As so many feel the Shaw transfer is a failure before he has even kicked a ball for us, I wanted a few opinions on who we could have signed instead. Please take into account the following;
1) Shaw is 18, so could well play for us for over a decade.
2) If we sign somebody around 25/26, we will need to replace them in 5 years anyway, and what will a top full back cost by that point, I'd guess £30m+
3) If Shaw doesn't turn out to be good enough to play for us in 3/4 years, we will still recoup £10/£15m for him. So would be in a similar situation to number 2 anyway.
4) Clubs know we need these players, so do not expect a single cheap signing this summer. (Please take this into account before valuing your alternatives)
My opinion is that it is going to cost us upwards of £20m to sign a player of Shaw's quality, be it an 18 year old or a 30 year old.
So who else could we have signed that would have left us so much better off financially in 10 years?
Shaw - Alternatives?
posted on 27/6/14
comment by The Luke Show (U8522)
posted 2 minutes ago
<tumbleweed>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The silence is deafening.
"Shaw is an over-rated, over-priced pile of British Bulldog shíte....but I can't think of anybody else I'd want so I'll cry about it anyway"
posted on 27/6/14
Shaw - Alternatives?
************************
Hmm I am thinking there is a tournament in which 32 top left back have been auditioning. Anyways since we do not have scouts who can see 7 million left backs like the best one last year lets just leave scouting out of it.
Anyways this should be my last statement on this issue, till maybe common sense overwhelms people (takes a few years in rooney's case, a few months in fellaini's case) which is in response to this gem being peddled around here " Shaw is 18, so could well play for us for over a decade " There is a reason why it is meant to be cheaper to buy a youngster than to buy a player in full maturity. why? Because you have no clue what you are getting. So to assume that he will give us 10 years is ridiculous. Injuries, mental strength, new systems are difficult for matured men let alone a teenager.
In the same vain, this statement "If Shaw doesn't turn out to be good enough to play for us in 3/4 years, we will still recoup £10/£15m for him" bugs me. If he does not pan out like say 50% of most talented youngsters out there, why the feck will someone then make our mistake ok? Because we paid 30 million for him, someone will pay 10/15 million we should have paid for him in the first place after he becomes a bust? You think every chairman out there is as stupid as Ed?
We paid at least 15 million past the price were it becomes a gamble. Right now if he does not become the best full back in the world he has ultimately failed. Look at Rooney now and just how many are disappointed. At least he was an attacker. .
posted on 27/6/14
" There is a reason why it is meant to be cheaper to buy a youngster than to buy a player in full maturity. "
I think you are forgetting to take points 3 and 4 into account. Shaw would have cost £20m if we weren't Man Utd in our current situation.
"In the same vain, this statement "If Shaw doesn't turn out to be good enough to play for us in 3/4 years, we will still recoup £10/£15m for him" bugs me. If he does not pan out like say 50% of most talented youngsters out there, why the feck will someone then make our mistake ok? Because we paid 30 million for him, someone will pay 10/15 million we should have paid for him in the first place after he becomes a bust? You think every chairman out there is as stupid as Ed? "
Carroll to West Ham, Veron to Chelsea, Robinho to City. When a player goes for huge sums, the club selling tends to recoup half of it. Not because they cost so much in the first place, but because they are still good players.
You still fail to offer a single alternative of Shaws ability for a good price.
posted on 27/6/14
World cup is not the best place to gauge player's ability, There are many crap FBs having a great WC while apzicueta (the best LB in PL imo) had a mare.
Shaw is already a PL proven top LB, he is already miles better than any LB at the club. Even if he didnt improve at all but keep the level of performance he showed last season for 8/10 seasons, Its still be worth it
"Shaw is an over-rated, over-priced pile of British Bulldog shíte....but I can't think of anybody else I'd want so I'll cry about it anyway"
---------------------------
posted on 27/6/14
Erik Durm
posted on 27/6/14
Carroll to West Ham, Veron to Chelsea, Robinho to City. When a player goes for huge sums, the club selling tends to recoup half of it. Not because they cost so much in the first place, but because they are still good players.
********************
2 attackers and a midfielder. The prices for these players are on average 100% to 150% more than full backs, You know this. Also when full internationals and borderline superstars in the world like Veron and Robinho have good resale value, It does not take a genius to imagine why. If you have a youngster who fails to match his hefty price tag, you will not get back half the value. They usually run down their contract and leave for pennies especially with us. And he is a full back. World class ones go for 15 million, why will Shaw, if he became a washout cost the same price?
It is refusing to sink in. If our youngster full back does not pan out, nobody will pay us the price of a world class full back for him.
posted on 27/6/14
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 27/6/14
Luke Shaw
posted on 27/6/14
Redastomatoes
Everything you said applies to a LB worth 20m as well, By spending extra 10m, we managed to secure a LB who has a higher probability to be a success than most other LBs available for 20m.
and this is not 1990s top LBs like Alaba, Rodriguez dont go for 15m
posted on 27/6/14
And he is a full back. World class ones go for 15 million
--------------------
I can't think of many world class fullbacks that moved, but Coentrao left the Portuguese league for 27mil 2-3 seasons ago. So nowadays that statement isn't true at all.
Liverpool paid £17.5mil for a 25 year old Glen Johnson! This deal isn't a bad one on our part at all