Arsenal can f**k off. We've done them a favour by selling them Cech, we're certainly not becoming their feeder club, unless they've got 100m sitting about to pay for him. Let's remember who the top dogs are in London!

My fear is he's going to be our version of Pogba. He's extremely talented but also highly ambitious and driven, and I don't think he's going to tolerate not being given a chance for much longer. Him not making the pre-season tour suggests he has no shot at making our first team squad this season, so my hope is we loan him to Monaco or Marseille - Champions League teams that are open to playing youth - as we were rumoured to, and he proves himself by cementing a place in the first 11 there. This would then, hopefully, give us no choice but to give him a chance next season.

 

Anyone know how much longer his contract lasts?

My fear is he's going to be our version of Pogba. He's extremely talented but also highly ambitious and driven, and I don't think he's going to tolerate not being given a chance for much longer. Him not making the pre-season tour suggests he has no shot at making our first team squad this season, so my hope is we loan him to Monaco or Marseille - Champions League teams that are open to playing youth - as we were rumoured to, and he proves himself by cementing a place in the first 11 there. This would then, hopefully, give us no choice but to give him a chance next season.

 

Anyone know how much longer his contract lasts?

 

Until 2019.

 

A Vitesse loan could suit him...

Don't rate him very highly.

Quelle surprise......

There are plenty of youngsters I do rate, and who I have over the years thought should get opportunities here. So quite what you're attempting to get at, I have no idea. 

never heard of him

Don't rate him very highly.

 

Why the hell not?.

I agree with your point; you would think once top clubs start sniffing around our youth players we would stick them in the first team squad and be patient.

Instead of spending £15-£20m on "experienced" bench players, just stick Musonda on the bench. Personally I felt whoever we are bought going forward will be 1st team starters but players we have been linked to say different.

I heartily agree. Multiple times last season and before young players could have been blooded and instead we bring on Mikel, Remy or Cuadrado.

That does illustrate the difference between us and a club like Arsenal. Wenger is under a lot less pressure to win every season and their squad shows. They dont buy many players to sit the bench, instead they use youngsters.

Replace Cuadrado, Luis and Remy with Kalas, Bamford and Piazon and how different would it have been? Not to mention we may have been able to keep the likes of Lukaku and Bertrand to rotate.

Why the hell not?.

 

Every time I've watched him he just strikes me as another Kakuta-type player. Someone who looks good against other youngsters, but I think will massively struggle to take the next step up.

Having a great game atm on SKY 414 BTSport EuroHD, against Liverpool.

Watching him make these driving runs through the Liverpool midfield, the polar opposite of watching William and his stop/start stutter.

He set up the winner in the last minute.

Been in the papers a bit the past few days, I will be fuming if he leaves us on a permanent deal.

Why? It's unlikely he will get a chance here anyway. Best to sell him for the sake of his development and buy him back if he reaches the level that's expected of him.

I think he's decent but I would say that Boga is the better of the two.

Why? It's unlikely he will get a chance here anyway. Best to sell him for the sake of his development and buy him back if he reaches the level that's expected of him.

Thats a silly way for a club to operate

Thats a silly way for a club to operate

Not at all. Barcelona and Madrid have done it very successfully over the years, City are now trying to do the same thing. 

 

Not to mention that this is what we did with Matic and it turned out well for us in the end whereas every other youth at that time stalled.

Edited November 7, 201510 yr by Remodez

Not at all. Barcelona and Madrid have done it very successfully over the years, City are now trying to do the same thing.

Not to mention that this is what we did with Matic and it turned out well for us in the end whereas every other youth at that time stalled.

I dont think any of those clubs regularly sell their young players only to buy them back later. I cant think of anyone they have done that with. Matic cost us a tidy sum and we shouldnt be in the habit of repeating that since unlike 2 of those 3 we cant print money.

I dont think any of those clubs regularly sell their young players only to buy them back later. I cant think of anyone they have done that with. Matic cost us a tidy sum and we shouldnt be in the habit of repeating that since unlike 2 of those 3 we cant print money.

Yes, they do. Quite often. They don't always buy them back because it's hard to reach the required level to start for an elite team like Barca and Madrid though. Off the top of my head without digging deeper though, Barcelona bought back Fabregas and Madrid brought back Carvajal and Casemiro.

 

You can't have your cake and eat it. You can't keep some of the best youths in the world if you can't give them the chances to develop. Either give them chances or sell them with a buy back clause. I would prefer the latter as it would be in the clubs best interests in the long term. 

 

If we find ourselves repeating the habit then it's a very good sign because it means they have developed into some of the best players in the world and can push us to the next level rather than us spending the money on the likes of Salah, etc. 

Yes, they do. Quite often. They don't always buy them back because it's hard to reach the required level to start for an elite team like Barca and Madrid though. Off the top of my head without digging deeper though, Barcelona bought back Fabregas and Madrid brought back Carvajal and Casemiro.

You can't have your cake and eat it. You can't keep some of the best youths in the world if you can't give them the chances to develop. Either give them chances or sell them with a buy back clause. I would prefer the latter as it would be in the clubs best interests in the long term.

If we find ourselves repeating the habit then it's a very good sign because it means they have developed into some of the best players in the world and can push us to the next level rather than us spending the money on the likes of Salah, etc.

Youre dead wrong about those teams, or any, buying back players theyve sold often. Cesc was never sold, Casemiro was never sold by Madrid.

Im not against buy back clauses, KDB would have been a good candidate, but the notion of selling players only to buy them back later for a larger price is outright idiocy. For one its impractical and second its a waste of money.

Whats to stop another club from offering more than our buy back price? We just shouldnt sell players with top tier potential in the first place.

I think we are very much ahead of the game with the loan army we have now. We dont need to sell when we can just keep them at the club for free.

Youre dead wrong about those teams, or any, buying back players theyve sold often. Cesc was never sold, Casemiro was never sold by Madrid.

Im not against buy back clauses, KDB would have been a good candidate, but the notion of selling players only to buy them back later for a larger price is outright idiocy. For one its impractical and second its a waste of money.

Whats to stop another club from offering more than our buy back price? We just shouldnt sell players with top tier potential in the first place.

I think we are very much ahead of the game with the loan army we have now. We dont need to sell when we can just keep them at the club for free.

Cesc wasn't sold? How did he end up going from Barca to Arsenal then? Casemiro was loaned to Porto with a view to sell but Madrid changed their mind and activated the clause to prevent Porto buying him which was around £7m, effectively buying Casemiro back.

 

It's not impractical at all. It's only impractical if you assume every youngster we sell will end up reaching the level to takes to play for us. Using our current loan list as an example, say we sold Kalas for £2m, Piazon for £4m, Omeruo for £5m, Chalobah for £4m, Musonda for £7m and Bamford for £8m. That's £30m from their sale and that's me being conservative on purpose, I'm sure the club could get better deals for a couple of them than that. They all have buy back clauses but only Musonda goes on to reach the level required. Considering he was sold for £7m, it's unlike his clause will be anything larger than £20m unless we had some terrible people in charge of drawing up the contract. The money made from selling those as well as any future youngsters would cover the fee. It would actually makes us more money than the loan fees we currently get from our youngsters.

 

Doesn't matter if other clubs offer more than our buy back price, it's the buy back price. It's fixed. They are contractually obliged to accept. 

 

The loan idea would be perfectly fine if the club provided a way for the players to get into the team afterwards but there isn't such a path so what we end up with is players constantly being loaned, which more times than not, results in their development being stalled. What use is having high potential youngsters at the club if they don't get a chance to develop that potential.

 

Depends on what you consider our game to be. If it's having a vast collection of youth out on loan so we can sell them for a lot then we should really be bringing in more players like KDB, Lukaku, etc. Players who have already racked up a lot of appearances at a young age, making them far more likely to succeed out on loan and double their value. If it's to bring youth players through like the club claims then we aren't ahead of anything.

Edited November 8, 201510 yr by Remodez

Watching the U21s match today against Liverpool, and so far Musonda has been head and shoulders above everyone else in a game involving the likes of RLC, Bertrand Traore, Aina and Jerome Sinclair. He's phenomenal.

Fabregas wasn't sold to arsenal from barca. In spain players can't sign professional contracts until they are 17. Arsenal offered him a contract and ge accepted, there was nothing barca could do at the time. They probably got less than 1m compensation.

I do agree with Remodez to an extent though, but I think musonda is too young for us to do that with. The buy back is only valid for the length of the contract he first signs at his new club.

He may not really excel until he hits 22, and then it could be too late.

Cesc wasn't sold? How did he end up going from Barca to Arsenal then? Casemiro was loaned to Porto with a view to sell but Madrid changed their mind and activated the clause to prevent Porto buying him which was around £7m, effectively buying Casemiro back.

 

It's not impractical at all. It's only impractical if you assume every youngster we sell will end up reaching the level to takes to play for us. Using our current loan list as an example, say we sold Kalas for £2m, Piazon for £4m, Omeruo for £5m, Chalobah for £4m, Musonda for £7m and Bamford for £8m. That's £30m from their sale and that's me being conservative on purpose, I'm sure the club could get better deals for a couple of them than that. They all have buy back clauses but only Musonda goes on to reach the level required. Considering he was sold for £7m, it's unlike his clause will be anything larger than £20m unless we had some terrible people in charge of drawing up the contract. The money made from selling those as well as any future youngsters would cover the fee. It would actually makes us more money than the loan fees we currently get from our youngsters.

 

Doesn't matter if other clubs offer more than our buy back price, it's the buy back price. It's fixed. They are contractually obliged to accept. 

 

The loan idea would be perfectly fine if the club provided a way for the players to get into the team afterwards but there isn't such a path so what we end up with is players constantly being loaned, which more times than not, results in their development being stalled. What use is having high potential youngsters at the club if they don't get a chance to develop that potential.

 

Depends on what you consider our game to be. If it's having a vast collection of youth out on loan so we can sell them for a lot then we should really be bringing in more players like KDB, Lukaku, etc. Players who have already racked up a lot of appearances at a young age, making them far more likely to succeed out on loan and double their value. If it's to bring youth players through like the club claims then we aren't ahead of anything.

 

As stated Cesc chose Arsenal on his own. Casemiro was loaned to Madrid and they then bought him before they loaned him to Porto. Selling young players, waiting for them to develop and buying them back is not a common practice. 

 

If we did this, sure OUR price would be fixed but other clubs could just go over top of us. Once the player is sold, I find it hard to believe any club would allow that players previous club to dictate whether or not that player can be sold again. Using your example, if PSG go in for Musonda at 30m, instead of the 20 we have an option for, why wouldn't the selling club just accept their bid? Whats to stop them from just selling the player before we decide we want him? Say Musonda gets sold, goes on to have a good season and Club X come in to buy him for double what we sold him (being generous). We're helpless unless we want to buy him back at 20m, more than he's worth and we're back at square 1 with a young player who isnt good enough to get into our team but has potential. 

 

I could be wrong but to me it seems the club are in the business of loaning young talented players out. If they do well but don't look like becoming top class they sell them for a profit. If they do poorly they sell them for what they can get. If they do well and look like they have big potential we try to bring them into the team. Sure every once in a while we may misjudge a player and he turns out to be great so we may have to buy him.

 

As a policy though that is ridiculous. I have no issue with including buy back clauses into every contract of every young player we sell.  My issue is why sell all of them in the first place? Selling them and then hoping they turn out great so we can buy them back at a higher price is just stupid. You wouldnt sell a stock, buy it back after it skyrockets and say 'well that s ok, the profits I made off my other investments paid for that'. You'd be gaining zero from that. And that's only assuming one of the 5 or 6 players you've sold develop. What if 2 or 3 develop? You could be looking at a 30m deficit. The reason we sell these lads is to make a profit off them, not to finance the transfer of any that turn out to be great and we need to buy back. It just makes more sense to me to keep them on the books, for free often, and if they develop they can be recalled to the team. If they don't sell them on. Anyone who is going to be good enough for us is going to show that long before the decision comes to sink or swim. Everyone at the club knows Solanke could be our 1st choice striker in 3 years, so why the F would we sell him to buy him back?  

 

Im not going to argue with you that we could be doing better with our youth and young players. Some of the loans we have put them on have been sad. I find hope in the Christensen and Vitesse loans that we're starting to make better choices for our young players.