Whilst united top the marketing table that is all that matters to Woodward and indeed the Glazers.
Youth development is a little hard to judge but I wouldn't have Chelsea bottom.
In terms of developing players, they're pretty good at it but when it comes to giving young players a chance, not so much.
I'm aware Hiddink gave Loftus-Cheek and Bertrand Traore a run out on Sunday but the point still stands.
We should probably be bottom of that particular table, unfortunately.
Klopp has actually got Liverpool to a Final, so I wouldn't have him below LvG.
I respect the ops opinion, but that opinion is stupid.
Joking! The only thing I'd change with that is poch doing the best currently
Spurs and Arsenal by far the best run clubs imo, also the most criticised cos the others generally throw money as a solution which is seen as ambitious. City even though they spent so much have done an amazing job to transform the club and always have an eye on the future. Liverpool... would say they are not really run badly or well, I think the owners have the business knowledge but lacking on the football side. Chelsea never look like they have a plan, but have had enough money to make up for it.. struggling now they are trying to balance the books. United are a shambles gone in the competely opposite direction to what made them the dominant team.
"I'm looking more at the more established top 6 clubs,"
--
What's the criteria for this obvious misleading comment?
Average finish position for the past 10 seasons
Pride is such a cockwomble
Youth Development
Spurs 6pts
Arsenal 5pts
Man City 4pts
Liverpool 3pts
United 2pts
Chelsea 1pt
=============
I don't understand the reasoning behind this. Arsenal and City above Liverpool? I think Spurs is debatable tbh.
Argue your point rather than just questioning it, why is Liverpool's youth development the best?
Robben. (U1145)
posted 11 minutes ago
Average finish position for the past 10 seasons
--
I don't like this random number, 10.
They think Plug at RB is the second coming of Gary Neville. He's useless ffs
comment by chiffrement fort (U8613)
posted 14 minutes ago
"I'm looking more at the more established top 6 clubs,"
--
What's the criteria for this obvious misleading comment?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Couldn't be assed to go above 6pts, I started with 1-5
comment by chiffrement fort (U8613)
posted 8 seconds ago
Robben. (U1145)
posted 11 minutes ago
Average finish position for the past 10 seasons
--
I don't like this random number, 10.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, can you count to 9?
comment by Oddish (U17162)
posted 24 minutes ago
I respect the ops opinion, but that opinion is stupid.
Joking! The only thing I'd change with that is poch doing the best currently
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did think about that, but City are still fighting on 4 fronts, though I do get Poch has less resources at his disposal
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 5 minutes ago
Argue your point rather than just questioning it, why is Liverpool's youth development the best?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say it was the best but Arsenal having a great youth system is one of the biggest falaciesin football. Spurs have a young side but how many England players have they produced in the last ten years.
If you look at how many from each club are representing international youth sides Liverpool are right up there.
As such I question the whole article as I'm not sure it's based on much tangible.
Maybe you should complete the article by putting your reasoning.
is it just local youth or foreign players that come through the academy as well?
City should be bottom of the Youth Development section for me, they haven't brought anyone through since Joe Hart about eight years ago also, Chelsea are very good at developing young talent if not giving them a firs team chance.
City should also be romping this league with their squad so I wouldn't have Pell at the top of the Best Performing Managers either.
I'd also have Klopp above LvG, he's managing someone else's team, Liverpool at least try to play attacking football, generally, which United don't, they're also in a cup final, which we have never been in the 18 months or so since LvG was our manager.
With the resources available to him and the time he's had LvG is probably (definitely?) the worst performing manager in the league IMO, not just the established top six, but the entire league.
Joe Hart was 20 when City signed him, wasn't he?
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 7 minutes ago
is it just local youth or foreign players that come through the academy as well?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Both really. If you're bringing them through from 15/16 or earlier through to professional contracts. We bought Sterling and Ibe at 15 for example but I don't think it's unfair to say we've had a massive impact on their development. Dier? No. Alli? No. Eriksen? No. Walker? No. Tripper and Davies? No.
Our youth win a lot of competitions at youth level - shame they aren't given a chance.
comment by ＴＬＬＬ ★ (U4640)
posted 27 seconds ago
Our youth win a lot of competitions at youth level - shame they aren't given a chance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
More recently yes but not as a rule.
"City should be bottom of the Youth Development section for me, they haven't brought anyone through since Joe Hart about eight years ago also, Chelsea are very good at developing young talent if not giving them a firs team chance."
Depends if you think the best run business are well run because they have one eye on tomorrow. Which surely any well run business would?
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 9 minutes ago
Joe Hart was 20 when City signed him, wasn't he?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think he was 18 when he signed from Shrewsbury, I think it's fair to say that the goalkeeper we see now has been developed by Manchester City though.
comment by BruceAndPally (U8201)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 9 minutes ago
Joe Hart was 20 when City signed him, wasn't he?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think he was 18 when he signed from Shrewsbury, I think it's fair to say that the goalkeeper we see now has been developed by Manchester City though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
could say this with any player that ends up good
Sign in if you want to comment
Who is the best run club?
Page 2 of 4
posted on 2/2/16
Whilst united top the marketing table that is all that matters to Woodward and indeed the Glazers.
posted on 2/2/16
Youth development is a little hard to judge but I wouldn't have Chelsea bottom.
In terms of developing players, they're pretty good at it but when it comes to giving young players a chance, not so much.
I'm aware Hiddink gave Loftus-Cheek and Bertrand Traore a run out on Sunday but the point still stands.
We should probably be bottom of that particular table, unfortunately.
posted on 2/2/16
Klopp has actually got Liverpool to a Final, so I wouldn't have him below LvG.
posted on 2/2/16
I respect the ops opinion, but that opinion is stupid.
Joking! The only thing I'd change with that is poch doing the best currently
posted on 2/2/16
Spurs and Arsenal by far the best run clubs imo, also the most criticised cos the others generally throw money as a solution which is seen as ambitious. City even though they spent so much have done an amazing job to transform the club and always have an eye on the future. Liverpool... would say they are not really run badly or well, I think the owners have the business knowledge but lacking on the football side. Chelsea never look like they have a plan, but have had enough money to make up for it.. struggling now they are trying to balance the books. United are a shambles gone in the competely opposite direction to what made them the dominant team.
posted on 2/2/16
"I'm looking more at the more established top 6 clubs,"
--
What's the criteria for this obvious misleading comment?
posted on 2/2/16
Average finish position for the past 10 seasons
posted on 2/2/16
Pride is such a cockwomble
posted on 2/2/16
Youth Development
Spurs 6pts
Arsenal 5pts
Man City 4pts
Liverpool 3pts
United 2pts
Chelsea 1pt
=============
I don't understand the reasoning behind this. Arsenal and City above Liverpool? I think Spurs is debatable tbh.
posted on 2/2/16
Argue your point rather than just questioning it, why is Liverpool's youth development the best?
posted on 2/2/16
Robben. (U1145)
posted 11 minutes ago
Average finish position for the past 10 seasons
--
I don't like this random number, 10.
posted on 2/2/16
They think Plug at RB is the second coming of Gary Neville. He's useless ffs
posted on 2/2/16
comment by chiffrement fort (U8613)
posted 14 minutes ago
"I'm looking more at the more established top 6 clubs,"
--
What's the criteria for this obvious misleading comment?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Couldn't be assed to go above 6pts, I started with 1-5
posted on 2/2/16
comment by chiffrement fort (U8613)
posted 8 seconds ago
Robben. (U1145)
posted 11 minutes ago
Average finish position for the past 10 seasons
--
I don't like this random number, 10.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, can you count to 9?
posted on 2/2/16
comment by Oddish (U17162)
posted 24 minutes ago
I respect the ops opinion, but that opinion is stupid.
Joking! The only thing I'd change with that is poch doing the best currently
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did think about that, but City are still fighting on 4 fronts, though I do get Poch has less resources at his disposal
posted on 2/2/16
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 5 minutes ago
Argue your point rather than just questioning it, why is Liverpool's youth development the best?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say it was the best but Arsenal having a great youth system is one of the biggest falaciesin football. Spurs have a young side but how many England players have they produced in the last ten years.
If you look at how many from each club are representing international youth sides Liverpool are right up there.
As such I question the whole article as I'm not sure it's based on much tangible.
Maybe you should complete the article by putting your reasoning.
posted on 2/2/16
is it just local youth or foreign players that come through the academy as well?
posted on 2/2/16
City should be bottom of the Youth Development section for me, they haven't brought anyone through since Joe Hart about eight years ago also, Chelsea are very good at developing young talent if not giving them a firs team chance.
City should also be romping this league with their squad so I wouldn't have Pell at the top of the Best Performing Managers either.
I'd also have Klopp above LvG, he's managing someone else's team, Liverpool at least try to play attacking football, generally, which United don't, they're also in a cup final, which we have never been in the 18 months or so since LvG was our manager.
With the resources available to him and the time he's had LvG is probably (definitely?) the worst performing manager in the league IMO, not just the established top six, but the entire league.
posted on 2/2/16
Joe Hart was 20 when City signed him, wasn't he?
posted on 2/2/16
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 7 minutes ago
is it just local youth or foreign players that come through the academy as well?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Both really. If you're bringing them through from 15/16 or earlier through to professional contracts. We bought Sterling and Ibe at 15 for example but I don't think it's unfair to say we've had a massive impact on their development. Dier? No. Alli? No. Eriksen? No. Walker? No. Tripper and Davies? No.
posted on 2/2/16
Our youth win a lot of competitions at youth level - shame they aren't given a chance.
posted on 2/2/16
comment by ＴＬＬＬ ★ (U4640)
posted 27 seconds ago
Our youth win a lot of competitions at youth level - shame they aren't given a chance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
More recently yes but not as a rule.
posted on 2/2/16
"City should be bottom of the Youth Development section for me, they haven't brought anyone through since Joe Hart about eight years ago also, Chelsea are very good at developing young talent if not giving them a firs team chance."
Depends if you think the best run business are well run because they have one eye on tomorrow. Which surely any well run business would?
posted on 2/2/16
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 9 minutes ago
Joe Hart was 20 when City signed him, wasn't he?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think he was 18 when he signed from Shrewsbury, I think it's fair to say that the goalkeeper we see now has been developed by Manchester City though.
posted on 2/2/16
comment by BruceAndPally (U8201)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 9 minutes ago
Joe Hart was 20 when City signed him, wasn't he?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think he was 18 when he signed from Shrewsbury, I think it's fair to say that the goalkeeper we see now has been developed by Manchester City though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
could say this with any player that ends up good
Page 2 of 4