Comments on: Sir Alex Ferguson Not Going Anywhere, Apparently Hates Old People

By: Carly

Carly — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:13:52 +0000

There was no point keeping Ronaldo against his will for another year. If a player wants to go so desperately, then let them go, especially if you stand to make £68 million profit. Don’t forget that United have a wealth of talent in the youngsters they have. All these guys need is for the door to be left open and they will grab their chances.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:17:22 +0000

The whole original story comes has no quotes so I cant see it being law at United that no over 26 can be signed. Saying that Berbativ hasnt exactly set the worl alight and that is £30million that we will never get back.

By: Mzee

Mzee — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:27:30 +0000

This isn’t actually a policy at all. It’s just a paper trying to sell some more with a ridiculous statement. Of course it doesn’t make sense to pay anything over £35m for a player who is already either in his prime or past it.
We don’t intend to buy players expecting to sell them on at a profit.
Buy a 19yr old for £30m and get 10yrs out of him (£3m a year). Buy a 27yr old for £30m (Berba) and it will eventually work out at about £6-7m a year. Plus older established players generally demand ridiculously high wages (remember Slave was on £15,000 a week only a few yrs ago?)
He’s spent 6 years with us, bringing his transfer to about £2m a year and his wages would be about £4m a year on average. It makes far more sense.

By: lorenzo23

lorenzo23 — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:41:30 +0000

The media focus is on star players and who’s going where? Why write about building a team – it’s slow and unsensational. I reckon Sir Alex is from the old Scottish school of Jock Stein, Sir Matt, Bill Shankley – he’s nearly 70 and a wiley old dog.

1)It’s about getting the best from a team – everyone has a job to do so that’s why John O’Shea gets a shirt.

2) you always have a youth policy and now you sign them up from Brazil ‘cos you can’t sign them from London because they live too far away if registered in England.

3) anybody who rocks the boat gets a transfer which you mentioned.

You don’t win it with kids – not true. You win it when the President / CEO picks the team – not true unless Real Madrid or Man City prove me wrong next season.

P.S. keep weblogging – always a good read.

By: Taylor Rockwell

Taylor Rockwell — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:34:01 +0000

Valid point there…

By: Colin

Colin — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:50:39 +0000

I don’t think we will ever truly become Arsenal or Arsenal-like because Fergie will refuse to conceed that we are “going through a rebuilding period.”

By: Taylor Rockwell

Taylor Rockwell — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:43:40 +0000

I think we all agree, as the crux of my argument was that, while the big name transfers are the most attractive, they also bring the most pressure to succeed…

SEE: Sheva
SEE: Keane
SEE: Veron
SEE: Dinho
SEE: Deco

All that said, C.I.A., you are correct, there were no actual quotes in the article, nor do I think there was/is going to be an official statement… what would it say? “26 year olds need not apply?”

No, I think we’ll do just what Colin said… I just worry about becoming Arsenal… although I suppose there’s no sense borrowing trouble…

By: Confused in America

Confused in America — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:28:18 +0000

Did I miss something, or were there no actual quotes about this policy in that Guardian article?

“Manchester United have made a long-term decision not to sign any players aged 26 or above for large transfer fees because of new financial stipulations that have been put in place at Old Trafford to shape the club’s recruitment policy.”

Did I miss a press release? Anywho, I agree with Colin.

By: Colin

Colin — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:02:20 +0000

I really don’t think this is going to be an issue because based on The Guardian’s article, it certainly leaves some wiggle room. I think the crux of the piece is that we won’t be spending 30+ million pounds on someone whose best years are behind them, when we could spend 20 million on someone who we could have for many years during their prime and if it doesn’t work out, we can still sell them while they have potential and can get a decent price.

Taylor, your example of Robbie Keane is spot on. Why through away 8 million pounds like that. But say we sign this Douglas Costas fellow for 20 million and he is phenomenal. He helps us win 3 more Prem titles and then says he’d like to move on. He will be 24 and everyone will be drooling over him willing to pay 80+ million.

I think part of this “policy” also touches on the lack of loyalty in football. Do you really think there are going to be many players now a days like Scholes, Neville, and Giggs? I don’t think so, it is just naive to think players will stay at your club forever.

I don’t think we sold Slave just because someone stumped up the money, but moreso because of his attitude and desire to leave. If someone would have bid 80 million for Rooney, I don’t think Fergie would have picked up the phone.

I think that the policy is very smart, prudent business and let’s face it, economic times are very tough, even if you are Manchester United.

By: Taylor Rockwell

Taylor Rockwell — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:47:30 +0000

It’s not the idea of signing youngsters that concerns me, it’s the reasons for it… United don’t exist to be a feeder club, nor should we be looking to sign players in order to bring in a jackpot down the road.

That’s what bothers me here. It seems as though we’ve received one big paycheck, and are now operating under the assumption that similar paydays await (especially if we keep developing young talents).

I was fine with selling Slave because I was sick of him as a person. Imagine if someone offered 90 million for Rooney. I can’t say I would be as thrilled in that event.