Danny Drinkwater is prime example of what new owners should aim at

.......... while he was playing on loan at Barnsley he was sold by Manchester United to Leicester for just £1million.

We have a manager and recruitment team who are second to none at identifying potential in players from lower leagues.
They are also excellent at identifying good young players.

If we had a bit more money to actually buy some of the better of these young players (e.g. Fletcher) then it could eventually make £££millions for the club.

 

Wasn't the issue the wages that leicester offered him and not the million pound asking fee ?

 

Interesting, just for clarity are you pro or con the new owners? You have kept your cards close to your chest thus far

 

Alfie Mawson, Conor Hourihane, Marc Roberts, no we've not sold any players on for profit thus far.

#reinventingthewheel

 

Thought it was well more than a million

 

Is this thread a wind up?

We're now consistently signing and developing players before selling them on for a profit.

 

Read the initial post again.
I knew some numptie would say something like this - that's why I preemptively separated the players from lower league from those young players brought in on loan.
I'm clearly talking about young players brought in on loan here.'

 

Chuck your trademark 'foooking' in, Nudge. Meks me smile does that old lad.

 

I think you are right.

 

Just goes to show that even 'the likes' of Man Utd don't always get it right, letting Drinkwater go for £1.5 m who then goes on to run their midfield to a Premiership title and gets sold on to Chelsea for £35m, letting Pogba go for free then buying him back for squillions , makes our recent sales strategy look a work of genius

 

behave yourself soft apeth - all you're on about is scaling up from what we've been doing. Blind man on a galloping horse can see that's what'll happen.

 

I think we should be offering the high achievers (yer Roberts & Hourihanes) vastly improved contracts after a year. That way their resale value would be enhanced, if they signed a new 3 year deal & we'd have a chance of being more successful on the field & there would be another way of progression, other than moving on from the club for players, who might actually want to stay. I can't see other players resenting it, rather seeing it as something to work for... I think the model otherwise is good, but with more resources, then this should be the revised plan.

 

A blind man on a galloping horse would probably understand - but you didn't.

 

Okay then, in relation to those brought in on loan, aside from Drinkwater and Morsy, which other loanees have performed well during their tenure and have been available for transfer immediately after their loans expired?

I'm interested to see which players people think we could've signed on a permanent basis.

 

John Curtis.

 

pmsl, you can try and complicate it to make it look like you're being original. But you can't. Back in thi box.

 

Fair point but if we had abit more money I still wouldn't want us to pay 6.5 million for Fletcher.

 

Wasnt Ashley Fletcher out in contract immediately after his loan finished? Not saying he'd have picked us over West Ham but you never know if we'd have been able to offer reasonable wages whether he'd have thought staying here for a couple of years would have been good for him.

 

Fletcher turned down a new deal at Manchester United to sign for West Ham in the Premier League. We're probably talking massive wages as opposed to reasonable wages. Just look at Dominic Solanke, he's rumoured to be on £50,000 per week at Liverpool (that's what he reportedly asked for to stay at Chelsea) and he has done less at senior level than Fletcher.

 

Could be misremembering, but maybe Trippier?