verlaine1979 Posted 23 June, 2014 Share Posted 23 June, 2014 For £34m it may prove too hard to resist. Shame as he'll be worth double that one day Shaw doesn't strike the ball well enough to ever be worth that much. He's pretty much the inverse of Bale actually, insofar as Bale had a world class left foot from the start, but lacked the physical side. Shaw on the other hand is fairly average in terms of delivery and shooting, but incredibly strong and quick. Unfortunately, Bale's technique is rarer than Shaw's physicality, and more likely to be the result of natural talent rather than hard work or training. Shaw will be this generation's Ashley Cole, so £34m seems pretty good money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted 23 June, 2014 Share Posted 23 June, 2014 Well he'd playing as a wing-back in Van Gaal's system. He'd probably have more license to get forward than with us -and that's saying something. Not sure, as Koeman may also prefer this system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 23 June, 2014 Share Posted 23 June, 2014 Not sure, as Koeman may also prefer this system. Very true, though you would think that united will have more attacking play than us next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horley CTFC Saint Posted 23 June, 2014 Share Posted 23 June, 2014 Should scare Liverpool - 'bout time we upped our price for LaLa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leslie Charteris Posted 23 June, 2014 Share Posted 23 June, 2014 Just a thought - how many of the Dutch World Cup squad could we buy for £40m? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Charlie Posted 23 June, 2014 Share Posted 23 June, 2014 Should scare Liverpool - 'bout time we upped our price for LaLa Reed is probably ****ting himself at the thought of having to spend £80m plus in two months after his recent promise that money from sales will be reinvested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 23 June, 2014 Share Posted 23 June, 2014 Shaw - £40m Lallana - £30m Lovren - £20m Lambert - £4m plus what was it, £35m to start off with? Round it up to £130m. Somehow I don't think so. PS - plus let's say £20m for Gaston and Osvaldo and call it £150m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leslie Charteris Posted 23 June, 2014 Share Posted 23 June, 2014 Reed is probably ****ting himself at the thought of having to spend £80m plus in two months after his recent promise that money from sales will be reinvested. Why? This was always a possibility and we already have targets in mind according to Les. Onwards and upwards, I say... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Charlie Posted 23 June, 2014 Share Posted 23 June, 2014 Why? This was always a possibility and we already have targets in mind according to Les. Onwards and upwards, I say... I was joking. Could be set to spend a lot though by Saints standards. Spending it wisely is another thing though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 23 June, 2014 Share Posted 23 June, 2014 I'd let him go for that. We need three £12m players more than one £36m Yep, three more Gaston's please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leslie Charteris Posted 23 June, 2014 Share Posted 23 June, 2014 I was joking. Could be set to spend a lot though by Saints standards. Spending it wisely is another thing though. Aha! Fair enough! I guess we just have to trust in the new manager's judgement. I live in hope that he can attract a good number of Holland's World Cup squad to St Mary's! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torrent Of Abuse Posted 24 June, 2014 Share Posted 24 June, 2014 Let us not forget that just because Man Utd are the biggest club in the UK doesn't mean they are the biggest club in Europe. It's totally possible for him to get sold on to a bigger European club for bigger money later in his career. In fact his age and Bale's example has shown it's more likely than not - particularly given his lack of any real connection to the club (given his actual fondness for Chelsea). I'd say 40m with at least 25m up front and the remaining over 2 years at maximum - PLUS a nice slice of the sell-on fee (10-20%?). That way we either get a slice of any Bale-esque sell-on or we get a tidy, smaller sum one day in the future when an older, slower Shaw transfers to Villa or Sunderland. Either way we end up happy. Also not totally committed to losing him. I reckon we have a good future with Koeman - but 40m+ would go a long way to mend the heartache of losing him (*sob sob*) :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkSFC Posted 24 June, 2014 Share Posted 24 June, 2014 Any figure I the thirties minimum is excellent business for a kid with huge potential but still a few years away from his peak. Like someone says 20-30% sell on clause and happy days. I'd ask for Phil Jones as well!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarrettIvo Posted 24 June, 2014 Share Posted 24 June, 2014 The good folks over at RedCafe aren't to thrilled about this. Here's my favourite piece of logic from their thread. "And then the national team complain that the league has too many foreigners and our youngsters don't get time to develop. Well maybe if clubs like Southampton didnt go round ripping off the bigger clubs for potential talent these youngsters could improve. Abit hypocritical but let's be honest Shaw had more chance of developing into a class left back at United rather than spending extra years at Southampton." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 24 June, 2014 Share Posted 24 June, 2014 Daily Mail claiming Saints want £40m... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2666337/Luke-Shaws-40m-price-tag-rocks-Manchester-United-Southampton-bid-England-ace.html IF TRUE.....this is fantastic auction strategy. There are only a few clubs who would pay this sort of money, but as MU have (supposedly) given van Gaal an open cheque book to buy who-ever, will they now refuse to pay those extra few millions ? If it's you handling the deals, Les ? - well done ...good tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 24 June, 2014 Share Posted 24 June, 2014 Reed is probably ****ting himself at the thought of having to spend £80m plus in two months after his recent promise that money from sales will be reinvested. Did he actually say that we would spend ALL the money we got in? I heard " money from transfers would be re-invested ", but if Les is a " wheeler-dealer" then he might get who we want for much less, and even " put a bit by " for the January window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 24 June, 2014 Share Posted 24 June, 2014 The good folks over at RedCafe aren't to thrilled about this. Here's my favourite piece of logic from their thread. "And then the national team complain that the league has too many foreigners and our youngsters don't get time to develop. Well maybe if clubs like Southampton didnt go round ripping off the bigger clubs for potential talent these youngsters could improve. Abit hypocritical but let's be honest Shaw had more chance of developing into a class left back at United rather than spending extra years at Southampton." So we owe it to the England team to sell Luke to the mancs. Nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsland Codger Posted 24 June, 2014 Share Posted 24 June, 2014 Did he actually say that we would spend ALL the money we got in? I heard " money from transfers would be re-invested ", but if Les is a " wheeler-dealer" then he might get who we want for much less, and even " put a bit by " for the January window. In his interview/club statement/conversation with Saints TV (call it what you will) on 10 June, available on youtube, Mr Reed said ... "if we do sell players it's guaranteed that any revenues we make will be re-invested in the team" - at around 20.02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuncanRG Posted 24 June, 2014 Share Posted 24 June, 2014 The good folks over at RedCafe aren't to thrilled about this. Here's my favourite piece of logic from their thread. "And then the national team complain that the league has too many foreigners and our youngsters don't get time to develop. Well maybe if clubs like Southampton didnt go round ripping off the bigger clubs for potential talent these youngsters could improve. Abit hypocritical but let's be honest Shaw had more chance of developing into a class left back at United rather than spending extra years at Southampton." Hahaha bloody hell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 24 June, 2014 Share Posted 24 June, 2014 The good folks over at RedCafe aren't to thrilled about this. Here's my favourite piece of logic from their thread. "And then the national team complain that the league has too many foreigners and our youngsters don't get time to develop. Well maybe if clubs like Southampton didnt go round ripping off the bigger clubs for potential talent these youngsters could improve. Abit hypocritical but let's be honest Shaw had more chance of developing into a class left back at United rather than spending extra years at Southampton." So we owe it to the England team to sell Luke to the mancs. Nice. Hahaha bloody hell But they are right in a twisted sort of way. Half the reason why the top clubs, and I am including Championship level here too, don't by British is because they cost too much. Johnny foreigner usually comes in much cheaper for the skill level. If British talent was cheaper then I am sure we would see more homegrown players in the top divisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 24 June, 2014 Share Posted 24 June, 2014 But they are right in a twisted sort of way. Half the reason why the top clubs, and I am including Championship level here too, don't by British is because they cost too much. Johnny foreigner usually comes in much cheaper for the skill level. If British talent was cheaper then I am sure we would see more homegrown players in the top divisions. But equally a lot of british talent has been stiffled by being purchased by the top clubs and then stockpiled. Scott Sinclair, Jack Rodwell, Scott Parker (when he went to Chelsea, pointless), Wilfried Zaha potentially too. There are pro's and cons to moving to a more successful club... to assume it will automatically benefit the national team is extremely blinkered and rather arrogant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNSUN Posted 24 June, 2014 Share Posted 24 June, 2014 Since appointing Van Gaal their manager, I didn't think they'd have as much interest in Luke as they did. I guess we'll see if he's watching the England game tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted 24 June, 2014 Share Posted 24 June, 2014 Since appointing Van Gaal their manager, I didn't think they'd have as much interest in Luke as they did. I guess we'll see if he's watching the England game tonight. As time goes on and without making a signing, I suspect the mancs will be more desperate to be seen making a splash in the transfer market if only for appearance sake. Tabloid rumour already of some frustration between Van Gaal and their man (Woodward is it ?) who had been entrusted with the wishlist. Perhaps the pressure will increase for them to make a signing at whatever the cost. So, thats £40m and rising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 24 June, 2014 Share Posted 24 June, 2014 I disagree with the bit about English players being over priced. You can look at the likes of Michu and say that no one in this country is that price, but you look at the length of his contract and see the reason he was cheap. Then look at Cornelius, van Wolfswinkle etc and see that these "cheap" players are crap. Look at our very own Osvaldo. Wouldn't it have been better to spend the £15m or so on a player in the Championship? Then you have to build in the quota system that means that the best English players are always going to get a premium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 24 June, 2014 Share Posted 24 June, 2014 But equally a lot of british talent has been stiffled by being purchased by the top clubs and then stockpiled. Scott Sinclair, Jack Rodwell, Scott Parker (when he went to Chelsea, pointless), Wilfried Zaha potentially too. There are pro's and cons to moving to a more successful club... to assume it will automatically benefit the national team is extremely blinkered and rather arrogant. I was trying to expand the conjecture to not just the successful clubs, it's an problem endemic to all the clubs in the top 2 tiers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 24 June, 2014 Share Posted 24 June, 2014 (edited) I was trying to expand the conjecture to not just the successful clubs, it's an problem endemic to all the clubs in the top 2 tiers. As stated above though there are a lot of overpriced foreign players in the top two divisions too. Could this actually be a reflection of our own coaching practices in this country that there are not more high standard young players coming through our bigger clubs rather then it being a symptom of an invasion of foreigners? It clearly is not an accident that we succeed in bringing through talent better then seemingly bigger clubs... Chelsea rejected Shaw for heaven's sake for being too small. Some of the attitudes here are still in the dark ages. Edited 24 June, 2014 by Colinjb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailOB Posted 24 June, 2014 Share Posted 24 June, 2014 The good folks over at RedCafe aren't to thrilled about this. Here's my favourite piece of logic from their thread. "And then the national team complain that the league has too many foreigners and our youngsters don't get time to develop. Well maybe if clubs like Southampton didnt go round ripping off the bigger clubs for potential talent these youngsters could improve. Abit hypocritical but let's be honest Shaw had more chance of developing into a class left back at United rather than spending extra years at Southampton." They could have a point. Look how well the England team has benefitted from the improvement in Phil Jones & Chris Smalling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 24 June, 2014 Share Posted 24 June, 2014 They could have a point. Look how well the England team has benefitted from the improvement in Phil Jones & Chris Smalling Have either of them actually played in this WC so far? Straight question, no innuendo included. I lik Phil Jones as a player, I'd have him in the side instead of a variety of people, starting with Gerrard, certainly in this heat. Maybe he's not 100%, Jones that is. Trouble with Jones and Man U is that he gets shifted around to fill anyy gap that opens up, can't be doing him much good, then again that's Moyes for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 24 June, 2014 Share Posted 24 June, 2014 They could have a point. Look how well the England team has benefitted from the improvement in Phil Jones & Chris Smalling I am sorry, but they do not have a point - and yes I note your sarcasm. Their attitude irks me. They fail to recognise that SFC is a company that tries and does the best for it's self and it's owner and is not beholden to helping either Man Utd or the FA. How much help did Man Utd and the FA give us when the **** hit the fan? No I am sorry, it;s a dog eat dog world of business and we should do what is best for us, as no one else is going to help us. As for the Man U fans bringing out this horse shït argument, it is arrogance personified and again shows what is wrong with PL. Their approach is that only certain teams can offer players a chance to improve, which I don't believe in the first place. I extrapolate that to the top 6/7 are the top 6/7 and are immutable - what a sorry situation that would be if true. We are going to be top 6/7 regulars so why leave? OK OK, that might not happen, but that's the ambition. There are too many people who are happy to accept the laissez faire situation of "them and us". Ballcocks to that. I want us to push onwards and upwards and fully expect us to do so - God, time for a lie down!! And then there is the point about anyone thinking of leaving Saints, and that they shouldn't go anywhere near Utd as they have no European footie next season and chances are, that they might not the season after. Reputation alone won't get you into Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailOB Posted 24 June, 2014 Share Posted 24 June, 2014 Have either of them actually played in this WC so far? Straight question, no innuendo included. I lik Phil Jones as a player, I'd have him in the side instead of a variety of people, starting with Gerrard, certainly in this heat. Maybe he's not 100%, Jones that is. Trouble with Jones and Man U is that he gets shifted around to fill anyy gap that opens up, can't be doing him much good, then again that's Moyes for you. Very hard to convey sarcasm when writing, sorry! Basis the original comment, neither Smalling or Jones have improved the England team or have improved at Man Utd. Similar could also be said of Welbeck and many other young English players who have moved to 'big' clubs. In my opinion the players are more likely to improve by leaving Man Utd as nothing is greater than regular game time in a regular position. Take Jones, he has played as Right Back, centre Back, Holding Midfielder etc.. What he needs is a regular position and games. Welbeck is the same. Look at Zaha, was seen as a great prospect but his move to Man Utd was a failure. Everton now have a promising batch in Stones & Barkley, again it would be best for them to play regularly at Everton. This would improve the options for England. Unfortunately England Manager and Media would rather see players at the 'big' clubs, until ths attitude changes then England will continue to struggle. With regards to Luke Shaw, yes the money being offered is huge but don't really believe he will improve significantly more at Man Utd compared to staying at Southampton. Only thing that will be greater is money and exposure and unfortunately they seem to be more important to most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_Ash Posted 24 June, 2014 Share Posted 24 June, 2014 If the top teams need to fill their home grown quota then they have to pay the premium, or, and this might be a mental idea, they can invest heavily in their youth system like Saints do and bring through their own young English talents. If they want to sit back and cherry pick the talents that other clubs spend a lot of time producing then I have no sympathy, I say go for 50m for Shaw and see if they pay it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 24 June, 2014 Share Posted 24 June, 2014 If the top teams need to fill their home grown quota then they have to pay the premium, or, and this might be a mental idea, they can invest heavily in their youth system like Saints do and bring through their own young English talents. If they want to sit back and cherry pick the talents that other clubs spend a lot of time producing then I have no sympathy, I say go for 50m for Shaw and see if they pay it. Shaw being a young player doesn't count on anyone's home grown quota for the time being anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_Ash Posted 24 June, 2014 Share Posted 24 June, 2014 Shaw being a young player doesn't count on anyone's home grown quota for the time being anyway. Fair point, it's investment for the future with Shaw I suppose in that case so still a large amount of money would have to change hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSAINT Posted 24 June, 2014 Share Posted 24 June, 2014 Depends how good ESPN's sources are I suppose... http://www.espnfc.co.uk/story/1907897/manchester-united-in-advanced-talks-with-southampton-over-luke-shaw-transfer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 24 June, 2014 Share Posted 24 June, 2014 Depends how good ESPN's sources are I suppose... http://www.espnfc.co.uk/story/1907897/manchester-united-in-advanced-talks-with-southampton-over-luke-shaw-transfer? Well there's a newspaper report on another thread saying that the minimum price is now 40 million so if ESPN are saying that it's not even 34 million (which will include a lot of adds-on) then who knows who's roughly correct and who isn't. Still never mind it sells advertising on blogs and in papers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallagroth Posted 24 June, 2014 Share Posted 24 June, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itchen_dan Posted 24 June, 2014 Share Posted 24 June, 2014 http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/manchester-united-transfers-luke-shaw-7320591 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torrent Of Abuse Posted 25 June, 2014 Share Posted 25 June, 2014 But they are right in a twisted sort of way. Half the reason why the top clubs, and I am including Championship level here too, don't by British is because they cost too much. Johnny foreigner usually comes in much cheaper for the skill level. If British talent was cheaper then I am sure we would see more homegrown players in the top divisions. They are only half right. When buying a player, they (and many other big clubs) like to claim that British players are overpriced and yet when selling, they say the opposite. Hence why Bale was a bargain at 5m but he wasn't sold at a bargain price, he was sold at a massive profit. To see big clubs talk down a player's price because they are unwilling to pay for what they are getting and then see them slap a big price tag on their heads once they have signed is quite the sickener. I for one am glad that our club is pricing these players in the same way that the big clubs do. If ManU or Liverpool want our best players then they should pay what they are worth. We are not a charity. As for the price-benefit differential, well the obvious answer is for the big clubs to concentrate as much on their academies as we do. It can't be a coincidence that whilst the big clubs can blow us out of the water in terms of who they transfer into the club, they are very much on a par with us in terms of who comes out of their academies. If they want the Shaws and Lallanas of this world then the answer is to sign them young, train them well and give them a direct route through to the first team as we do. How many young players at the big clubs get a chance to make the full team and how many have to be shipped out to Sunderland, West Brom or Stockport because the road to the first team is blocked by a more expensive player? If you don't give the academy boys the right route to the first team then you have to spend millions on buying them after someone else has. It's not rocket science and it's not unfair. It's business - and right now we're doing it on our terms, not theirs. Because we invested the money and earned the right to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goatboy Posted 25 June, 2014 Share Posted 25 June, 2014 They are only half right. When buying a player, they (and many other big clubs) like to claim that British players are overpriced and yet when selling, they say the opposite. Hence why Bale was a bargain at 5m but he wasn't sold at a bargain price, he was sold at a massive profit. To see big clubs talk down a player's price because they are unwilling to pay for what they are getting and then see them slap a big price tag on their heads once they have signed is quite the sickener. I for one am glad that our club is pricing these players in the same way that the big clubs do. If ManU or Liverpool want our best players then they should pay what they are worth. We are not a charity. As for the price-benefit differential, well the obvious answer is for the big clubs to concentrate as much on their academies as we do. It can't be a coincidence that whilst the big clubs can blow us out of the water in terms of who they transfer into the club, they are very much on a par with us in terms of who comes out of their academies. If they want the Shaws and Lallanas of this world then the answer is to sign them young, train them well and give them a direct route through to the first team as we do. How many young players at the big clubs get a chance to make the full team and how many have to be shipped out to Sunderland, West Brom or Stockport because the road to the first team is blocked by a more expensive player? If you don't give the academy boys the right route to the first team then you have to spend millions on buying them after someone else has. It's not rocket science and it's not unfair. It's business - and right now we're doing it on our terms, not theirs. Because we invested the money and earned the right to do so. This Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 25 June, 2014 Share Posted 25 June, 2014 ^ aye, this. But there is also the fact that the financial situation at Saints is different than it once was. The big clubs used to be able to flash the cash and get what they wanted more on their terms. I am not so sure that they have realised things have slightly changed. Ultimately the end result may well be the same but the ease of getting there isn't. Also any ready made replacement that we might want is likely to be more expensive than it once was so it is natural that we ask for more. But the real killer is that the whole world knows that Utd need to buy. They are dealing from a position of weakness and other clubs will exploit that. They can refuse to pay over inflated prices for as long as they want, but do that and they'll sign no one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarrettIvo Posted 25 June, 2014 Share Posted 25 June, 2014 More gold from Redcafe, this time care of Trizzy. "Personally I wouldn't pay a cent more than the 27m.. its way over priced as it is and its not about the money its about not given in to a **** club." Seriously this **** is giving me something interesting to do while at work. To be fair though a few people on their forum called this particular poster out for being a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 25 June, 2014 Share Posted 25 June, 2014 With regards to the fee I look at Rio Ferdinand. He signs aged 22 from WHU to Leeds for £18m and then 2 years later for Utd for £29m. Now while he was older and more experienced (although both he and Shaw are/were capped England players), this was 12/14 years ago, and an awful lot has changed in football finances since then. Some on Red Cafe are happy with £30m as they can see that if all goes to plan, then he might well be there for 15 years or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW5 SAINT Posted 25 June, 2014 Share Posted 25 June, 2014 With regards to the fee I look at Rio Ferdinand. He signs aged 22 from WHU to Leeds for £18m and then 2 years later for Utd for £29m. Now while he was older and more experienced (although both he and Shaw are/were capped England players), this was 12/14 years ago, and an awful lot has changed in football finances since then. Some on Red Cafe are happy with £30m as they can see that if all goes to plan, then he might well be there for 15 years or so. It seems transfer prices haven't increased significantly in over a decade. However the total income received by the top clubs today from all sources, has increased out of all proportion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 25 June, 2014 Share Posted 25 June, 2014 It seems transfer prices haven't increased significantly in over a decade. However the total income received by the top clubs today from all sources, has increased out of all proportion. but the wages have gone through the roof Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 25 June, 2014 Share Posted 25 June, 2014 It seems transfer prices haven't increased significantly in over a decade. However the total income received by the top clubs today from all sources, has increased out of all proportion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_football_transfer_record I know that this refers to the record ones, so are the exceptions, but to me, there has recently been a shift from £20/30m to £40/50m. Then of course Bosman has had a big effect on both transfer fees and wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giordano Posted 25 June, 2014 Share Posted 25 June, 2014 They are only half right. When buying a player, they (and many other big clubs) like to claim that British players are overpriced and yet when selling, they say the opposite. Hence why Bale was a bargain at 5m but he wasn't sold at a bargain price, he was sold at a massive profit. To see big clubs talk down a player's price because they are unwilling to pay for what they are getting and then see them slap a big price tag on their heads once they have signed is quite the sickener. I for one am glad that our club is pricing these players in the same way that the big clubs do. If ManU or Liverpool want our best players then they should pay what they are worth. We are not a charity. As for the price-benefit differential, well the obvious answer is for the big clubs to concentrate as much on their academies as we do. It can't be a coincidence that whilst the big clubs can blow us out of the water in terms of who they transfer into the club, they are very much on a par with us in terms of who comes out of their academies. If they want the Shaws and Lallanas of this world then the answer is to sign them young, train them well and give them a direct route through to the first team as we do. How many young players at the big clubs get a chance to make the full team and how many have to be shipped out to Sunderland, West Brom or Stockport because the road to the first team is blocked by a more expensive player? If you don't give the academy boys the right route to the first team then you have to spend millions on buying them after someone else has. It's not rocket science and it's not unfair. It's business - and right now we're doing it on our terms, not theirs. Because we invested the money and earned the right to do so. Good point Mr TOA. Totally agree. Saints have earned the right to charge whatever the f-ck they like for whatever player they developed. They invested and it was th right thing to do. Others sit up and listen . And copy. Or just pay whatever we see fit and stf crying *****es. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 25 June, 2014 Share Posted 25 June, 2014 Now that the England squad have arrived back in blighty, surely any movement would now be rather swift. Where's Guan when you need him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ART Posted 25 June, 2014 Share Posted 25 June, 2014 Luke's answer to Simon Peach after the match against Costa Ricca seems to answer what are his intentions. The teenager asked about his ambitions after the match but did not mention his club future, simply saying: '[My ambitions are] just to keep pushing myself, go back fit and ready in pre-season and keep trying to improve my game and look forward to the friendly in September.' Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/worldcup2014/article-2669064/Luke-Shaw-relishes-England-World-Cup-bow-despite-overshadowed-failure.html#ixzz35exuuBrA Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killers Knee Posted 25 June, 2014 Share Posted 25 June, 2014 I'll be happy to let him go for £35m cash, all up front plus 25% sell on clause. Take it or do one. Man Utd have a £250m war chest, and have a crap bargaining position. They need to be seen doing business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallagroth Posted 25 June, 2014 Share Posted 25 June, 2014 I'll be happy to let him go for £35m cash, all up front plus 25% sell on clause. Take it or do one. Man Utd have a £250m war chest, and have a crap bargaining position. They need to be seen doing business. This would be great result. Sensibly Man Utd will need to walk away, but they might feel they have to prove in the transfer market that they can get any player they want. Getting Luke would be a sort of moral victory even if it costs them a little more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now