Class of 63
Sourness
The “watch this space” and “we can do things other clubs dream of” etc. interview was MUTV wasn’t a follow-up on anything. He was running his mouth and it’s funny that he hasn’t done any such interviews since.
Yeah okay.
The “watch this space” and “we can do things other clubs dream of” etc. interview was MUTV wasn’t a follow-up on anything. He was running his mouth and it’s funny that he hasn’t done any such interviews since.
Levy who has followed Tottenham since the 1960's and has been in the business of football for at least 19 years? Yes he is. Roman isn't but he also doesn't take part in buying and selling players. He might point to a player that he wants or wants gone but he doesn't negotiate fees.Are Roman Abramovich and Daniel Levy football people?
Tbf, I consider ‘fleeced’ with hindsight, so your definition is likely more accurate. From mine though, due to him becoming possibly the greatest CB in our club’s history, I consider it a bargain and definitely not ‘fleeced’.
Agree with this. We also seem to identify only players who have a lot of contract time left as well. Surely we could build a database of players in the last 12-18 months of a contract and bid for the best players for the positions we need.Ed’s bragging can’t have helped but that was a long time ago. I’d put it down to two things which distinguish us from other clubs with deep pockets:
1. We now have an established track record of paying over the odds. So every seller will push their luck.
2. We are also generally buying from a position of weakness in the squad due to our appalling ratio of good buys to bad buys over the last 10 years. As a result, it’s probably harder to give the impression that we are willing just to walk away from the deal.
Shaw and Martial were both record signings at the time though, they wasnt cheap.I don’t think it helps that when we go for a player we usually seem to be desperate for them, it's puts us in quite a weak negotiating position to begin with. We've basically been playing catch up for the last 7 years which has basically forced us to overpay for players who had no right to be going for the amount of money they have been doing.
I also don’t think we’re necessarily smart with our signings either, targetting players on long contracts and the club we're negotiating with being in no need to sell, just look at Dortmund this season with Sancho. Also, take Maguire for example, it's well reported that we could have bought him for £60m in the 2018/2019 season, if we'd have been willing to take a gamble we could've had him for £20m the season before that. It's not like he was an unknown entity to us, he bossed our attack in 3 seperate games in the 2017/2018 season. In that same set of games Andy Robertson was running us ragged, he was then picked up by Liverpool for about £8m and has ended up one of the best LBs in the country. Looking at the example of Ferran Torres too, City took advantage of the turmoil surrounding Valencia, perhaps if we hadn't had such tunnel vision for Sancho we could have been the ones picking him up for £25m.
Thing is we can do things sensibly, I think we've shown we can get good value for money. Lindelof, Blind and Herrera were all bought for modest fees, relatively speaking, and we got a good service out of each. Blind has since reached a UCL SF and Herrera has since reached a CL final. What I don't understand is how we've managed to end up spending £49m on someone like Fred, who realistically should be much more in line with the price we paid for Herrera and Lindelof. We've also found a bit of success with more pricy teenage gambles, Shaw and Martial were probably two of the first names on the team sheet this season, Dalot hasn't worked out that well but we'll probably be able to recoup most of our money on him. It's an avenue I'd like to see us explore a bit more often.
I think it's telling that the best team, in my opinion, we've put together since SAF retired isn't a team of overpriced mercenaries cobbled together from a collection of middling teams from abroad but from players we signed as talented teenagers (such as Martial and Shaw) and a fantastic collection of academy graduates supplemented with quality expensive ready made "stars". Pogba, Greenwood and Rashford are all from the academy and are among our best players (Rashford and Greenwood accounted for 39G & 16A this season for a combined cost of £0). Although Pogba did cost us £89m, we did originally identify him as a 15 year old and could have had him for essentially nothing as well. Not to mention we also have Dean Henderson on our books who's considered one of the hottest goalkeeping prospects on the market. I think we're going to have to keep our fingers crossed our substantial academy investment continues to pay off, history does suggest it will.
Ed’s bragging can’t have helped but that was a long time ago. I’d put it down to two things which distinguish us from other clubs with deep pockets:
1. We now have an established track record of paying over the odds. So every seller will push their luck.
2. We are also generally buying from a position of weakness in the squad due to our appalling ratio of good buys to bad buys over the last 10 years. As a result, it’s probably harder to give the impression that we are willing just to walk away from the deal.
Tell that to every other clubs that manage to sign better players for less money.Would we ever have been in for someone like Doherty? I don't think so.
We tend to target high quality, so the price follows.
But then it becomes a paradox that if we target someone that must mean they are quality, right? If not we wouldn't be in for them? And quality costs.
Also the fact that if you are selling a rare item with no set and tangible price because of limited supply, perhaps one of a kind. And you have an interested buyer, you know this person has historically had a lot of money from other purchases. You'd be more inclined to try and get as much money as possible out of them. Whereas if another possible buyer that hasn't spent as much in the past, you'd be more inclined to come to an agreement to ensure you get the deal through.
If you need the money that is, and/or the item is sentient and really wants a new owner.
Who doesn't get fleeced though? The only one I can think of is Liverpool since klopp took over. Look at Chelsea's signings over the past few years they got fleeced on those. Cash strapped Arsenal made a huge commitment for Pepe. How much has city spent on Otamendi, stones, Mangala and Mendy?
Where we get fleeced is the wages though, that's day light robbery and the main reason why we can't sell our flopps for good money. If we had signed Morata instead of Chelsea we would have gave him an insane contract and not been able to recoup as much as Chelsea did. That's where Chelsea has everyone beat the ability to sell dross for a lot of money. Only Liverpool can compare.
I think firstly Ed's comment that we can do things in the transfer market others can only dream of was one of the worst things he's ever said/done and it basically told every other club they can name any price they want if we are in for a player.
Chilwell seems cheap, just reading he was on a contract to 2024.
Where is the long drawn out saga of Leicester wanting 65 million and Brenden interviews? I don't feel we would've got him for 45 million just like that and the likes of Chelsea have more money. If Leicester told Chelsea told it's 60 million or feck off they'd have to pay but for some reason there's no agro and they put a ribbon on it.
Madrid wanted around 90m for Morata to United and sold him to Chelsea for 60m
In
The same Chelsea also paid 72m for a guy who would be fourth choice gk at Manchester United.
Our last signing was Bruno Fernandes. Played half a season. 25 years old. Already has a ridiculous goals and assists record. Great mentality. Immediately improved the first XI.
We paid, what, £43m? Slightly more than Everton paid for Iwobe. Much less than Spurs paid for Ndombele, or Arsenal paid for Pepe. Chelsea Kepa. Etc etc etc etc
Point being, we dont always get fleeced in the transfer market, and besides, how many United fans are out there saying 'just pay the money dammit!' for Sancho?
They are quite clearly respected by football people - read the post properly.
Levy who has followed Tottenham since the 1960's and has been in the business of football for at least 19 years? Yes he is. Roman isn't but he also doesn't take part in buying and selling players. He might point to a player that he wants or wants gone but he doesn't negotiate fees.
The media inflates our figures.
A 10 million signing becomes 30 million because they've included the players 4 million a year salary for 5 years.
Not sure if we are the only club they do this for but it feels that way
Well, considering both have followed football their entire lives, with Levy holding a Spurs season ticket for years, I’m gonna say yes?Are Roman Abramovich and Daniel Levy football people?
Sancho is a 200m deal, they went back to adding wages because 110m-120m wasn't big enough.
Oh i read it mate.
Ok so they’re not football people now. But they’re respected by “football people”.
Is Roman really respected by “football people”?
Why what’s he done except spend a lot of cash?
I didn’t call them cheap.Shaw and Martial were both record signings at the time though, they wasnt cheap.
Our last signing was Bruno Fernandes. Played half a season. 25 years old. Already has a ridiculous goals and assists record. Great mentality. Immediately improved the first XI.
We paid, what, £43m? Slightly more than Everton paid for Iwobe. Much less than Spurs paid for Ndombele, or Arsenal paid for Pepe. Chelsea Kepa. Etc etc etc etc
Point being, we dont always get fleeced in the transfer market, and besides, how many United fans are out there saying 'just pay the money dammit!' for Sancho?
I don't think we're getting fleeced, i just think we haven't been smart.
A players transfer fee is based on many factors, but a main one is the circumstance of the transfer: Length of contract, do his club need to sell?
I get why we paid what we did for Maguire. Circumstantially it was the only way Leicester would sell. Similar to what Dortmund seem to be doing with Sancho.
My only issue is that you see cheaper options out there, and have the same amount of talent, and would cost half the price.
The selling club is allowed to ask for what they want, it is United's job to assess if the player is worth the proposed fee, and if another option would be better.
I get that we pay whatever Sancho costs this summer, as we are talking about a potential ballon d'or winner at a certain age, and who is English. But in some cases, its better to walk away and look for a better deal.
Was thinking about this the other day. I remember people saying we got fleeced when we signed Martial. Now he looks like an absolute bargain, compared to what the biggest clubs have been forking out for young players with similar potential . With young players (and I would put Maguire, James and AWB all in this category) it often takes hindsight to know what sort of value you got. Luke Shaw’s another that seemed crazy expensive but might look decent value after a few more seasons like the last one.
The strategy should be to dictate the market rather than be dictated by it. We could've easily made top 4 if we had kept Smalling and added another two quality attackers in addition to Fernandes, instead of signing Maguire and AWB. Dan James was also far from being highly regarded as a footballer like a earlier poster mentioned. He cost about the same as Lautaro Martinez who is exponentially superior ability wise.
The market strategy is flawed and in the pursuit of signing the correct player we have dithered and panicked which inturn has seen us pay up and cave into the demands of the selling club which has now set a precedent for other clubs. We have been poor at exploiting the market especially the European one.
There was a limited-time free article from The Athletic that actually outlined how the club conducts its business under the Glazers and how it conducted them previously. In short, the reason progress takes so long is because every potential transaction goes to Joel Glazer in his office in Washington, D.C. He analyses them with great detail before providing his approval; once he provides his approval, that's when things start to move forward.
If we didn't have to deal with someone so meticulous based across the Atlantic Ocean, our deals would probably be quicker.
I'm sure Joel doesn't evaluate the player's abilities. He just checks to see if the club can afford to spend a large sum of money. Ed would probably convince him to spend larger sums from time to time, but that's as far as it'd go.surely he should realise that he doesn’t have an eye for a player by now and delegate to someone who has a proven track record at the very least.
Well, considering both have followed football their entire lives, with Levy holding a Spurs season ticket for years, I’m gonna say yes?
I don’t know about Woodward, the Glazers are definitely not football people though.
If you think that Roman and Levy aren't respected in football circles and negotiations I dunno what to tell you mate.
If you think Woodward IS, again I dunno what to say to you.
Abramovich's deals since arriving in the PL have been consistently ruthless - he's presided over Chelsea's most successful reign of all time.
Levy is a difficult, annoying, scrappy cnut that has kept a quality side on shoe-string wages compared to their worth and makes selling any player difficult and awkward if the buying team is PL based especially.
Woodward is a fecking muppet and a laughing stock in football circles. A literal comedy figure.
If you're incapable of grasping that, we'll just agree to disagree mate.