Utd bid to sign 16 year old twins from Man City - Darren Fletcher’s sons!

Zen86 said:
It says more about the state of our academy these days.
Click to expand...
Some will have you believe we still have an amazing academy because of our record. Despite the fact at this point it's objectively not true.
 
Sparky Rhiwabon said:
Ah I wasn’t sure what counted, I thought they have to be “United academy product” whereas they are clearly City academy products. Hell, Wayne Rooney was scoring against Arsenal in the Premier League at that age.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but Rooney was a phenomenon
 
Withnail said:
Don't you think that showed good judgement at the time. Ruthless decision making and all that?
Click to expand...
Yeah, and its normal. Family above everything especially if youre a parent, you want the best for your kids. Although that speaks volume because if City was only marginally better theres no way Fletcher would let them go there.
 
I find it amusing people can’t work out it’s obviously an old photo because Fletcher’s in his fecking West Brom kit.
 
This is potentially quite exciting…I’m completely getting ahead of myself now but how fantastic would it be to see Rooney and Fletcher Mk II in the first team…back to the future!
 
SalfordRed18 said:
The big story here is the fact that Darren had rather they were brought through cities academy rather than ours.
Click to expand...
Yep I think there are/were other ex Utd players who chose Cities academy, but if ours is so outdated then who can really blame them.
 
wolvored said:
Yes sounds about right although I thought there were more, but definitely them.
Click to expand...
It is bit funny you choose a player who publicly slated and regreted joining city‘s academy, even said himself should have chosen United or Southampton instead to back up your point.
 
Beaucoup said:
Only one of them is decent, but they come as a pair apparently
Click to expand...

While I agree with that to an extent, I don’t think we should be that harsh on players who’ve just turned 16. Don’t think McTominay for example was that highly rated at that age either. You never know.
 
You're an eejit if you think our academy is 'shit', it's not fifa, where you arbitrarily upgrade it and unless it's at least a 3/5 then you simply can't get players above an 75 rating.

It might be a bit behind in terms of truly modern, elite academies but every amazing player who ever played before 2010 also didn't have access to this mythical 'academy' that people seem to think exists.

Nobody even begins to know the reasons for his kids being at city. It likely isn't a single reason like the chimps online will be able to comprehend. Like lost things in life there will likely have been a whole host of reasons and considerations and unless you're happy acknowledging that discussing those reasons is complete speculation then why bother?

Surely the key thing is we've agreed deals for two very highly rated young players? It isn't like our academy hasn't produced any talent, Rashford and Greenwood alone are more than City's ulta super amazing incredible 10/10 academy.

We have an excellent academy. I'm sure it could do with some sort of improvements but really, what do you think those are? Do you think the lads don't have pitches? Balls? Gym equipment? Do they not have training bibs? Coaches? Boots?

Pretty sure all of those things are there and the United academy is still one of the best in Europe. Last I knew it was second only to Chelsea in the country for producing players who went on to play in one of the top 5 leagues.

Of you're going to make ridiculous claims like Fletcher sent his kids to the City academy years ago because the gulf between the theirs and ours is so huge that ours was considered simply "too shit" then you need to at least provide some context and evidence for this. Break down the differences, why is theirs so much better etc.

Because otherwise you're just taking the dumbass route of being emotional and cynical because it takes zero intelligence to do and it's easy for a moron to just be angry, it's much more difficult to be measured, objective and logical.

So please, do provide a nice run down that explains the gulf in class between the two and how you know this, or acknowledge that you're just talking out of your arses because it's just the easy, lazy thing to do.

Quick search and it seems our academy is still the second most productive in the country and within the top 10 in Europe. City don't even make that list. They seem much more to be talent farming, knowing full well they will sell 90% on and their academy is more of money making business than one that really nurtured it's talent with the main goal of bringing them into the first team. Which is fine but not how I'd rather our club viewed it's academy, we actually have a history of this mattering and I'd prefer that to continue.
 
top1whoisman said:
While I agree with that to an extent, I don’t think we should be that harsh on players who’ve just turned 16. Don’t think McTominay for example was that highly rated at that age either. You never know.
Click to expand...

I think you are allowed to be harsh when the is cost 1.25 mil, you should be buying the best.
 
Beaucoup said:
I think you are allowed to be harsh when the is cost 1.25 mil, you should be buying the best.
Click to expand...

That I can agree with, but I just don't think there's any point of saying someone is not a decent footballer when they've just turned 16 and barely featured on U18s level. And represented both England and Scotland. Who the feck knows how they develop. And once again, the price tag is not the fault of the players themselves.
 
Beaucoup said:
I think you are allowed to be harsh when the is cost 1.25 mil, you should be buying the best.
Click to expand...
They obviously know more than you, and obviously see potential in both.
 
I think the best things for the boys development is take the price tag off, forget who their dad is, or what their current ability level is, and remember they are just 16 year old boys who should now be left to quietly get on with learning the game.

to be fair to City, they were always going to push for an inflated fee given the fact they have trained them for 10 plus years, and sent them to private school fully funded, then their United director dad moves them to united at the business end.

Let’s hope they are as good as their dad, then it’s a great roi
 
MyOnlySolskjaer said:
If they started at United people would say it's nepotism, if he signs them to United it's because the academy is a failure.
Click to expand...
This.

Besides, they know the City academy inside out now and can share some secrets.
 
Beaucoup said:
I think you are allowed to be harsh when the is cost 1.25 mil, you should be buying the best.
Click to expand...
Given that the player who went the other way was sold for the same fee, it makes me think the fee was more of a creative accounting exercise to free up some FFP funds.
 
SalfordRed18 said:
The big story here is the fact that Darren had rather they were brought through cities academy rather than ours.
Click to expand...
To be fair we don’t know if United were interested in them at the time do we? It’s not a child day care
 
top1whoisman said:
While I agree with that to an extent, I don’t think we should be that harsh on players who’ve just turned 16. Don’t think McTominay for example was that highly rated at that age either. You never know.
Click to expand...
Not exactly the greatest example to give hope
 
cyberman said:
To be fair we don’t know if United were interested in them at the time do we? It’s not a child day care
Click to expand...
Has any former players kid been turned down? It's just a reality that cities set up is better than hours and some fans find that tough to swallow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.