Two sentiments I see expressed quite a lot. Wanted to attempt to address that line of thinking just a bit.
The first one of these is a player we've sold to another club looks to be playing a lot better in their new team. It's used as a stick to beat whoever is currently at the reins and feels a little half-baked. See Elanga at Forest, McTominay at Napoli, AWB at West Ham, etc...
The second one is that a club has spent nowhere close to us on transfer fees and play us off the park/are higher up the table.
I think there are multiple factors at play here that will lead into these perceptions (I'm aware this is starting to sound like a LuckyScout thread).
- Pressure. I cannot stress enough the difference between playing for Utd and playing for Bournemouth/Brighton. This is no disrespect to those teams, who are currently better than us. But they are in a sweet spot - riding a wave, whilst still able to lose a few games that they probably should've won without anyone even noticing. If Brighton lost 3 in a row would you even bat an eye when looking at the scores? If West Ham lost 3 - 0 at home to Leicester it would barely register. Until those clubs suitably rise their rep and sustain these performances they will always have the cushion of being that plucky club who essentially get free hits against the traditional big boys. Even in a season where we've lost countless games, every single one for Utd is an absolute disaster. Player performances get analysed and pulled apart. Journalists use us for headlines. It's no great shock that some of these players (who absolutely did fail at Utd) have a new lease of life at a club with way less spotlight. Just because they perform well there doesn't mean it was a mistake to sell them.
- Ties into the above but the mentality at some of these clubs is way different too. At Utd we don't have the best squad. That much is clear. But because of who we are/have been, the 'we need to win every game' mentality will never go away. We have a similar squad ability-wise to the clubs in 9th - 14th but the result expectation is that of a Top 4 club. Forcing this on a team who just aren't good enough will always leave you disappointed and by design will consistently make us look like we are failing (in a lot of cases we are but this ensures it's self-perpetuating). Every other club in that category does not put that constraint on themselves and as a result, if their players have got a big decision to make in-game, I'm sure it's much clearer in their head if they're not terrified to lose.
- Systems make a huge amount of difference too, and the club you play for. I'd say it's much easier for someone like Elanga to play in a Forest team who likely get underestimated a lot (or did) and therefore have a lot of space to attack on the break, compared to having to break down 11 men behind the ball in a lot of games. Just one example.
- You are likely only seeing highlights of players that left, whereas you watched every single action when they were at Utd. This is a pretty simple one. That bias will stick in someone's head and if they keep seeing that McTominay scored for Napoli their brain will automatically think we should never have sold him. He scored a lot for us, nothing about that changed but he obviously had other deficiencies you'll likely never see again unless you're a Serie A aficionado.
- Like it or not there absolutely is a Utd tax. It can possibly lessen (I don't think it will ever go away) if we smarten up in the transfer market, but I think by nature our interest in any player instantly makes it big news. It's clear we are trying to go the way of Brighton/Bournemouth in the market but I think we're always going to have to pay a little bit more than they do. It is impossible to fully and perfectly replicate that modern club model of buying unknown talents for cheap and developing them because a lot of these players only flourish because they aren't constantly in the spotlight and aren't being called cowards online after 3 games. People 'joke' a lot saying "If we'd have signed him we'd have only ruined him anyway", which is hyperbolic but based in truth. There's a reason a lot of these players go to 'smaller' clubs first before making that step-up. Not saying our attempts to move to this way of thinking are wrong or bad, but I think it's not the answer to all our problems. It can be very good for future sustainability rules/and mixing those talents with more established ones if they succeed though.
So yeah, I guess in summary, it's just different for us. We cannot get away with the things a lot of other clubs can. There are a myriad of factors at play and it's not just as simple as 'oh well this club bought this guy for cheap and look how he's doing'. I should also clarify for those baying for blood that I absolutely agree we've been horrible in many areas and have caused a lot of our own issues. We've overpaid, we've sold for terrible fees, we've been a mess top to bottom. None of this post is meant to excuse any of that, just to sort of add some perspective that it's not all black and white. Thanks for reading.
The first one of these is a player we've sold to another club looks to be playing a lot better in their new team. It's used as a stick to beat whoever is currently at the reins and feels a little half-baked. See Elanga at Forest, McTominay at Napoli, AWB at West Ham, etc...
The second one is that a club has spent nowhere close to us on transfer fees and play us off the park/are higher up the table.
I think there are multiple factors at play here that will lead into these perceptions (I'm aware this is starting to sound like a LuckyScout thread).
- Pressure. I cannot stress enough the difference between playing for Utd and playing for Bournemouth/Brighton. This is no disrespect to those teams, who are currently better than us. But they are in a sweet spot - riding a wave, whilst still able to lose a few games that they probably should've won without anyone even noticing. If Brighton lost 3 in a row would you even bat an eye when looking at the scores? If West Ham lost 3 - 0 at home to Leicester it would barely register. Until those clubs suitably rise their rep and sustain these performances they will always have the cushion of being that plucky club who essentially get free hits against the traditional big boys. Even in a season where we've lost countless games, every single one for Utd is an absolute disaster. Player performances get analysed and pulled apart. Journalists use us for headlines. It's no great shock that some of these players (who absolutely did fail at Utd) have a new lease of life at a club with way less spotlight. Just because they perform well there doesn't mean it was a mistake to sell them.
- Ties into the above but the mentality at some of these clubs is way different too. At Utd we don't have the best squad. That much is clear. But because of who we are/have been, the 'we need to win every game' mentality will never go away. We have a similar squad ability-wise to the clubs in 9th - 14th but the result expectation is that of a Top 4 club. Forcing this on a team who just aren't good enough will always leave you disappointed and by design will consistently make us look like we are failing (in a lot of cases we are but this ensures it's self-perpetuating). Every other club in that category does not put that constraint on themselves and as a result, if their players have got a big decision to make in-game, I'm sure it's much clearer in their head if they're not terrified to lose.
- Systems make a huge amount of difference too, and the club you play for. I'd say it's much easier for someone like Elanga to play in a Forest team who likely get underestimated a lot (or did) and therefore have a lot of space to attack on the break, compared to having to break down 11 men behind the ball in a lot of games. Just one example.
- You are likely only seeing highlights of players that left, whereas you watched every single action when they were at Utd. This is a pretty simple one. That bias will stick in someone's head and if they keep seeing that McTominay scored for Napoli their brain will automatically think we should never have sold him. He scored a lot for us, nothing about that changed but he obviously had other deficiencies you'll likely never see again unless you're a Serie A aficionado.
- Like it or not there absolutely is a Utd tax. It can possibly lessen (I don't think it will ever go away) if we smarten up in the transfer market, but I think by nature our interest in any player instantly makes it big news. It's clear we are trying to go the way of Brighton/Bournemouth in the market but I think we're always going to have to pay a little bit more than they do. It is impossible to fully and perfectly replicate that modern club model of buying unknown talents for cheap and developing them because a lot of these players only flourish because they aren't constantly in the spotlight and aren't being called cowards online after 3 games. People 'joke' a lot saying "If we'd have signed him we'd have only ruined him anyway", which is hyperbolic but based in truth. There's a reason a lot of these players go to 'smaller' clubs first before making that step-up. Not saying our attempts to move to this way of thinking are wrong or bad, but I think it's not the answer to all our problems. It can be very good for future sustainability rules/and mixing those talents with more established ones if they succeed though.
So yeah, I guess in summary, it's just different for us. We cannot get away with the things a lot of other clubs can. There are a myriad of factors at play and it's not just as simple as 'oh well this club bought this guy for cheap and look how he's doing'. I should also clarify for those baying for blood that I absolutely agree we've been horrible in many areas and have caused a lot of our own issues. We've overpaid, we've sold for terrible fees, we've been a mess top to bottom. None of this post is meant to excuse any of that, just to sort of add some perspective that it's not all black and white. Thanks for reading.
Maybe harsh.