Transfer Team…

Hard to disagree with any of that really. We seem ultra slow in getting anything done.

We could probably get deals done quicker if we gave in to the selling club straight away, but then people would be complaining that we’re crap at negotiating

comment by Bobby Dazzler (U1449)
posted 4 seconds ago
We could probably get deals done quicker if we gave in to the selling club straight away, but then people would be complaining that we’re crap at negotiating
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not just that though. Even when fees are agreed or deals are agreed we seem to take an age to get them over the line.

Sancho, Varane, Eriksen, Martinez & Antony are recent examples of this.

Our indecisiveness lead to millions being added to the Antony fee.

Fire em all!

The fans know bettrr n have all tje information n ishoes that need 2b resolve regard transfers

Its easy in the video games

We are finally trying to undo the wrongs of the past in terms of not overpaying. I fully agree with that strategy.

However, I don't agree with how long it seems to take us to get over the line and negotiate these 3-4 million differences. It takes weeks on end.

And that in itself is okay, I guess. But not when you're the only elite club in the world who only negotiate one transfer at a time (for reasons nobody understands). I don't think you can play the long game on one transfer whilst rigidly sticking to an absolutely absurd strategy of only negotiating one transfer at a time.

Take Arsenal with Rice, for example. A long drawn out transfer. But they signed Havertz and Timber during the interim. As that's what clubs not beholden to a mental one transfer at a time strategy do

Every single club and football agent around the world knows that Premier League clubs are swimming in TV money. With an even richer core of about 6-10 clubs publishing ever increasing annual revenues.

Gone are the days of "unearthing a gem on the cheap." At least for the bigger PL clubs.

comment by Gillespie Rd. (U18361)
posted 4 minutes ago
Every single club and football agent around the world knows that Premier League clubs are swimming in TV money. With an even richer core of about 6-10 clubs publishing ever increasing annual revenues.

Gone are the days of "unearthing a gem on the cheap." At least for the bigger PL clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We literally turned down Caicedo for under 5 million.

"Honestly ask yourself when was the last time United just went in for a player made a bid and bam it was a done deal?"

That sounds like a great way to burn money for no good reason.

"Forget that when was the last time this group of supposed experts managed to unearth a gem on the cheap?"

It isn't up to the transfer team to "unearth gems". That's the job of the scouting unit. That unit has turned up in recent years Alejandro Garnacho, Hannibal and Amad, all of whom could turn out to be very astute signings, as well as who knows how many other players the club failed to move for.

If anything the issue hasn't been identifying players, it has been making the right decisions based on the scouting and football development teams' work.

As to this transfer team, it has only been in existence for 24 months, and has seen in that time three different managers. I think we can judge it based on last summer and this one. So far, to me, it seems to be doing a relatively decent job, certainly by United's recent standards, although the issue of finding a balance between satisfying the manager and extending ourselves based on his recommendations (Antony) appears to remain.

So far, it has gotten Casemiro, Martinez, Eriksen, Antony, Malacia and Mount over the line, as well as the loan deals for Sabitzer and Weghorst. Some serious hits, some the jury are out on, and the loans were terrible; but mostly positive, and of the big calls, there's only really a (very) big question mark over Antony IMO.

As to Caicedo, two notes: firstly, it is worth remembering that there were only a couple of PL clubs closely monitoring him. United were one: The club identified the player, were actively scouting him, and made an approach which resulted in the discussion of a contract for the player. That should be considered a success story for the much (and massively unfairly) maligned scouting team, who did in this case, in fact, unearth and recommend this particular gem.

Secondly, United reportedly walked away (as did Liverpool, btw) because of a mess with agents' fees, intermediaries and shared ownership of the player. Apparently, there were legal arguments about who was representing the player and who should be due various commissions and fees.

Now we can argue whether the position is a useful/healthy one or not, and prima facie this case would be a good argument against it, but United's general position on these kind of situations has become pretty clear.

Obviously no deal was made, and the rest is history. But the context is important to consider.

comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 14 hours, 5 minutes ago
We are finally trying to undo the wrongs of the past in terms of not overpaying. I fully agree with that strategy.

However, I don't agree with how long it seems to take us to get over the line and negotiate these 3-4 million differences. It takes weeks on end.

And that in itself is okay, I guess. But not when you're the only elite club in the world who only negotiate one transfer at a time (for reasons nobody understands). I don't think you can play the long game on one transfer whilst rigidly sticking to an absolutely absurd strategy of only negotiating one transfer at a time.

Take Arsenal with Rice, for example. A long drawn out transfer. But they signed Havertz and Timber during the interim. As that's what clubs not beholden to a mental one transfer at a time strategy do
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Although I agree somewhat with your general point, United were talking to Inter about Onana and made a first official bid, and had already bid for Hojlund, before the Mount deal was concluded.

By various accounts, they've been negotiating deals for both Onana and Hojlund since June.