Manchester United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2017

Hococop

Be nice to get an early goal tomorrow and wrap it up quick

jayo26

Hococop wrote: »

Be nice to get an early goal tomorrow and wrap it up quick

Yep and worst thing would be to concede an early goal and give them hope. Last thing we need is to be battling a hyper Hull team for 90 minutes.

jayo26

jayo26 wrote: »

Yep and worst thing would be to concede an early goal and give them hope. Last thing we need is to be battling a hyper Hull team for 90 minutes.

We need a Poxy goal to go in, anything.
Hit off two defenders for all I care.
A bit of luck for a change would be nice.

TheDoc

Headshot wrote: »

Who would even come up with that lol

I know it was mental. Saw some just general public comments being high and mighty on say Facebook or twitter where people shared some funny vid and people commented how this doesn't happen in the WC or Euros(er it does) and that its racism.

Thats just general public.

I think it took a more seedy tone around the time that Wilf Saha was causing Palace some grief going with Ivory Coast. Football Weekly and Sunday Supp guests rightly pointed out managers look pathetic complaining about it. They are knowingly signing an African international and it's pathetic to then complain they go represent their country, when you know full well it happens.

A few guests made some off the cuff "it's just racist imo" and the presenters were sharp enough to move quickly on, but I thought it was careless and if anything dangerous accusations to make.

Mitch Connor

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

The contract consideration (wages to the player) reflect the terms of the contract. A club may be prepared to pay higher wages if the player is prepared to commit to the full duration of the contract without having a pre-determined value release clause. Also, don't forget it works both ways. If there was a £70m release clause and some Chinese club offered it the club may accept and the player may have to go despite the fact he doesn't want to go to China or wherever.

No - there is no reason why a player would have to leave after a fee being agreed. Plenty of players have rejected moves after fee's have been agreed.

The player is committing to receiving £7.8m a year in this case X 5 years = £39m. Not exactly signing away his future is it? At worst he'll be a free agent aged 29 with at least £39m in net assets!! (He's probably got £20m already from his time at Inter and LFC + endorsements etc)

I get that, but I just don't see it as a good situation.

Lets say Rashford is on a 10k pw contract for 5.5 years - signed as a young player with no first team appearances December 2015. Now, lets say he becomes AMAZING by the end of this season and Real Madrid offer 100million for him - and United reject it. At the same time United can be saying that you are worth more than 100million, but we are not going to pay you more than 10k pw for the next 2 years - you can then leave for free. That is how football can operate now, and I just don't think it is a fair situation on a player. I get it is contractually fine - it just plays into my belief it is insane for any player to not have a release fee clause in their contract - and a realistic one at that. There should be better balance of power between player and club, without the player resorting to crap like downing tools.

If a club thinks you are worth X amount, your contract should at the least reflect that imo - and that could/should be a progressive arrangement - so that a club can still refuse to sell a player for any given amount but must be fair to the player at the same time in terms of value/wages.

I think that's a good idea providing it works in favour of both parties to the agreement and not just the player i.e. if a player who was bought for a big fee and is on big wages loses form and value his wages should decline in the same way (under your system) they'd increase should his value go up. Take Bastian Schweinsteiger as an example. His value has plummeted and Utd haven't been able to get any buyer at any price for him so perhaps his wages should reduce by 99% to reflect the drop in his value?

I can't see a way for it to be fair for a club to reduce the wages - the wages paid over the length of an agreed contract should be a minimum, imo.

54and56

Mitch Connor wrote: »

No - there is no reason why a player would have to leave after a fee being agreed. Plenty of players have rejected moves after fee's have been agreed.

So the release clause isn't just about the value, the player can decline to move? That stacks the release clause very much in favour of the player. He's on a guaranteed £x per annum for the duration of the contract and he has an option to move if another club offer £x but he doesn't have to.

It's a very difficult dynamic to try deal with in a contract in advance of something actually happening.

Using your Rashford example:

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Lets say Rashford is on a 10k pw contract for 5.5 years - signed as a young player with no first team appearances December 2015.

At that point in time no one could possibly predict with any degree of confidence that Rashford would be worth £100m within 18 months so a realistic release clause to put in the young Rashfords contract in Dec 2015 might be £20m bearing in mind he has no first team experiences etc. but he's clearly a talented prospect the club want to hold onto so they agree a 3 year contract for £10k a week and a buyout clause of £20m.

Problem #1 - According to your logic if his buy out is £20m his wages should reflect the value of a £20m player which means he should be on £70k per week (or whatever) not £10k but let's say this is somehow ignored by the player and his agent and he signs the contract and turns into a player Madrid are willing to pay £100m for within 18 months you then have

Problem #2 - Madrid can offer £20m + £1 and he has the right under his contract to join them. Utd lose £80m on the deal, Rashford signs on for a £40m bonus and Madrid get a £100m player for £60m.

The problem with release clauses is they are either wildly OTT and effectively put a block on a transfer unless a printing press owner is prepared to pay stupid money to secure the release of Neymar for €250m or they try to anticipate what the player may be worth at some point in the future thus requiring an ability to forecast both the players own development relative to his peers AND the transfer inflation rate which can be effected by things like China suddenly turning on the printing presses.

Trying to forcast one variable is tough but to forecast where two variable may intersect as some point over a 5 year contract is near impossible. Someone will win (Madrid and the player in the example above) and someone will lose which will almost always be the club as they are the only ones with no choice should the release clause be activated.

Mitch Connor wrote: »

If a club thinks you are worth X amount, your contract should at the least reflect that imo - and that could/should be a progressive arrangement - so that a club can still refuse to sell a player for any given amount but must be fair to the player at the same time in terms of value/wages.

I don't disagree with the concept but it can't just be an upward only trajectory. Players careers rise (and they get paid more) and fall as they age and the should correspondingly get less otherwise you have a 33 year old on the bench who can't get a game earning 10 times what the up and coming young guy on the pitch is earning.

Mitch Connor

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

So the release clause isn't just about the value, the player can decline to move? That stacks the release clause very much in favour of the player. He's on a guaranteed £x per annum for the duration of the contract and he has an option to move if another club offer £x but he doesn't have to.

It's a very difficult dynamic to try deal with in a contract in advance of something actually happening.

Using your Rashford example:

At that point in time no one could possibly predict with any degree of confidence that Rashford would be worth £100m within 18 months so a realistic release clause to put in the young Rashfords contract in Dec 2015 might be £20m bearing in mind he has no first team experiences etc. but he's clearly a talented prospect the club want to hold onto so they agree a 3 year contract for £10k a week and a buyout clause of £20m.

Problem #1 - According to your logic if his buy out is £20m his wages should reflect the value of a £20m player which means he should be on £70k per week (or whatever) not £10k but let's say this is somehow ignored by the player and his agent and he signs the contract and turns into a player Madrid are willing to pay £100m for within 18 months you then have

Problem #2 - Madrid can offer £20m + £1 and he has the right under his contract to join them. Utd lose £80m on the deal, Rashford signs on for a £40m bonus and Madrid get a £100m player for £60m.

The problem with release clauses is they are either wildly OTT and effectively put a block on a transfer unless a printing press owner is prepared to pay stupid money to secure the release of Neymar for €250m or they try to anticipate what the player may be worth at some point in the future thus requiring an ability to forecast both the players own development relative to his peers AND the transfer inflation rate which can be effected by things like China suddenly turning on the printing presses.

Trying to forcast one variable is tough but to forecast where two variable may intersect as some point over a 5 year contract is near impossible. Someone will win (Madrid and the player in the example above) and someone will lose which will almost always be the club as they are the only ones with no choice should the release clause be activated.

I don't disagree with the concept but it can't just be an upward only trajectory. Players careers rise (and they get paid more) and fall as they age and the should correspondingly get less otherwise you have a 33 year old on the bench who can't get a game earning 10 times what the up and coming young guy on the pitch is earning.

I'm not saying I've worked it all out to the fine details - but to counter your Rashford rebuttle.....

10k a week with a 20million release fee.
The value progresion and relative wages could be something that has to be agreed as part of the contract - I don't think you could implement a global standard of value/wages without a global standardization of wages in the first place.
IE the contract is agreed as:
They reject 20million - his wages go to 50k.
They reject 30million - his wages go to 70k.
They reject 50million - his wages go to 100k.
and so on....
Something like that, all agreed at the time of negotiations.

On problem 2 - I am saying the club can still reject 20million+1 (or even 100million) so the player can't force the moves themselves even with the clause met - but doing so means the players wages have to be automatically increased to reflect the valuation the club have now placed on him.

on the downward projection, and a player at 33, in your example, that should be dealt with via sensible contract negotiations and a supply/demand, risk/reward ethos employed by the club. Contracts would still have length terms so the wages wouldn't keep increasing. Still a good chance that a player hitting 28/29 is probably aiming for their best contract in terms of wages. The club would negotiate contracts in terms of wages and potential release fee progression issues they can live with for the duration of the contract. If a 33 year old is on the bench earning massive cash, well.... thats the clubs fault. Winston Bogarde says hi!

My aim would be to create a system where clubs can't hold a player for massive transfer fees without compensating the player to a similar degree - I see this in Portugal a bit - young players with MASSIVE release fees and low wages, and I personally think that is wrong. At the same time, a club can't be forced to sell a player for X fee, they can reject it but then must abide by previously agreed wage increases to compensate that.

Again, there wouldn't be a standard wages/fee progression - it would be individual to the player/club in question.

I think every player should have a release fee clause in their contract - every single one. I think those fees should be relatively realistic - not directly at their notional 'value' - it can be higher than that; a fee that people could consider fair. At the same time, the club could still reject it, as Liverpool did (lols), but there should be a wages progression based on the now higher fee the club wants/expects/needs to sell.

bucketybuck

I really disagree with all of this, any contract for wages is between the player and the club, any bid is between the club and the interested party, they are two different contracts and should remain so.

There are so many potential pitfalls that its really a case of "maybe you could but are you sure you should".

Mitch Connor

bucketybuck wrote: »

I really disagree with all of this, any contract for wages is between the player and the club, any bid is between the club and the interested party, they are two different contracts and should remain so.

There are so many potential pitfalls that its really a case of "maybe you could but are you sure you should".

The main issues i see are 1. China and 2. Trolling.

United bankrupt Liverpool being continually bidding for their players, having the bids rejected and putting Liverpool's wage structure in the bin!

jayo26

Mitch Connor wrote: »

The main issues i see are 1. China and 2. Trolling.

United bankrupt Liverpool being continually bidding for their players, having the bids rejected and putting Liverpool's wage structure in the bin!

The trolling part of that sounds fun.

bucketybuck

Mitch Connor wrote: »

The main issues i see are 1. China and 2. Trolling.

United bankrupt Liverpool being continually bidding for their players, having the bids rejected and putting Liverpool's wage structure in the bin!

More concerning would be agents exercising undue influence and "arranging" spurious bids to the benefit of their clients.

Jayop

Theo is an epic troll. My hopes of signing his brother couldn't really be any higher. If we don't then.....

jayo26

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3-TTi2mBu4

Press conference for Hull game not much to note only jose has a new haircut.

54and56

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I'm not saying I've worked it all out to the fine details

For something like you are proposing to even be considered it would have to be modelled in minute detail with all scenarios worked though otherwise clever clubs/agents will drive a coach and horses through it.

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I don't think you could implement a global standard of value/wages without a global standardization of wages in the first place.

That's your idea dead in the water right there. No way you get 150 countries legal systems to all accept and agree to a global restrictive practice which puts limits on what people can or can't earn.

Mitch Connor wrote: »

On problem 2 - I am saying the club can still reject 20million+1

So it's not a release clause then is it? What would you call it? A test the water but sure it doesn't matter as no one is bound by it clause?

Mitch Connor wrote: »

but doing so means the players wages have to be automatically increased to reflect the valuation the club have now placed on him.

And that's what already happens i.e. Club A turn down a £20m bid for player B on €20k a week. 5 minutes later player B's agent is on the blower to Club A's CEO saying my player is now worth more than £20m and his wages should reflect that. Club A now have two choices: 1) Enter into a new contract with the player to reflect his new "value" (as happens all the time and frequently just by agents linking their client to fictional offers from X club) or 2) tell the player they aren't changing the contract he only signed X months ago and he then downs tools a la Robbie Savage.

Mitch Connor wrote: »

on the downward projection, and a player at 33, in your example, that should be dealt with via sensible contract negotiations and a supply/demand, risk/reward ethos employed by the club. Contracts would still have length terms so the wages wouldn't keep increasing. Still a good chance that a player hitting 28/29 is probably aiming for their best contract in terms of wages. The club would negotiate contracts in terms of wages and potential release fee progression issues they can live with for the duration of the contract. If a 33 year old is on the bench earning massive cash, well.... thats the clubs fault. Winston Bogarde says hi!

Once again the market already takes care of this more or less. Sensible clubs won't be held to ransom by players on the decline e.g. Arsenal only offering 1 year extensions to players aged 31 or over whereas some clubs who are desperate to prove something to fans or whatever enter into stupid contracts with players whose best days are well behind them. Jimmy Bullard says hi!

Mitch Connor wrote: »

My aim would be to create a system where clubs can't hold a player for massive transfer fees without compensating the player to a similar degree - I see this in Portugal a bit - young players with MASSIVE release fees and low wages, and I personally think that is wrong. At the same time, a club can't be forced to sell a player for X fee, they can reject it but then must abide by previously agreed wage increases to compensate that.

Again, there wouldn't be a standard wages/fee progression - it would be individual to the player/club in question.

I think every player should have a release fee clause in their contract - every single one. I think those fees should be relatively realistic - not directly at their notional 'value' - it can be higher than that; a fee that people could consider fair. At the same time, the club could still reject it, as Liverpool did (lols), but there should be a wages progression based on the now higher fee the club wants/expects/needs to sell.

I think the bigger question is why is there transfer fees at all? Why are football players treated any different to any other employees?

A. Players love the security of a fixed term contract so they are not at risk of being terminated at a months notice. In exchange for entering a fixed terms contract they can't give a months notice and join another employer unless their existing employer agrees to their departure and in the case of a talented footballer the club who are the counter party to the players contract hold out for the best "transfer" compensation they can secure.

It would be very interesting to see what would happen if fixed term contracts were banned and players were free to move like all other employees. The benefits I could see are:-

1. Players would have to work their socks off week in week out to justify their wages. You'd have far less situations where the player get his big move to the big club and then stops putting the effort in as in his head he's now "made it". Baloteli and Januzaj spring to mind.

2. Clubs would have to act quickly to reward players who are preforming well otherwise the player can accept a better offer from another club and after a months notice be gone.

3. Clubs wouldn't have to make huge transfer gambles by paying £xxM upfront.

The downsides I'd see are:-

1. Feeder clubs would miss out on incoming transfer fee's.

2. Club loyalty among players would be even less than it is now.

3. Security of income for players with long term injuries would be an issue although it could easily be dealt with through clauses stating wages must continue through rehab etc if injured during the contract and/or via insurance premiums.

Trigger

jayo26 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3-TTi2mBu4

Press conference for Hull game not much to note only jose has a new haircut.

Dunno if this came up in the Presser but:

https://twitter.com/ManUtd/status/824262299716374530

jayo26

astradave wrote: »

Dunno if this came up in the Presser but:

https://twitter.com/ManUtd/status/824262299716374530

I didn't dave but that would be great to see he is a very talented defender.

Mitch Connor

Probably as close as TFM has been to the side all season... can't believe they didn't send him on loan considering he has basically not been used at all.

StringerBell

He really should have gone on loan in the summer, and needs to be sent on loan to somewhere he has a decent chance of playing regularly while being at a good level also. Too good for the reserves (Tuanzebe)

Actually, both of them are.

sky88

its a shame tfm hasnt really got a chance this season but jose generally likes to use the same 14 or 15 players every game so only injury will let the fringe players see game time. young is another example of this.

TheDoc

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Probably as close as TFM has been to the side all season... can't believe they didn't send him on loan considering he has basically not been used at all.

I'm starting to question the benefit of loaning players like TFM.

Would he not be better training with the first team, learning from the senior players, learning from United coaches and Mourinho, so that he is ingrained in what the manager wants, how the team play and how his teammates play and move?

Like what actual benefit would he get going to what would likely be a struggling PL side fighting for survival, where the maanger would likely bench him anyway going for "experience".

Or whats the point going to the Championship, where tons of managers there value "experience" and Championship no nonsense players over young talent.

Is Pererra really getting benefit from playing in a different team, in a different climate, in a different league?

I very much question the validity of the loan system for a club like ours. I'd wager there is greater benefit for the players who are good enough sticking with the first team for the learning experience and to be really ready when it comes to their early 20's.

Read the absolute bollox Van Baasten came out with in terms of changes to the game (incredible how legendary players can lose a tone of credability so quickly by just being so bloody stupid) but one measure I'd massively support is scrapping the loan system entirely. Just get rid.

Clubs would need to be more selective, players would need to chose wiser, clubs would need to budget and squad build better and I think it would be a positive all around.

I literally do not see any point to the loan system

Nalz

Lukekul wrote: »

See the train line went under the stand

I thought he meant there was even further enhancements planned. To my disappointment this is not the case.

StringerBell

TheDoc wrote: »

I literally do not see any point to the loan system

It's ok that you don't see any point in it though.

Loans are not a simple thing do get right, but they can be invaluable for a young player learning his trade when he is clearly no longer getting any use from the reserves.

Guys like Welbeck, Wilshire, Evans, Beckham etc are a testament to the benefits when it goes right, the dangers of the loan system are obvious also but to say there is no point to the loan system is just wrong, I get it's your opinion and all but even if the player in question simply gets used to playing competitive matches on a regular basis against more experienced players the job has been done.

You need to be sure of the manager, the training methods he uses, how they gel with your own systems etc and of course it is preferable to have a decent Premier League team or Champ team as long as the player is up to that level rather then being sent abroad where he is not getting any extra playing experience of the the English league.

Jayop

Beckham played 5 games on loan so I wouldn't say that had too much of an influence on him.

Our club has never really benefited from our players going out on loan. I can't think of one real success story. For United it's been a bit of a disaster, but at some other clubs it's worked reasonably well.

bucketybuck

Jayop wrote: »

Beckham played 5 games on loan so I wouldn't say that had too much of an influence on him.

I'm not going looking for quotes but I thought it was well known the effect that loan period had on Beckham, nothing to do with games or goals, everything to do with building character.

StringerBell

Jayop wrote: »

Beckham played 5 games on loan so I wouldn't say that had too much of an influence on him.

Our club has never really benefited from our players going out on loan. I can't think of one real success story. For United it's been a bit of a disaster, but at some other clubs it's worked reasonably well.

Evans? Welbeck? Rossi?

Beckham claims he learned plenty playing against rougher men on how to handle himself on the pitch to name one of the things he benefited from.

Jayop

StringerBell wrote: »

Evans? Welbeck? Rossi?

Beckham claims he learned plenty playing against rougher men on how to handle himself on the pitch to name one of the things he benefited from.

How could you possibly say any of Evans, Welbeck or Rossi were a "real success story for us"??

Rossi played 5 games for us FFS.
Evans and Welbeck, two of the most criticised players in the last 20 years at the club?

Yeah great success stories and a ringing endorsement of the loan system.

Beckham played 5 games. I doubt he learned too much that he wouldn't have learned in the reserves that at that time were adult teams. How many of those 5 games were 90 minutes I wonder?

jayo26

Yeh it's often been mentioned by Beckham and fergie that his time at PNE was a great learning experience and even tho he played 5 games he stood out in them games and scored two goals in process.

Jayop

So for the last 20+ years the only successful loan spell that's proved to be beneficial in bringing on a top talent is Beckham for 5 games.

Honestly, that pretty much proves the loan system has been nothing but rubbish for United.

yabadabado

Jayop wrote: »

How could you possibly say any of Evans, Welbeck or Rossi were a "real success story for us"??

Rossi played 5 games for us FFS.
Evans and Welbeck, two of the most criticised players in the last 20 years at the club?

Yeah great success stories and a ringing endorsement of the loan system.

Beckham played 5 games. I doubt he learned too much that he wouldn't have learned in the reserves that at that time were adult teams. How many of those 5 games were 90 minutes I wonder?

Thats not really the point ,they came back as better players.In the end they werent United standard but the loans helped them develop and they were good squad options to have.
Both those loans I would count as successful and playing against grown men at a competitive level is better than underage/reserve level.

A huge problem I see with the loan system is clubs abusing it,buying up talent who probably will never make the grade obviously hoping a odd one comes good.Plenty of players would be better off staying in lower leagues than getting stuck in the loan system and never progressing imo.

bucketybuck

Jayop wrote: »

So for the last 20+ years the only successful loan spell that's proved to be beneficial in bringing on a top talent is Beckham for 5 games.

Honestly, that pretty much proves the loan system has been nothing but rubbish for United.

When you so casually dismiss players that did pretty well for us there doesn't seem much point in discussing things further.

jayo26

Jayop wrote: »

So for the last 20+ years the only successful loan spell that's proved to be beneficial in bringing on a top talent is Beckham for 5 games.

Honestly, that pretty much proves the loan system has been nothing but rubbish for United.

It may not be the loan that's the problem it could the players. How many first team youth players have we had better then Welbeck, Evans that have not gone on loan?

Rashford might be the only one I can think k of off top of my head.

Jayop

yabadabado wrote: »

Thats not really the point ,they came back as better players.In the end they werent United standard but the loans helped them develop and they were good squad options to have.
Both those loans I would count as successful and playing against grown men at a competitive level is better than underage/reserve level.

A huge problem I see with the loan system is clubs abusing it,buying up talent who probably will never make the grade obviously hoping a odd one comes good.Plenty of players would be better off staying in lower leagues than getting stuck in the loan system and never progressing imo.

I think that in the vast majority of cases they are going on loan to clubs with inferior coaching systems in place and any improvement they show, they would have gained anyway by staying at United, if not more improvement.

To me, the only point of the loan system seems to be adding a bit of value to players you want to sell from the academy by getting them some games. That's not just at United, but at pretty much all the top English clubs.

I can't think of a player playing at a top club now that was brought through the youth teams, went on loan and plays regular for their original team.

bucketybuck wrote: »

When you so casually dismiss players that did pretty well for us there doesn't seem much point in discussing things further.

I was a Welbeck and Evans supporter, I don't dismiss what they did and I wasn't happy when either were sold, but lets be honest, they weren't exactly top level footballers. Welbeck maybe, but I don't think he's a good enough example to use to extol the virtues of a loan system.

Jayop

jayo26 wrote: »

It may not be the loan that's the problem it could the players. How many first team youth players have we had better then Welbeck, Evans that have not gone on loan?

Rashford might be the only one I can think k of off top of my head.

Maybe that's the case, but I honestly believe through a lack of evidence to the contrary that a lot of those loans will have done more damage to our players prospects than they did good.

If they look like they might be good enough then keep them around, coach them properly then get them in the team ASAP.

yabadabado

Jayop wrote: »

Maybe that's the case, but I honestly believe through a lack of evidence to the contrary that a lot of those loans will have done more damage to our players prospects than they did good.

If they look like they might be good enough then keep them around, coach them properly then get them in the team ASAP.

What about the gap when they have outgrown underage teams and they only have reserve games to play ?
All the training in the world isnt going to prepare them for first team football(they could already be around the coaching team 4 or 5 years at that stage)compared to going to a lesser team and getting competitive games.
A lad of 19/20 may have fully outgrown the other teams but still be a season or 2 from getting regular games,if a good loan move can bridge that gap them it can be a great addition.

bucketybuck

Jayop wrote: »

I was a Welbeck and Evans supporter, I don't dismiss what they did and I wasn't happy when either were sold, but lets be honest, they weren't exactly top level footballers. Welbeck maybe, but I don't think he's a good enough example to use to extol the virtues of a loan system.

You can't judge the loan system by a metric like "top level players", otherwise you would also have to call youth systems bull**** as well, because damn sure most youth systems don't generate any top level players either.

The criteria can't be "did loans make them top level players", because what if they simply weren't top level to begin with and were never going to be? The criteria should be "did the loans make them better players", and to that end I have just taken a quick look through all the players loaned out by United and honestly, there are a lot of names there with a lot of Premier league appearances between them. Something was being done right somewhere.

jayo26

Jayop wrote: »

Maybe that's the case, but I honestly believe through a lack of evidence to the contrary that a lot of those loans will have done more damage to our players prospects than they did good.

If they look like they might be good enough then keep them around, coach them properly then get them in the team ASAP.

The problem in doing what your saying is that they don't get any first team experience or proper competitive action.

United are a unique club because of the class of 92 and all that a bunch of youths came threw at same time that literally kept club ticking over for 20 years nearly but if you look outside that we haven't had many other players on same level but anyone that played regularly for our first team came threw loan specs John O shea was at that Dutch club. I actually don't think wes brown ever went on loan.

Sand

yabadabado wrote: »

What about the gap when they have outgrown underage teams and they only have reserve games to play ?
All the training in the world isnt going to prepare them for first team football compared to going to a lesser team and getting competitive games.
A lad of 19/20 may have fully outgrown the other teams but still be a season or 2 from getting regular games,if a good loan move can bridge that gap them it can be a great addition.

Whats playing with a lesser team of players not good enough to play for United and working with coaches not good enough to work at United going to teach them really that's going to make them ready for the United first team? Plenty of players with years of experience at lesser teams come to United and vanish. Schneiderlin and Memphis for example. If the coaches think the player is good enough, then they need to start planning introducing him into the first team with a few minutes here and there even at the age of 19-20. If hes not good enough then they need to start talking to him about finding another club.

The only advantage of the loan system is putting a young player in the shop window, or giving a player who thinks he is better than he is the opportunity to prove the coaches wrong. Other than that its been pointless for United, especially in recent years when the gap between the PL and Championship has grown and the lesser PL teams have enough funds that they can buy in experience of their own rather than taking a chance on some 18 year old.

Jayop

yabadabado wrote: »

What about the gap when they have outgrown underage teams and they only have reserve games to play ?
All the training in the world isnt going to prepare them for first team football(they could already be around the coaching team 4 or 5 years at that stage)compared to going to a lesser team and getting competitive games.
A lad of 19/20 may have fully outgrown the other teams but still be a season or 2 from getting regular games,if a good loan move can bridge that gap them it can be a great addition.

If at 19/20 they're not breaking into the first team or pushing damn hard and getting on the bench/the odd cup start then they are really never going to be a top top player.

Harsh, but that's what it is.

StringerBell

Jayop wrote: »

How could you possibly say any of Evans, Welbeck or Rossi were a "real success story for us"??

Rossi played 5 games for us FFS.
Evans and Welbeck, two of the most criticised players in the last 20 years at the club?

Yeah great success stories and a ringing endorsement of the loan system.

Beckham played 5 games. I doubt he learned too much that he wouldn't have learned in the reserves that at that time were adult teams. How many of those 5 games were 90 minutes I wonder?

Your claim was that the loan system has been a disaster for us.

Who cares whether players are criticised or not? They were valuable members of title winning teams.

I can't be bothered going through the Beckham one with you tbh, if you don't want to take him at his word on how he felt it benefited him that's ok with me.

Jayop

StringerBell wrote: »

Your claim was that the loan system has been a disaster for us.

Who cares whether players are criticised or not? They were valuable members of title winning teams.

I can't be bothered going through the Beckham one with you tbh, if you don't want to take him at his word on how he felt it benefited him that's ok with me.

Calm the cock man, I'm just having a difference of opinion with you, it's not like I pissed in your cornflakes.

I said it was a "bit of a disaster", maybe it's a colloquial thing being a nordie, but that's actually a distance away from being a full on disaster. I just see no evidence that the loan system has in any way helped United. It's my view, I can see your POV on it but I disagree. No biggie.

jayo26

Jayop wrote: »

If at 19/20 they're not breaking into the first team or pushing damn hard and getting on the bench/the odd cup start then they are really never going to be a top top player.

Harsh, but that's what it is.

Drogba says hello

yabadabado

Sand wrote: »

Whats playing with a lesser team of players not good enough to play for United and working with coaches not good enough to work at United going to teach them really that's going to make them ready for the United first team? Plenty of players with years of experience at lesser teams come to United and vanish. Schneiderlin and Memphis for example. If the coaches think the player is good enough, then they need to start planning introducing him into the first team with a few minutes here and there even at the age of 19-20. If hes not good enough then they need to start talking to him about finding another club.
.

The experience of starting/playing games on a regular basis will be much better than the few minutes at the end of a game or the rare cup game.

Not every player is going to be ready at 20 to go into the United squad and senior first team football at a level below United can only help them progress.

A season loan can make all the difference at that age play 30 odd games or get 30 odd minutes .
Look at Welbeck,played 26 league games for Sunderland and then made 30 league apps the following year for United.I would be fairly sure the loan season pushed on his progression more than getting 15 minutes and the odd cup game at United.

Jayop

jayo26 wrote: »

Drogba says hello

So does Ian Wright.

Anomalies exist in everything, but that's all they are, anomalies. 99% of top players will have been breaking into their own clubs first team at 18/19. I'm not talking about playing every week, but filling in, coming off the bench, starting cup games etc.

Sand

jayo26 wrote: »

Drogba says hello

Drogba is very much an exception. He started late, and it took him a couple of seasons to develop as a player at small clubs in a smaller league. Its an argument for inserting a buyback clause, rather than loans.

Jayop

Take a look at the 30 player shortlist in the Ballon d'Or 2016.

How many of them weren't pushing hard for a start at 18/19?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/10/24/ballon-dor-2016-shortlist-includes-jamie-vardy-alongside-cristia/

Some of them may have had to move to break into a team but very few of them I'd imagine had loan spells at that age.

StringerBell

Jayop wrote: »

Calm the cock man, I'm just having a difference of opinion with you, it's not like I pissed in your cornflakes.

I said it was a "bit of a disaster", maybe it's a colloquial thing being a nordie, but that's actually a distance away from being a full on disaster. I just see no evidence that the loan system has in any way helped United. It's my view, I can see your POV on it but I disagree. No biggie.

What about my post has given you the impression I am not calm?

There is no emotional FFS language in it is there, like there was on your post for example

Jayop

StringerBell wrote: »

What about my post has given you the impression I am not calm?

There is no emotional FFS language in it is there, like there was on your post for example

FFS man, I use FFS all the time. Like I said I'm a Nordie and we're all passionate (volatile).

Hococop

Southampton will only have themselves to blame

jayo26

Ok guys not to be smart but so far ye have made exceptions for Evans and Welbeck two one time international players because they aint good enough and made an exception for Drogba because he is an exception so answer one thing then who have united brought threw the youth ranks in recent years thats been better then Evans and Welbeck but didn't go on loan?

Look at Lukaku then what he did on loan with westbrom is an example of what a loan move can do.

It's a simple fact that we haven't produced superstar players from our youths in near 20 years.

Jayop

jayo26 wrote: »

Ok guys not to be smart but do far ye have made exceptions for Evans and Welbeck two one time international players because they aint good enough and made an exception for Drogba because he is an exception so answer one thing then who have united brought threw the youth ranks in recent years thats been better then Evans and Welbeck but didn't go on loan?

Look at Lukaku then what he did on loan with westbrom is an example of what a loan move can do.

It's a simple fact that we haven't produced superstar players from our youths in near 20 years.

And it's also a fact in my opinion that when you do have a superstar on your hands you don't waste time shipping him out to Big Sam or whomever is making a balls of Sunderland at that time for their kind of top class coaching. You keep them in house and make them break into the first team, a'la pretty much all the top players in the world at the moment.