Well with the current spending spree, we are very closely resembling a team we hate due to their morals. I agree that transfers are exciting and strengthen your team. However I do believe with United's current transfer policy homegrown system and youth system have suffered a big blow. I mean we are not even looking into giving our youngsters the chance they deserve. We have some great youngsters coming up, but instead of giving them a chance we are buying foreigners for crazy money to replace our aging stars.

I was just basically starting up the debate, discus away lads.....

[funkdoctorspock]

Let's examine the transfers United brought in, shall we:

Anderson - a young lad who was a budding star with Porto. He still has a lot of work to put in to become the talent that everyone thinks he can be. Considered to be the more polished of the two young stars purchased. Will he make an instant impact this season? My guess is no. But he will grow tremendously as a player under the instruction of the United staff and United players and could eventually be used in a number of positions within the squad. I want to say that he'll be a Scholes replacement, but I'm still with the belief that Carrick will be assuming Scholes role. Rumoured purchase 17 million pounds? That seems to be the going rate for players that are considered players of the future (ex. Pato. Chelsea put in a bid I believe for 18 million). Anderson is a work in progress and like Cristiano Ronaldo, we shouldn't expect to see Anderson consist week in and week out until the second season. Expect a lot of cameo appearances as a sub in the first team and a lot of play in the Mickey Mouse Cup, early rounds of the FA and if United qualify out of CL group stages quickly.

Nani - Again, another work in progress. Considered a tremendous talent that needs to refine his game in order to be a success. Seems to be in line to replace Giggs in the future. If this is Giggs last season (Praying it isn't... my favourite United player... ) Nani will have a steep learning curve to get up to scratch with life in the EPL rather quickly. Has quick feet, a lot of tricks and is a player in the similar mold to Cristiano Ronaldo. Again, expect Nani to get a lot of cameo first team appearances as a sub in the first team and a lot of play in the Mickey Mouse Cup, early rounds of the FA and if United qualify out of CL group stages quickly.

Hargreaves - Right here is the NOW purchase. Hargo will immediately make an impact on United's first team. Proven ball winner, tremendous engine/stamina, great defender, tackler and will provide an enormous amount of security to United's defense when they are hit with the counter attack. To me, this purchase is the signing of the year for United. We get an immediate upgrade in the midfield with this signing along with someone that has a winning pedigree with Bayern Munich. Don't get me wrong... Carrick was fabulous for us this past season, but you have to remember. His game is built around playing in a upper midfield position with a midfielder covering him (ex. Edgar Davids as cover when Carrick was with Tottenham). So, I'm expecting in the future that Carrick and Hargo will be in the middle if United continue with 4-4-2 play.

Now, to your question. I'm going to have to say 2 out of the 3 transfers are not now purchases. They are purchases for the future of United. We shouldn't expect immediate dividends out of them, because they are still learning, still need to get physically stronger and haven't even had time to adjust as yet. To me, these two purchases are transfers that happened now, but will go against purchases next year and possibly the year after. So don't expect to be seeing this kind of buying next season. Or the season after. So Hargreaves for 20 million and a forward come in. I would count those as purchases for this season and Anderson/Nani as purchases that will go against spending for at least 2 summer transfers in the future.

Since United splashed the cash on Ruud and Veron in the same year, we haven't had a big spending season. This is unprecedented. And we still have another purchase to go. It's a slippery slope we are climbing, because even with the additional monies we are getting from the tv deal, we aren't paying off our debt (well, we are, but not quick enough for me ). United in my opinion, need to start investing more in removing the debt quicker. But with that said... great buys!!!

[GocartMozart]

Originally Posted by funkdoctorspock

Let's examine the transfers United brought in, shall we:

Anderson - a young lad who was a budding star with Porto. He still has a lot of work to put in to become the talent that everyone thinks he can be. Considered to be the more polished of the two young stars purchased. Will he make an instant impact this season? My guess is no. But he will grow tremendously as a player under the instruction of the United staff and United players and could eventually be used in a number of positions within the squad. I want to say that he'll be a Scholes replacement, but I'm still with the belief that Carrick will be assuming Scholes role. Rumoured purchase 17 million pounds? That seems to be the going rate for players that are considered players of the future (ex. Pato. Chelsea put in a bid I believe for 18 million). Anderson is a work in progress and like Cristiano Ronaldo, we shouldn't expect to see Anderson consist week in and week out until the second season. Expect a lot of cameo appearances as a sub in the first team and a lot of play in the Mickey Mouse Cup, early rounds of the FA and if United qualify out of CL group stages quickly.

Nani - Again, another work in progress. Considered a tremendous talent that needs to refine his game in order to be a success. Seems to be in line to replace Giggs in the future. If this is Giggs last season (Praying it isn't... my favourite United player... ) Nani will have a steep learning curve to get up to scratch with life in the EPL rather quickly. Has quick feet, a lot of tricks and is a player in the similar mold to Cristiano Ronaldo. Again, expect Nani to get a lot of cameo first team appearances as a sub in the first team and a lot of play in the Mickey Mouse Cup, early rounds of the FA and if United qualify out of CL group stages quickly.

Hargreaves - Right here is the NOW purchase. Hargo will immediately make an impact on United's first team. Proven ball winner, tremendous engine/stamina, great defender, tackler and will provide an enormous amount of security to United's defense when they are hit with the counter attack. To me, this purchase is the signing of the year for United. We get an immediate upgrade in the midfield with this signing along with someone that has a winning pedigree with Bayern Munich. Don't get me wrong... Carrick was fabulous for us this past season, but you have to remember. His game is built around playing in a upper midfield position with a midfielder covering him (ex. Edgar Davids as cover when Carrick was with Tottenham). So, I'm expecting in the future that Carrick and Hargo will be in the middle if United continue with 4-4-2 play.

Now, to your question. I'm going to have to say 2 out of the 3 transfers are not now purchases. They are purchases for the future of United. We shouldn't expect immediate dividends out of them, because they are still learning, still need to get physically stronger and haven't even had time to adjust as yet. To me, these two purchases are transfers that happened now, but will go against purchases next year and possibly the year after. So don't expect to be seeing this kind of buying next season. Or the season after. So Hargreaves for 20 million and a forward come in. I would count those as purchases for this season and Anderson/Nani as purchases that will go against spending for at least 2 summer transfers in the future.

Since United splashed the cash on Ruud and Veron in the same year, we haven't had a big spending season. This is unprecedented. And we still have another purchase to go. It's a slippery slope we are climbing, because even with the additional monies we are getting from the tv deal, we aren't paying off our debt (well, we are, but not quick enough for me ). United in my opinion, need to start investing more in removing the debt quicker. But with that said... great buys!!!

I'll have to disagree. They're spending money like I've never seen before. They've clearly taken a stance that is to fill every hole and gap in the team with players at their absolute pinacle of hype. Are they buying the league, probably not, but are they making the entire spending trend worse? Most definitely. What's a youth system worth if you don't bring any of the players up and don't give me the argument that Nani and Anderson are implants in the youth system. I'm talking about school boy age all the way up the rankings.

In the end i have to be fair, and if I hammer opposing teams for spending at these levels, then I have to treat United with the same harsh lens. This is unacceptable.

[funkdoctorspock]

Originally Posted by GocartMozart

I'll have to disagree. They're spending money like I've never seen before. They've clearly taken a stance that is to fill every hole and gap in the team with players at their absolute pinacle of hype. Are they buying the league, probably not, but are they making the entire spending trend worse? Most definitely. What's a youth system worth if you don't bring any of the players up and don't give me the argument that Nani and Anderson are implants in the youth system. I'm talking about school boy age all the way up the rankings.

In the end i have to be fair, and if I hammer opposing teams for spending at these levels, then I have to treat United with the same harsh lens. This is unacceptable.

Like never before?

Other than the year in which United splashed out money for Veron and Ruud (what was that 28 and 19 million respectively) when has United spent so much money in a summer transfer period?

These purchases to me are being bought against purchases next season and the season after. I really don't see United buying big anytime soon.

Secondly, United have bought players to either:

a. fill a need on the team in which they are deficient (Hargreaves)

and

b. to replace a player (s) when they eventually retire (Nani and Anderson).

Just because you have a youth system, doesn't mean it will bear fruit. Tons of United supporters have slag Richardson like no tomorrow. He was a highly rated from the academy,and yet due to under performances and fans impatience, he is more than likely to be sold. You can't have it both ways. In a utopia world, the youth system would always develop a class of '92 every single year. It just doesn't happen.

How are Nani and Anderson youth implants? They were starters for first division teams in Portugal?

Tottenham have shelled out in excess of 30 million pounds in transfers. United shelling out 20+ more isn't so bad. Considering where we finished in the league and cup competitions. The money is there.

My concern is that in the process of keeping up with the jones to be competitive in the league... how does that affect United's debt situation? Could some of this money been used to service the debt and reduce it quicker than the initial debt reduction plan.

I really don't see it as buying the league. Highest money spenders this transfer period? Thus far yes... where were we last year? and the year before?

[GocartMozart]

To your first point, I didn't say I believed United are buying the league, and when I said we've spent money like never before, that's true. With Tevez this will be a summer transfer record.

To your second point, just because you fill a need, doesn't mean you aren't buying the league.

Finally to your constant inclusion of Richardson as an example, really we both know better. What you've done there is take your bitterness over Richardson and weave it against my points, placing me on a polar opposite of whatever theories you're putting together. I'm having it both ways? The concept that I'm being hypocritical by slagging Richardson and at the same time complaining that we don't give our youth enough time is a bit rediculous. The two are mutually exclusive. Johny Evans comes in for 10 minutes against Everton and not only does he score, but he looks competent which is the key. That's the difference and it has nothing to do with hypocracy. Richardson has been given enough chance to at least show something/anything and still failed. While, I see very few other players from the academy making it to the bench. My belief that our youth system isn't getting enough top level exposure, and my distaste for Richardson are mutually exclusive and at the very least anything but hypocritical.

Back to my point and away from the Richardson digression - in fact, if the youth system isn't producing, shouldn't the money go towards it, rather than Nani or Tevez? As far as whether it is bearing fruit, I'll point to Johny Evans as a perfect example.

Finally, we are on the same page as far as the debts incurred by the Glazers and that was one of the first things I thought about when I started thinking about these transfers. What's the opportunity cost of buying these players, both in the form of our youth ranks and our debts...

[Dirtycheat]

this year we officially became the biggest spenders in world football.

we have a few big name players in the team that we bought, and were vital for our league success last year.

however, we do have a very strong core in the team of players developed from youth or were here 17-18 years old.

but players like scholes and giggs will have to stop one day, and its important to find replacements for them before hand than end up panic buying afterwards like we found out with roy keane.

one thing we lacked was depth and imo its good that we are seeking those problems.

but i have to admit, if we do win the league this year, it will be hard to defend the 70 million pounds that people will quote to argue that we bought the league.

never the less, the leaague we won last year, was definately not bought, and the buys are smart buys and for the future, all the players we bought this years have at the very least 7 years ahead of them and will not need replacing in the near future


edit: british youth systems in the last few years havent been very good, hence the high prices for british players...

[GocartMozart]

Originally Posted by Dirtycheat

this year we officially became the biggest spenders in world football.

we have a few big name players in the team that we bought, and were vital for our league success last year.

however, we do have a very strong core in the team of players developed from youth or were here 17-18 years old.

but players like scholes and giggs will have to stop one day, and its important to find replacements for them before hand than end up panic buying afterwards like we found out with roy keane.

one thing we lacked was depth and imo its good that we are seeking those problems.

but i have to admit, if we do win the league this year, it will be hard to defend the 70 million pounds that people will quote to argue that we bought the league.

never the less, the leaague we won last year, was definately not bought, and the buys are smart buys and for the future, all the players we bought this years have at the very least 7 years ahead of them and will not need replacing in the near future


edit: british youth systems in the last few years havent been very good, hence the high prices for british players...

agreed, i have a similar stance. If people reference the yankees to me, i won't be able to skupper the thought and point to Real Madrid. If two years from now Giggsy, Neville and Scholes have moved on and I'm left with everyone else, can I say with a straight face we haven't bought the league. No.

[funkdoctorspock]

Originally Posted by GocartMozart

To your first point, I didn't say I believed United are buying the league, and when I said we've spent money like never before, that's true. With Tevez this will be a summer transfer record.

To your second point, just because you fill a need, doesn't mean you aren't buying the league.

Finally to your constant inclusion of Richardson as an example, really we both know better. What you've done there is take your bitterness over Richardson and weave it against my points, placing me on a polar opposite of whatever theories you're putting together. I'm having it both ways? The concept that I'm being hypocritical by slagging Richardson and at the same time complaining that we don't give our youth enough time is a bit rediculous. The two are mutually exclusive. Johny Evans comes in for 10 minutes against Everton and not only does he score, but he looks competent which is the key. That's the difference and it has nothing to do with hypocracy. Richardson has been given enough chance to at least show something/anything and still failed. While, I see very few other players from the academy making it to the bench. My belief that our youth system isn't getting enough top level exposure, and my distaste for Richardson are mutually exclusive and at the very least anything but hypocritical.

Back to my point and away from the Richardson digression - in fact, if the youth system isn't producing, shouldn't the money go towards it, rather than Nani or Tevez? As far as whether it is bearing fruit, I'll point to Johny Evans as a perfect example.

Finally, we are on the same page as far as the debts incurred by the Glazers and that was one of the first things I thought about when I started thinking about these transfers. What's the opportunity cost of buying these players, both in the form of our youth ranks and our debts...

final rebuttal to you... maybe we should just start a debate thread...

k, until final numbers are actually revealed, we really don't know what was spent for Nani or Anderson. The transfers are undisclosed. I would like to think that there is a set fee and then monies paid out on appearances, league finish, cup competition trophies, like Carrick's deal was structured.

As for Tevez, I think fan posted up that it's a loan deal for 6 million over 2 years and then a balloon payment afterwards to keep him. Nothing wrong with that bit of business financially. Quite smart and keeps total summer spending this year down.

To your second point, if this your train of thought... then it is fair to say that all teams worldwide are buying themselves the chance to win the league...

I like Richardson's game. Always have. The fact that I brought him up had nothing to do with whether you like him or not (First time bringing him up in here ). Find it funny that you would attack Richardson for his "many" chances on the first team and big up Evans, who in a whopping 10 mins is worthy of first team opportunities.

The point is

players that are worthy of first team opportunities from the United youth academy are slim... and I'm talking about players that went through the whole system.

It's true for all clubs.

United were extremely fortunate in '92 to have so many players make it to the first team. It is rare and I really doubt we will ever see something like that again.

Management assesses whether a player through the academy has the quality to hold a spot on the first team vs. whether a player from elsewhere has that quality. United management felt the latter was true. Cue Anderson and Nani.

It's the English approach to football unfortunately in these times. There business model just doesn't include bringing up local talent. 442 Magazine has an article on youth development in July '07 issue. Here's what they say about England:

It seems that English clubs are unable or unwilling to put their efforts into developing homegrown talent, and instead adopt the role of football imperialists, determined to assert their influence around the globe.

When the homegrown rule is changed in '08, there might be more academy product in the first team. But expect more transfer movement in England.

United's team has a healthy balance between young and old. in about 2-4, the likes of Giggs, Scholes, Ole, Neville, VDS will be gone. Who's not to say that a player from the academy isn't given a chance then?

I really think the problem most of us seem to grasp is how these transfers are going to affect United's buying in the future. Do you really think that United will spend anytime soon? It's not happening. We have depth in defense, midfield and to a certain extent, forward position. The money for these transfers would be no different than if it was spent over 2-3 years. SAF stated that he wanted to build for the future with youth and has set his team up so that it can produce for years to come. Buying the league? no...

P.S. Again, I still worry about the debt. United better not be foolish enough next season of even thinking of buying too much. It's not needed. The next priority is getting rid of the debt asap.

[GocartMozart]

i think for the most part we're just arguing on semantics

[zaffo]

Well if Utd do happen to win the league then yes it will be claimed they brought the title. Will it be made into such a big deal like it has been with Chelsea? Most likely not since its Utd and not Romans money.

However they havnt won anything yet. So you cant comment until end of season and the final standing are confirmed.

Buying the league will also be determined by the winning margin (if they do indeed win). If Utd win the league by 10+ points then the statement will be made. However if it goes into the last weeks of the season then you cant really say it imho.