Comments on: Real Madrid and Man Utd: A Tale of Two Transfer Policies

By: forte

forte — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 12:27:52 +0000

I seem to remember during last summers Ronaldo hype, that Fergie said about the Glazers “They know that success on the pitch is worth more than the money in the bank.” along the lines of saying that he had personally convinced them that it was better to keep Ronaldo than sell him. With this new transfer policy looks like a bit of a big turn around for fergie.

By: Corbin

Corbin — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:09:39 +0000

the real reason behind united’s transfer policy is their mounting debt and an attempt to cut costs…

http://unprofessionalfoul.com/2009/06/cristiano-ronaldo-and-why-jon-gruden.html

By: MattyDub

MattyDub — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:46:31 +0000

I don’t see why a team like United should ever be bothered with resale value. If they bought Ribery for £50million and went on to win the treble – surely the financial gain and trophies would far outway selling him on for short change…

By: martin

martin — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:03:57 +0000

Ryan I think most people know that’s Arsenal’s policy. It doesn’t necessarily make United a feeder club, that depends on what they do with the players. Not buying old players doesn’t have to mean buying young players in order to make a profit on them (Arsenal). I think this is just a response to the ridiculous price put on Ribery.

By: RyanJ

RyanJ — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:17:14 +0000

Oh, and technically this policy makes Man U a feeder club. That’s not a good reputation for United but it is good business.

By: RyanJ

RyanJ — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:05:54 +0000

Both approaches are risky because in Man U case u never quite know how a player will develop. Even if a player appear promising while young things can definitely change, two prime examples being Drenthe and Ricardo Quaresma. However, in Real’s case they bought two dominant players with very different styles of play who aren’t accustomed to playing second fiddle to anyone. I would rather go for Man U’s approach. At least if a player flops there won’t be a huge financial loss if any, if they develop into world class like Ronaldo u either keep or sell the player for an astronomical sum. Very few people realize that Arsenal have emplyed this policy for the last 10 or so years now. In addition, u don’t need a world class team to be succesful, one world class player supported by 10 good players with chemistry is enough. It will be interesting to see what happens next season.

By: Daryl

Daryl — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:35:37 +0000

Just to be double-clear, the Man Utd policy only applies to big money signings, like Berbatove for example.

They still would have signed Cantona, as he only cost £1.2m and they’ll still probably pay a few million here and there for players aged 26 and up. They just won’t be spending say £30m on a 27 year old.

By: chris

chris — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:24:19 +0000

That sound you hear is Michel Platini clamoring to impose a ban on the transfer of youth players.

By: SP

SP — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:26:28 +0000

well it seems as if united have learned from their last two major transfers: berbatov has only been depreciated in price since signing at the age of 27 and ronaldo fetched 65 million pounds in profit

By: martin

martin — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:05:55 +0000

Under this policy, United wouldn’t have signed Cantona…