in recent times. The footballing side of the operation is as big a priority as we could want from business men owners.

Mitch Connor

Pro. F wrote: »

The club has spent a shed load on transfers and wages in recent times. The footballing side of the operation is as big a priority as we could want from business men owners.

You could argue an under-investment in the youth structures - as has been written about of late; with the yearly investment way behind City, Chelsea and Barcelona, for example - and an underpaying of coaches/lack of coaches etc.

But I would agree that in terms of the first team, it does look like the Glazers have allowed LVG and Woodward to try build the team they want; the lack of success in player performance or, possibly, signing the no.1 targets in given positions is not their fault.

brinty

Business Cat wrote: »

£200m is a nonsense offer for them tbh, sure Lukaka, Stones and Barkley could probably command a fee in and around £150m alone.

and what about all the debts and liabilities they'd have etc...
player registrations are only one part of the value of the club
for a guy with the name Business Cat you don't have a lot of business savvy

homerjay2005

Pro. F wrote: »

The club has spent a shed load on transfers and wages in recent times. The footballing side of the operation is as big a priority as we could want from business men owners.

and they have also turfed out 25 players and brought in £120m+ in sales, along with another ~£80m saved in wages.

i just dont have the same faith and trust in the Glazers intentions as many people have and i say this,as somebody who for years, backed the Glazers completely.

my view of them has changed in recent years though, the club is now a cash cow for them and they are not investing money as it appears. lets not forget a huge cash reserve was build up before our big spend in 2014 and since then, theres been alot of balancing.

Rayne Wooney

I'd sign up Pogba, Stones and Mahrez for what it would cost to buy Neymar

brinty

homerjay2005 wrote: »

and they have also turfed out 25 players and brought in £120m+ in sales, along with another ~£80m saved in wages.

i just dont have the same faith and trust in the Glazers intentions as many people have and i say this,as somebody who for years, backed the Glazers completely.

my view of them has changed in recent years though, the club is now a cash cow for them and they are not investing money as it appears. lets not forget a huge cash reserve was build up before our big spend in 2014 and since then, theres been alot of balancing.

fair play homer, that's a good call.

I think the intention always was for them to sell United and in 2010 Qatar offered $2bn but they're holding out for $3bn. Since then Qatar have bought PSG and heavily invested in Barcelona.

They also own Tampa Bay and that franchise has been severely underfunded for years. I think they told the mayor that unless they got a brand new stadium they'd pull the team out of Tampa.. the fact they are consistently in the bottom 10 teams in the NFL should be a warning sign to us..

homerjay2005

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

I'd sign up Pogba, Stones and Mahrez for what it would cost to buy Neymar

not a fan of Stones myself, i think for the money quoted theres much better ways to spend the money.

Pogba would be incredible signing but cant see it happening. it does appear however that cash is reserved for one big player and after that, we are talking minimum squad investment which i think most agree on, is in need or a big overhaul.

Pro. F

homerjay2005 wrote: »

and they have also turfed out 25 players and brought in £120m+ in sales, along with another ~£80m saved in wages.

i just dont have the same faith and trust in the Glazers intentions as many people have and i say this,as somebody who for years, backed the Glazers completely.

my view of them has changed in recent years though, the club is now a cash cow for them and they are not investing money as it appears. lets not forget a huge cash reserve was build up before our big spend in 2014 and since then, theres been alot of balancing.

Net spend has been £200m since Fergie retired. That is good. You have criticised LVG by pointing out how much he has spent regularly.

I would say LVG and his awful squad management is the reason we got rid of so many players. He's alway been shockingly bad at keeping squad players happy.

From what I remember the wages to turn over was massive before LVG came along anyway, so I'd be very surprised if it was anyway low now even after the cull.

I don't trust the Glazers either, but it is clear they have been spending in order to secure top four status, which these days means a spending a lot.

Nalz

homerjay2005 wrote: »

not a fan of Stones myself.

Gotta disagree with you there, I think they hype is almost warranted. Great player

Mitch Connor

Pro. F wrote: »

Net spend has been £200m since Fergie retired. That is good. You have criticised LVG by pointing out how much he has spent regularly, so you can't now change to doubting that we are spending enough.

I would say LVG and his awful squad management is the reason we got rid of so many players. He's alway been shockingly bad at keeping squad players happy.

From what I remember the wages to turn over was massive before LVG came along anyway, so I'd be very surprised if it was anyway low now even after the cull.

I don't trust the Glazers either, but it is clear they have been spending in order to secure top four status, which these days means a spending a lot.

Would love to see the actual specifics on wages and turnover, because from memory they were 'fine' before he took over.

Wages were high (lower than only city) but the turnover was huge - think wages were around 60% of turnover. Wages then increased to more than anyone else, in England, in his first year as we had Falcao, RVP and Di Maria (for example). I would say that has dramatically decreased over the last year or so given both the player sales and increase in revenue.

homerjay2005

Pro. F wrote: »

Net spend has been £200m since Fergie retired. That is good. You have criticised LVG by pointing out how much he has spent regularly, so you can't now change to doubting that we are spending enough.
.

you surely can see there is a difference between the fact that LVG spent money (£250m) and where this money came from or how is was funded?

nobody can deny LVG was given alot of money, however this money is a drop in the ocean compared to turnover and as i said theres multiple factors to be taken into account - by the time this year is completed, the club will have taken in almost £2billion since 2011.

i just think that alot of fans are being led up a path by the Glazers and Woodward and equate our high turnover to us being rich and we are going to go out and sign £100s of millions worth of players.

bangkok

would like to see us sign this summer...

Leroy Sane or Mahrez
Neymar
Verane
and some world class/potential world class creative midfielder

Mitch Connor

homerjay2005 wrote: »

you surely can see there is a difference between the fact that LVG spent money (£250m) and where this money came from or how is was funded?

nobody can deny LVG was given alot of money, however this money is a drop in the ocean compared to turnover and as i said theres multiple factors to be taken into account - by the time this year is completed, the club will have taken in almost £2billion since 2011.

i just think that alot of fans are being led up a path by the Glazers and Woodward and equate our high turnover to us being rich and we are going to go out and sign £100s of millions worth of players.

I believe the club tried to sign Neymar, Ronaldo, Bale and Muller for massive amounts of money, at various points since Fergie left - they failed on all of them, obviously, but I would be happy to say an intent was there to spend big on big players.

Coat22

Business Cat wrote: »

£200m is a nonsense offer for them tbh, sure Lukaka, Stones and Barkley could probably command a fee in and around £150m alone.

Don't know how much debt is owed though.

Coat22

homerjay2005 wrote: »

you surely can see there is a difference between the fact that LVG spent money (£250m) and where this money came from or how is was funded?

nobody can deny LVG was given alot of money, however this money is a drop in the ocean compared to turnover and as i said theres multiple factors to be taken into account - by the time this year is completed, the club will have taken in almost £2billion since 2011.

i just think that alot of fans are being led up a path by the Glazers and Woodward and equate our high turnover to us being rich and we are going to go out and sign £100s of millions worth of players.

Wages alone are running at £200M a year and I'm sure all that stuff that's sold in the megastore needs to be paid for (and whisper it the cost of servicing the debt).

You're right - revenues mean nothing really - its the bottom line that counts and that will surely suffer if results aren't turned around but as Liverpool have shown - you don't need to be successful to be profitable

Pro. F

homerjay2005 wrote: »

you surely can see there is a difference between the fact that LVG spent money (£250m) and where this money came from or how is was funded?

nobody can deny LVG was given alot of money, however this money is a drop in the ocean compared to turnover and as i said theres multiple factors to be taken into account - by the time this year is completed, the club will have taken in almost £2billion since 2011.

As long as the manager is given loads of money to spend I don't care if it's a drop in the ocean compared to turnover. In fact I think that would be a good thing as it would insulate the club against risk in the future.

homerjay2005 wrote: »

i just think that alot of fans are being led up a path by the Glazers and Woodward and equate our high turnover to us being rich and we are going to go out and sign £100s of millions worth of players.

That is a different conversation to the question of whether or not the Glazers are supporting the footballing operation well or not. They are. We are spending plenty of money. Maybe some fans are incorrect about what we will spend in the future, maybe you are incorrect, I'm not interested in making predictions about that myself. But what we have spent up to this point is very good and so there's no need to complain about the Glazers support of the football operation or the fact that they keep signing new sponsors.

bangkok

Coat22 wrote: »

Wages alone are running at £200M a year and I'm sure all that stuff that's sold in the megastore needs to be paid for (and whisper it the cost of servicing the debt).

You're right - revenues mean nothing really - its the bottom line that counts and that will surely suffer if results aren't turned around but as Liverpool have shown - you don't need to be successful to be profitable

probably cost a pound or 2 to make a jersey and then sold for 90 pounds in the megastore.

Debt has decreased 6% as well

Mitch Connor

bangkok wrote: »

Debt has increased 6% as well

Decreased.

Pro. F

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Would love to see the actual specifics on wages and turnover, because from memory they were 'fine' before he took over.

Wages were high (lower than only city) but the turnover was huge - think wages were around 60% of turnover. Wages then increased to more than anyone else, in England, in his first year as we had Falcao, RVP and Di Maria (for example). I would say that has dramatically decreased over the last year or so given both the player sales and increase in revenue.

My memory of it is more or less the same as yours. I know it's publicly available but I can't be arsed looking it up (because it would take an awful lot of research). From the way you describe it, things sounds good to me. One or two big signings and the wage spend could shoot back up.

Mitch Connor wrote: »

You could argue an under-investment in the youth structures - as has been written about of late; with the yearly investment way behind City, Chelsea and Barcelona, for example - and an underpaying of coaches/lack of coaches etc.

But I would agree that in terms of the first team, it does look like the Glazers have allowed LVG and Woodward to try build the team they want; the lack of success in player performance or, possibly, signing the no.1 targets in given positions is not their fault.

I suspect that the youth development spending story may be blown out of proportion and all City's spending is unnecessary flash, but we'll have to wait and see the mid to long term results before we can say either way.

Mitch Connor

Pro. F wrote: »

My memory of it is more or less the same as yours. I know it's publicly available but I can't be arsed looking it up (because it would take an awful lot of research). From the way you describe it, things sounds good to me. One or two big signings and the wage spend could shoot back up.



I suspect that the youth development spending story may be blown out of proportion and all City's spending is unnecessary flash, but we'll have to wait and see the mid to long term results before we can say either way.

From reading the opinions of people involved in youth football to varying degrees around Manchester and nationally (on UWS and RI), I would say the youth stories have hardly scratched the surface, to be honest.

But, i've no first hand proof myself (obviously) so it is nowt more than speculation and conjecture.

brinty

For all the talk of the academy's at Chelsea and Citeh, how many genuine first team players has either produce in recent memory??
Terry at Chelsea and that's it. Hart was purchased by Citeh from Charlton or shrewsbury or someone as a teenager (although the same could be said about Janujaz or Perreira)
So they can spend all the like on great academies but if they still don't give those players a chance they might as well stop wasting money and just buy the players in..

TheTownie

Few quotes from Ed;

Tom Williams ‏@tomwfootball 2h2 hours ago
Ed Woodward asked about threat from Chinese Super League. "If nothing else it's a useful market if we're looking to sell players."

Duncan Castles ‏@DuncanCastles 1m1 minute ago
Ed Woodward: 'I think the philosophy we have is to target the quality of players based on a huge amount of scouting that we do and analysis.

Duncan Castles ‏@DuncanCastles 1m1 minute ago
Ed Woodward: '...Then we do our best to do the best deal we can.'

Coat22

bangkok wrote: »

probably cost ADIDAS a pound or 2 to make a jersey and then sold for 90 pounds in the megastore.

Debt has decreased 6% as well

fyp

TheDoc

Business Cat wrote: »

£200m is a nonsense offer for them tbh, sure Lukaka, Stones and Barkley could probably command a fee in and around £150m alone.

It's never as straight forward as that, as much as I know where you are coming from.

Everton have debt, granted it's relatively low debt, it's still debt. That needs to be taken on by a new owner, along with the risks associated with it. Everton are also in a precarious position of I'd say, being in desperate need of a new stadium.

While they are no doubt under performing under Martinez, the club sits next door to a club with a pretty large global fanbase and recognition.

There is no point in someone buying them out, to just keep them ticking over. A new investor or owner will want to come in and increase the clubs fortunes on and off the pitch. That is going to take bewildering investment.

Unfortunately for Everton they are a very underwhelming attraction to foreign owners, even though to me from a football perspective, they look like a dormant giant waiting to erupt.

homerjay2005

brinty wrote: »

For all the talk of the academy's at Chelsea and Citeh, how many genuine first team players has either produce in recent memory??
Terry at Chelsea and that's it. Hart was purchased by Citeh from Charlton or shrewsbury or someone as a teenager (although the same could be said about Janujaz or Perreira)
So they can spend all the like on great academies but if they still don't give those players a chance they might as well stop wasting money and just buy the players in..

them lads dont really push the "we are a club that focus on youth" though do they?

youth development in the UK is generally s*it, thats not an excuse though for our current plight.

Mitch Connor

brinty wrote: »

For all the talk of the academy's at Chelsea and Citeh, how many genuine first team players has either produce in recent memory??
Terry at Chelsea and that's it. Hart was purchased by Citeh from Charlton or shrewsbury or someone as a teenager (although the same could be said about Janujaz or Perreira)
So they can spend all the like on great academies but if they still don't give those players a chance they might as well stop wasting money and just buy the players in..

Much like any academy (apart from Barcelona it would appear) it is difficult to produce players that are capable of starting and winning champions league finals, which is the goal for each of these clubs. The odds of doing it are small.

However, looking at the respective quality of the academies when they play against each other I see a clear gap between United and City/Chelsea - they are bigger, stronger, faster and better. In both academies there are two or three players that could make the grade, but they may fall by teh wayside like Morrison did at United, or never progress from very promising like Jones, Tunnicliffe, Petriucci - or 'just' become good level PL players (or similar) such as possible PL winners Danny Drinkwater, Danny Simpson or Matt James (if he wasn't injured).

They haven't produced a world class (or top class) player YET, but imo it takes years of structural, cultural changes to show benefits in this area - the chelsea and city academies are now the best in the country and city's is possibly being on the way to be the best in the world. Will they produce a top talent, impossible to say, but there is a better chance there than most places.

As an aside - there are some very tasty looking players at United; Gribbon, Menseh and Tuanzebe being the standouts imo; they could be very good players.

There are talented players at United, I'm not arguing against that - but as a group in terms of overall quality and indeed quantity, there are question marks over the U18s group and below.