Why don’t we scout Sao Paulo and other Brazilian clubs instead of overpaying feeder clubs?

The agents are a problem too. They identify the best SA players and tie down from a young age - they have good contacts within in Spainish/Portugese football so they got a very hefty cut when the first move to Europe (which they wouldn't get if the player was to move straight to United). The expectation is they will perform there for 2-3 years and get the big move where again the agent will get a hefty fee.

The agent probably won't be selling the English dream to them but rather instructing them to move to Portgual first or direct to Barca/Madrid if they are good enough.
 
Nickosaur said:
Are people seriously suggesting United don't have a single scout aware of Brazil
Click to expand...
I know, it’s ridiculous. United have loads of scouts across SA - just because OP is linking two players United have bought/might buy doesn’t mean we aren’t always looking for talent there.

The truth is language, visa and the general risk of signing a young player make it a rare thing for us to do. It’s like that Sao Paolo guy Lyanco at Soton now, no one is clamouring for him - look at Kenedy at Chelsea who was a direct signing from Fluminese. All the top clubs there will produce good players but very few will make it to the level we aspire to be.
 
UnofficialDevil said:
Surely money talks though? Offer them top wages, give the agents a big cut, I mean we do that anyway don’t we.
Click to expand...

Sure, but are we paying Millions for kids at 10? Would we take that venture (legalities aside)?

Would the board sanction 3rd party agents that vouch for young kids and funnel some dollar for their sport shoes and general wellbeing? How many could we afford to? 10? 100? At what point are we're taking for granted? Etc etc. Even if say we have 10-20 potential younglings on our account, how can we game them all? They need academies to play and develop, by the time they reach 18 they'll need actual game time and hopefully a new of them would made it. At this rate 20 kids (visa, housing, boarding etc) would command tens of millions and still no guarantee. Not to mention we can't do this in Manchester since most of them are foreigners.

At the end it's cheaper to just buy (X) for 50M.
 
Sky1981 said:
Sure, but are we paying Millions for kids at 10? Would we take that venture (legalities aside)?

Would the board sanction 3rd party agents that vouch for young kids and funnel some dollar for their sport shoes and general wellbeing? How many could we afford to? 10? 100? At what point are we're taking for granted? Etc etc. Even if say we have 10-20 potential younglings on our account, how can we game them all? They need academies to play and develop, by the time they reach 18 they'll need actual game time and hopefully a new of them would made it. At this rate 20 kids (visa, housing, boarding etc) would command tens of millions and still no guarantee. Not to mention we can't do this in Manchester since most of them are foreigners.

At the end it's cheaper to just buy (X) for 50M.
Click to expand...
I didnt mean that young, that's why I mentioned Antony and Casimero, Antony was 20 years old going to Ajax and Casemiro 21 years old going to Madrid.
 
UnofficialDevil said:
Casemiro was bought by Madrid from Sao Paulo for 6m, Anthony was bought by Ajax just a year ago from Sao Paulo for 15m.
Why can't we just scout Sao Paulo for their best players and loan them out to a partner club like we had with Royal Antwerp. Or even loan them out to flippin Ajax!
We can obviously outbid clubs like Porto and Ajax for those players, like if we were both going for Anthony last summer, we could easily outmuscle Ajax for him.

There is another really good 22 year old box to box midfielder playing for Corinthians called De Queiros for example. He will probably be sold from Porto to someone for 100m in a couple of years.
Cant we just scout the 2 top Brazilian clubs and overpay them for their players instead of European clubs.
Click to expand...

We are the same club who got offered Calceido for 4.5m 2 years ago and turned him down. Do you think we are competent in any way when it comes to transfers? Or competent enough to think ahead and approach these kind of clubs? We’d rather make a £50m mistake than a £5m mistake, makes the leeches look better in their own eyes!
 
lefty_jakobz said:
We are the same club who got offered Calceido for 4.5m 2 years ago and turned him down. Do you think we are competent in any way when it comes to transfers? Or competent enough to think ahead and approach these kind of clubs? We’d rather make a £50m mistake than a £5m mistake, makes the leeches look better in their own eyes!
Click to expand...

Was Caicedo only offered to United and Brighton?
 
lefty_jakobz said:
We are the same club who got offered Calceido for 4.5m 2 years ago and turned him down. Do you think we are competent in any way when it comes to transfers? Or competent enough to think ahead and approach these kind of clubs? We’d rather make a £50m mistake than a £5m mistake, makes the leeches look better in their own eyes!
Click to expand...
Is that a fact? I mean about Caicedo, did we actually turn down a 4.5 offer for him?
 
JPRouve said:
Was Caicedo only offered to United and Brighton?
Click to expand...

His preference was us at the time. We deemed it not good business to possibly waste the £4.5m on him, now we are looking at him and he’s £50/60m. Lucky the Glazers dont use their own money otherwise…
 
hellhunter said:
I feel like AC Milan were in the picture as well
Click to expand...

The player was likely offered to hundreds of clubs. Brighton are the one who were the most interested and offered him a path to a starter role. People aren't thinking straight.
 
lefty_jakobz said:
His preference was us at the time. We deemed it not good business to possibly waste the £4.5m on him, now we are looking at him and he’s £50/60m. Lucky the Glazers dont use their own money otherwise…
Click to expand...

So it was United or Brighton? He was offered to no one else?
 
If I was an agent, I'd be skeptical of the benefits of taking my starlet client direct to United. Firstly they're unlikely to get game time here, and they'd be depending on the club to arrange a suitable loan. Secondly, if my client is bought for peanuts by United and ends up making it there, I'd make a lot less money than if my client is bought for peanuts by a smaller club, makes it there and is then bought for big money by a club like United.
 
JPRouve said:
So it was United or Brighton? He was offered to no one else?
Click to expand...

I dont see what you are getting at tbh.

We had a chance to sign him back then for the relative low fee and now we are supposedly looking at him again for 10x the fee, which kind of shows what a mess our scouting department was/is and you are only focusing on us not being the only ones interested/or only offered to us and Brighton? Pretty sure he wanted PL football over other leagues.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
If I was an agent, I'd be skeptical of the benefits of taking my starlet client direct to United. Firstly they're unlikely to get game time here, and they'd be depending on the club to arrange a suitable loan. Secondly, if my client is bought for peanuts by United and ends up making it there, I'd make a lot less money than if my client is bought for peanuts by a smaller club, makes it there and is then bought for big money by a club like United.
Click to expand...

And a cheap young player for a wealthy club is disposable. They are not going to make room or make a particular effort to accommodate him because there is little economic risks. It's the complete opposite for smaller clubs, they need to do everything to make it work because reselling these type of players is how they finance a large part of their expenses.
 
JPRouve said:
And a cheap young player for a wealthy club is disposable. They are not going to make room or make a particular effort to accommodate him because there is little economic risks. It's the complete opposite for smaller clubs, they need to do everything to make it work because reselling these type of players is how they finance a large part of their expenses.
Click to expand...

Yeah absolutely, it's all round just a better option for the player and agent
 
UnofficialDevil said:
Casemiro was bought by Madrid from Sao Paulo for 6m, Anthony was bought by Ajax just a year ago from Sao Paulo for 15m.
Why can't we just scout Sao Paulo for their best players and loan them out to a partner club like we had with Royal Antwerp. Or even loan them out to flippin Ajax!
We can obviously outbid clubs like Porto and Ajax for those players, like if we were both going for Anthony last summer, we could easily outmuscle Ajax for him.

There is another really good 22 year old box to box midfielder playing for Corinthians called De Queiros for example. He will probably be sold from Porto to someone for 100m in a couple of years.
Cant we just scout the 2 top Brazilian clubs and overpay them for their players instead of European clubs.
Click to expand...
I found that story (perhaps apocryphal) of our scouts going to a Flamengo game and returning with rave reviews about Andreas to be infuriating (if true.) We already know about him you idiots!
 
lefty_jakobz said:
I dont see what you are getting at tbh.

We had a chance to sign him back then for the relative low fee and now we are supposedly looking at him again for 10x the fee, which kind of shows what a mess our scouting department was/is and you are only focusing on us not being the only ones interested/or only offered to us and Brighton? Pretty sure he wanted PL football over other leagues.
Click to expand...

I'm getting at this: Do you think we are competent in any way when it comes to transfers? Or competent enough to think ahead and approach these kind of clubs?

This logic makes no sense when Caicedo ended up at Brighton. Even if I was to believe your claim that he was only considering PL football, there is a dozen of wealthier and bigger clubs than Brighton who didn't get him, all of them will be interested in him for 45m if he turns out to be good which is a reality for 100% of players that aren't currently playing for the club of the academy they went to.

In fact your point is a general issue with the thread. Players are offered to everyone, it makes no sense to act as if a particular club missed on a player when he wasn't the only potential destination.
 
ThinkTank@Cafe said:
Can’t we buy players without work permit? Send them to Twente or Anderlecht.
Click to expand...
I think we can, but there's a limit to how many players you can own and then send on loan. And now we don't have the benefit of an EU residence permit being something they can use to move to England.
 
why do we let our players leave on a free and re-sign them for £90mil to then let him leave on a free again? like most things wrong with the club, poor management.
 
lefty_jakobz said:
We are the same club who got offered Calceido for 4.5m 2 years ago and turned him down. Do you think we are competent in any way when it comes to transfers? Or competent enough to think ahead and approach these kind of clubs? We’d rather make a £50m mistake than a £5m mistake, makes the leeches look better in their own eyes!
Click to expand...

To be fair it's not 5 vs 50

There may be 1 50M worth every 10s 5M player.

And even if we can afford 10 5M player we can't afford to game them all with enough game time.

It's like playing FM, you can technically buy 10 wonderkids but they're worthless without years of time investment.
 
Tiki-Taka said:
why do we let our players leave on a free and re-sign them for £90mil to then let him leave on a free again? like most things wrong with the club, poor management.
Click to expand...
Imagine being a Chelsea fan. When I saw a headline about is “battling” to buy Nathan Ake I nearly broke a chair.

Desperate for a defender? Well Tomori is now apparently a 70M+ player and unavailable …,

Now we are selling Chalobah. Sick of this little game really.

I would imagine for younger Academy-level talents that a move across the ocean is traumatic enough. Going where you at least understand the language probably helps.

I’m sure you probably DO scout those teams though. Chelsea does
 
JPRouve said:
I'm getting at this: Do you think we are competent in any way when it comes to transfers? Or competent enough to think ahead and approach these kind of clubs?

This logic makes no sense when Caicedo ended up at Brighton. Even if I was to believe your claim that he was only considering PL football, there is a dozen of wealthier and bigger clubs than Brighton who didn't get him, all of them will be interested in him for 45m if he turns out to be good which is a reality for 100% of players that aren't currently playing for the club of the academy they went to.

In fact your point is a general issue with the thread. Players are offered to everyone, it makes no sense to act as if a particular club missed on a player when he wasn't the only potential destination.
Click to expand...

No we aren’t and thats precisely my point.

Your logic seems a bit skewed.

So we shouldnt target a good player or potentially good because there are other clubs out for them?
You are happy to miss out on a £4/5m player in the hope he comes good and we can buy him at a later date for 10x the amount?

Which one of the Glazers are you? :lol:
 
lefty_jakobz said:
No we aren’t and thats precisely my point.

Your logic seems a bit skewed.

So we shouldnt target a good player or potentially good because there are other clubs out for them?
You are happy to miss out on a £4/5m player in the hope he comes good and we can buy him at a later date for 10x the amount?

Which one of the Glazers are you? :lol:
Click to expand...

You are making no sense and being childish on top of it? What have the Glazers got to do with your lack of sense? And at which point did I tell you that we shouldn't target good players because they are in demand or that we should be happy if we miss on one?

Let me make it perfectly clear. Missing on a particular player says nothing about your ability to identify players. The botched logic that you applied implies that anyone but Brighton could identify that Caicedo was a good young player. It also completely ignores the fact that a player may choose the better path to a starting role, that he may have demands and expectations that you can't fulfill which is why the vast majority of talented players aren't developed in the same handful of wealthy clubs.
 
We leave City, Real and Barca to do the forward thinking stuff.

We'd rather pay alot more for some reason later.

The Malacia signing will prove a great one like Evra, Vidic and Hernandez ones. Those are the ones we need to continue to make. The ones where we spot potential and quality in players before others.
 
MrSingh2002 said:
We leave City, Real and Barca to do the forward thinking stuff.

We'd rather pay alot more for some reason later.

The Malacia signing will prove a great one like Evra, Vidic and Hernandez ones. Those are the ones we need to continue to make. The ones where we spot potential and quality in players before others.
Click to expand...

Are Real, Barca or City good examples of that forward thinking and targetting of cheap young players?
 
We do scout in Brazil. And other American countries. Players like Fabio, Rafael, Possebon, Bruno Gomes were scouted there, Chicharito, Rojo, Forlan came to us from American leagues, if I recall correctly? It’s over a long period, but as we have had few clear successes, it may be understandable.

Buying youth players is not exactly like a lottery, but neither is it totally un-like a lottery. We, along with City, Arsenal, Liverpool, Real Madrid, Barca, Juve, Ajax, PsV, Benfica, Shakhtyor etc etc can all invest in one or several prospects, but if we buy 5 of 100 tickets and do our scouting well so as to buy five of the best tickets, the chances of winning are still fairly small. In the end, it’s a numbers game, and a question of wether we can afford to give one or five American youngsters game time enough to develop them to players that are worth the total cost of tickets.
 
JPRouve said:
The player was likely offered to hundreds of clubs. Brighton are the one who were the most interested and offered him a path to a starter role. People aren't thinking straight.
Click to expand...
I’m amazed people don’t get this is how it works. Agents will offer out their players to hundreds of clubs if they are young and relatively unknown - clubs probably get dozens of these types of opportunities to sign players every month.

Caicedo had the added complication from memory of some weird third party ownership or something extra on top of a normal transfer as well.
 
JPRouve said:
Are Real, Barca or City good examples of that forward thinking and targetting of cheap young players?
Click to expand...

Cmon...

Jesus, Torres and Rodri are all clear value for money signings before they hit the big time. Can't say cheap but if we could turn back time we'd take many of City's signings even with the price tags they got them for.
 
Grande said:
We do scout in Brazil. And other American countries. Players like Fabio, Rafael, Possebon, Bruno Gomes were scouted there, Chicharito, Rojo, Forlan came to us from American leagues, if I recall correctly? It’s over a long period, but as we have had few clear successes, it may be understandable.

Buying youth players is not exactly like a lottery, but neither is it totally un-like a lottery. We, along with City, Arsenal, Liverpool, Real Madrid, Barca, Juve, Ajax, PsV, Benfica, Shakhtyor etc etc can all invest in one or several prospects, but if we buy 5 of 100 tickets and do our scouting well so as to buy five of the best tickets, the chances of winning are still fairly small. In the end, it’s a numbers game, and a question of wether we can afford to give one or five American youngsters game time enough to develop them to players that are worth the total cost of tickets.
Click to expand...
Rojo came from Sporting but yes, overall point stands.
 
MrSingh2002 said:
Cmon...

Jesus, Torres and Rodri are all clear value for money signings before they hit the big time. Can't say cheap but if we could turn back time we'd take many of City's signings even with the price tags they got them for.
Click to expand...

Those weren't cheap also Torres and Rodri were playing for big clubs. Those are regular transfers there is nothing forward thinking or cheap about them.
 
JPRouve said:
You are making no sense and being childish on top of it? What have the Glazers got to do with your lack of sense? And at which point did I tell you that we shouldn't target good players because they are in demand or that we should be happy if we miss on one?

Let me make it perfectly clear. Missing on a particular player says nothing about your ability to identify players. The botched logic that you applied implies that anyone but Brighton could identify that Caicedo was a good young player. It also completely ignores the fact that a player may choose the better path to a starting role, that he may have demands and expectations that you can't fulfill which is why the vast majority of talented players aren't developed in the same handful of wealthy clubs.
Click to expand...

Where have I said anyone but Brighton could have signed him? My point is we missed out signing a player for a low fee now that same player is being linked with us for a fee 10x that he was bought for, where in your superior logic does that make any sense?
 
Rather than doing this, what we should be doing is getting a setup a la the Red Bull group where they own 10 clubs around the world and redistribute players amongst them based on their quality level / development stage. City have done it. Why haven't we?
 
lefty_jakobz said:
Where have I said anyone but Brighton could have signed him? My point is we missed out signing a player for a low fee now that same player is being linked with us for a fee 10x that he was bought for, where in your superior logic does that make any sense?
Click to expand...

I already explained. If you want to play dumb it's your problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.