One caveat: if Amorim concludes that a talented academy player isn't the right fit for his system, then it's a painful but justified decision to sell. Better for the club and the player. That isn't what has been briefed to journalists.

Brilliant and well written article.

Can’t disagree with any of that RR well put.

I fear you're right RR.

AM I right in thinking that Ornstein mentioned players 'like' Mainoo and Garnacho. The way I was reading that was perhaps an attempt to push Rashford to make a move. I also think each and every player does have a price too. I also think you could read it like the club won't be held to ransom by any player in terms of a new contract. I'm sure we all want to see Mainoo stay at United for years but we can't keep throwing huge contracts at players before they show they deserve it. Not stating he doesn't, of course, but he does still have a lot to learn (although I thought he was right at it on Sunday both technically and in his tenacity).

The point about morale is spot on though. For all the criticism Bruno gets I do get the feeling he 'gets' being a United player and representative. We must never lose the heart and soul of the club.

Also, and perhaps I'm giving them too much credit, but maybe they're putting this out there so that other clubs don't see us as a cash cow and that we won't pay over the odds for players. It's better than the "we can do things other clubs can't dream of" attitude I think. Well, at present anyway. Hopefully, in a few years we can be seen as the big fish again.

Diafol, you're right that they didn't say "we will consider selling Mainoo and Garnacho" but those two players were specified in both the Athletic and the Guardian reports, so I don't think it's entirely incidental that they were the names that came to mind when exemplifying an abstract point.

I wonder what message it sends to them, hearing that they are seen as expendable assets by the club in a something that was apparently proactively briefed. And what's the effect on staff morale at the academy, which has had a much praised ethos of developing players with great emphasis on pastoral care, pathways to good careers at whatever level they end up on, as well as the romanticism of trying to polish future United stars in the tradition of the Busby Babes and class of 92. To me, the key message of this briefing is: we intend to be more like Chelsea in the future - youngsters are assets to be cashed in on.

Don't know how this whole Ineos era will end but so far, so bad. Don't like them anymore than the Glazers. Better in some respects, but way worse in others.

If Rashy, Mainoo and Garnacho were all gone within the year that be crazy though... even for these lot.

comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 2 minutes ago
Also, and perhaps I'm giving them too much credit, but maybe they're putting this out there so that other clubs don't see us as a cash cow and that we won't pay over the odds for players. It's better than the "we can do things other clubs can't dream of" attitude I think. Well, at present anyway. Hopefully, in a few years we can be seen as the big fish again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There are lots of ways of telling the world "we're skint" without sending out these other messages.

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 24 minutes ago
One caveat: if Amorim concludes that a talented academy player isn't the right fit for his system, then it's a painful but justified decision to sell. Better for the club and the player. That isn't what has been briefed to journalists.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re not exactly brimming over with talented players are you? So why get rid of the few you have? If its down to Anorim he’d better be right.

comment by Onana_banana_fi_fa_fofana (U20611)
posted 1 minute ago
Don't know how this whole Ineos era will end but so far, so bad. Don't like them anymore than the Glazers. Better in some respects, but way worse in others.

If Rashy, Mainoo and Garnacho were all gone within the year that be crazy though... even for these lot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it's useful to look at each element in isolation.

- Principle of prioritising sporting achievement: good
- Principle of bringing in proven talent to oversee that: good
- Principle of clear structure and accountability: good
- Arrogant top-down cuts and price rises: damaging
- Ethos of ruthless pursuit of success massively undercut by incompetent missteps over ETH and Ashworth
- Apart from those missteps, having Berrada, Wilcox, Vivell running things gives me more confidence than the operation overseen by Arnold and Murtough, and most of us are very encouraged by the appointment of Amorim.
- As per this thread, grave concerns over the disregard for curating a culture of community at the club, with the academy at the centre.

We need to be pushing the Manchester United card more. Who would clubs rather buy, Manchester United youngsters or a Cardiff City youngster? Even if it's the same player?

Let's raid orphanages and pick out some mildly fit kids (no, Peks), stick them in our academy with some cheap accommodation and then market them as Manchester United youth products.

I assume taking children from orphanages is free so it's 100% pure profit. Interested clubs wouldn't even read the label. Man Utd youth product for only 500,000 pounds. That's a bargain and a risk they are willing to take.

We can do the same with current professional players. Buy up a Championship level midfielder for cheap cos he isn't worth much, then immediately his value will have increased ten fold because he will be a MANCHESTER UNITED MIDFIELDER. So we just sell him in the next window for a big profit.

It's bulletproof.

Not certain you can fault ineos on this one. You're in a situation where a gamble one way or another will need to be made, unless you can somehow shift the deadwood. Do you pray that the homegrown talent will go on to become world class to lift the team upwards, or do you cash in to make new signings to improve the team?

Chelsea have had to do it and got a lot of stick for it too. Newcastle had to do it with Elliott Anderson and Minteh. Both are fighting for Trophies and CL contention.

Kill the golden goose that laid the egg, and milk the support and staff for more cash to pay for business incompetence then our support will soon start staying away

comment by Kamikaze Blue (U7450)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 24 minutes ago
One caveat: if Amorim concludes that a talented academy player isn't the right fit for his system, then it's a painful but justified decision to sell. Better for the club and the player. That isn't what has been briefed to journalists.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re not exactly brimming over with talented players are you? So why get rid of the few you have? If its down to Anorim he’d better be right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I can see a world in which Garnacho isn't the right profile for 3-4-3 and a monster bid comes in for him that enables us to rebalance the squad with players who fit better. But no, I don't think Amorim is driving this story or looking to get rid.

An additional concern I have is that Amorim has the world at his feet and could easily decide to jump ship to a club where he has more support and a happier culture. He is also probably smart enough to know that his stock won't remain high forever if he is anchored to a dysfunctional club.

I could see Garnacho going but not Mainoo.

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 9 minutes ago
Diafol, you're right that they didn't say "we will consider selling Mainoo and Garnacho" but those two players were specified in both the Athletic and the Guardian reports, so I don't think it's entirely incidental that they were the names that came to mind when exemplifying an abstract point.

I wonder what message it sends to them, hearing that they are seen as expendable assets by the club in a something that was apparently proactively briefed. And what's the effect on staff morale at the academy, which has had a much praised ethos of developing players with great emphasis on pastoral care, pathways to good careers at whatever level they end up on, as well as the romanticism of trying to polish future United stars in the tradition of the Busby Babes and class of 92. To me, the key message of this briefing is: we intend to be more like Chelsea in the future - youngsters are assets to be cashed in on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're correct then that's a shame. Maybe I'm being naive but I'm kind of hoping the conversation has happened and that someone has asked "What, even Mainoo and Garnacho?" and someone has replied "Yes" and then the story has run. Even Ornstein, who I think is really good, doesn't, for me, have anything concrete to go on (https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6044696/2025/01/07/manchester-united-mainoo-garnacho-transfer-chelsea/) although we all know whispers happen and for a reason a lot of the time. Both these players have another three years potentially on their contracts anyway so I'm not going to panic too much at this stage. Maybe the time for that will be after the Summer window closes!

comment by Calafiori knows how to Partey (U21076)
posted 2 minutes ago
Not certain you can fault ineos on this one. You're in a situation where a gamble one way or another will need to be made, unless you can somehow shift the deadwood. Do you pray that the homegrown talent will go on to become world class to lift the team upwards, or do you cash in to make new signings to improve the team?

Chelsea have had to do it and got a lot of stick for it too. Newcastle had to do it with Elliott Anderson and Minteh. Both are fighting for Trophies and CL contention.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ultimately you have to make judgement calls: is the existing player the right fit for the club going forward? The same question (and associated risk of getting it wrong) applies to the external player. As I said in my comment below the article, it's OK to sell players who we don't think are right for the future needs of the team. It's better for the player too if they go to a club where they can maximise their potential.

As I see it, the briefing by the club is signalling something else: that financial logic (rather than sporting calculations) could lead to the sale of our top youth talent. Yeah, Chelsea have done that. Chelsea have always done that. It's not part of the soul of their club, in the Abramovich and post-Abramovich era, to see the academy as the lifeblood of the club. If you bring that ethos to United, it breaks something that has been important to us for a long as we can remember.

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 2 minutes ago
Also, and perhaps I'm giving them too much credit, but maybe they're putting this out there so that other clubs don't see us as a cash cow and that we won't pay over the odds for players. It's better than the "we can do things other clubs can't dream of" attitude I think. Well, at present anyway. Hopefully, in a few years we can be seen as the big fish again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There are lots of ways of telling the world "we're skint" without sending out these other messages.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There's a difference between skint and having to be PSR compliant. Without PSR United (and others) would be wading into the market with far more freedom willing to speculate they can pay it off with success down the line. PSR doesnt really allow for grand scale speculation

Diafol, as I say, I don't read this as the club signalling they are actively looking to sell those specific players, though I'm sure the reports are playing on their minds today.

These are bloody stupid rules though in terms of it being more financially beneficial to sell academy players.

Dare I say it in a world where this didn't need to happen we would not have sold McT and he would have actually played quite a bit for us under Amorim!

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 15 seconds ago

There are lots of ways of telling the world "we're skint" without sending out these other messages.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There's a difference between skint and having to be PSR compliant. Without PSR United (and others) would be wading into the market with far more freedom willing to speculate they can pay it off with success down the line. PSR doesnt really allow for grand scale speculation
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It was a glib way of making the point, but I was answering Diafol's suggestion that the motivation could have been to signal to the market that we aren't in a position to spend a lot of money.

I agree with the general sentiment of the OP. But I am always cynical of reports of who we will and won't sell, even from so-called reliable sources.

We are a club that has always been surrounded by media speculation, the vast majority of which is either unfounded or exaggerated to the extreme. During SAF's reign, there were still issues around him, Keane, Scholes, Wazza at various times, probably blown out of proportion at the time.

We were all probably a little bit naive in terms of what we thought would happen when Ineos came in - ultimately we are a business and hard decisions have to be made. A lot of things could have been dealt with better, and as mentioned in particular the ETH fiasco over the summer and the various staff cuts etc.

I am not sure if Ineos are trying to show they can be ruthless, maybe they have misread some situations, but let's just say their approach and PR needs improvement.

But even with their experienced team, being a major part of a club like Utd is probably something they are not used to either, but they need to learn quickly, and hopefully appointing Amorim is a sign of that.

I would like to think that the final decision to who we sell is with Amorim, barring any crazy offers we receive. I have never known a contract situation to be resolved quickly, but unless Amorim really doesn't fancy them, I would be shocked if Mainoo or Garnacho were sold.

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 59 seconds ago
Diafol, as I say, I don't read this as the club signalling they are actively looking to sell those specific players, though I'm sure the reports are playing on their minds today.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair. Perhaps I'm giving the club too much credit and the benefit of the doubt!

comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 JA... (U2462)
posted 57 seconds ago
These are bloody stupid rules though in terms of it being more financially beneficial to sell academy players.

Dare I say it in a world where this didn't need to happen we would not have sold McT and he would have actually played quite a bit for us under Amorim!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not a given, but I do wonder if McT would have been persuaded to stay if Amorim had been in from the start of the season - the type of player that I could see being improved under Amorim