The mancityfans.net football forum

dazby wrote:Wow. Great business if true.

I think we probably subsidised his wages whilst he was there and this is a bit of a clawback for our books.

Must have been in the terms of the loan. Not a bad sweetner

nottsblue wrote:Must have been in the terms of the loan. Not a bad sweetner

It was. If he signed for Everton after he became free agent we got the 2.5m, for any one else he was free. It seems his other offer was West Ham who offered better wages, but not surprisingly he preferred Everton (Sunday People).

Not a bad piece of business for United with Shaw. Herrera I don't know much about other than what I've seen in the world cup. Anyone care to fill in?

Cocacolajojo wrote:Not a bad piece of business for United with Shaw. Herrera I don't know much about other than what I've seen in the world cup. Anyone care to fill in?

Over 30 million not a bad bit of business? I'm just wondering how much a fullback goes for these days, can't remember any at that price nevermind a relatively untested one.

Who were they bidding against is what I'd like to know.

Cocacolajojo wrote:Not a bad piece of business for United with Shaw. Herrera I don't know much about other than what I've seen in the world cup. Anyone care to fill in?

The Herrera playing at the WC is a Mexican guy while the rags singed a Spaniard who I think doesn't have a cap.

Clowncrete wrote:

Cocacolajojo wrote:Not a bad piece of business for United with Shaw. Herrera I don't know much about other than what I've seen in the world cup. Anyone care to fill in?

The Herrera playing at the WC is a Mexican guy while the rags singed a Spaniard who I think doesn't have a cap.

Any chance they've made a mistake and bought the 'wrong' player, so to speak ??

Herrera, De Marcos and Munain are, well, were, the players that brought Bilbao to UCL this season. If all of you remember Julen Guerrero, this guys is the same. Very creative, very calm with the ball, basically, a great kid, imho, a good transfer for them.

However,

He is a basque player and basque players are very different from actual spanish ones. As you can see, there are a thew players that leave San Sebastian or Bilbao to go to Barcelona or Madrid. When Llorente left Bilbao, he took almost one year to settle at Juve and this fell had experience with the national team of Spain, while Herrera had almost none contact with teams outside their area.

This transfer has only two roads, he is either a future top class for them, or the new Kleberson.

Over 30 million not a bad bit of business? I'm just wondering how much a fullback goes for these days, can't remember any at that price nevermind a relatively untested one.

Who were they bidding against is what I'd like to know.

Homegrown left back, very young. With the new rules about homegrown players coming into play I'm surprised they got him this cheap. I doubt his salary is that high and he's an English left back that might provide good service for a decade to come. Had they waited they might've had to pay more than this and up the salary as well. I do find it odd to discuss accounting when discussing football, a good player is a good player regardless of what you pay for him. IMO. I'd be interested to know what you think the market value is for a home grown left back, a young one at that.

Any chance they've made a mistake and bought the 'wrong' player, so to speak ??

This one perhaps?

Yes, there are thre Herreras in teh world, I'm as surprised as you are.

Also, he played football in the world cup of 94.

Cocacolajojo wrote:

Over 30 million not a bad bit of business? I'm just wondering how much a fullback goes for these days, can't remember any at that price nevermind a relatively untested one.

Who were they bidding against is what I'd like to know.

Homegrown left back, very young. With the new rules about homegrown players coming into play I'm surprised they got him this cheap. I doubt his salary is that high and he's an English left back that might provide good service for a decade to come. Had they waited they might've had to pay more than this and up the salary as well. I do find it odd to discuss accounting when discussing football, a good player is a good player regardless of what you pay for him. IMO. I'd be interested to know what you think the market value is for a home grown left back, a young one at that.

He's had about 10 good games. He's gone for more than £30 million and he's on £160 thousand per week. Hardly good business. What are these new rules that are coming in?

He's had about 10 good games. He's gone for more than £30 million and he's on £160 thousand per week. Hardly good business. What are these new rules that are coming in?

What would good business be then?

Homegrown rules mate, sorry if unclear about that.

Cocacolajojo wrote:

He's had about 10 good games. He's gone for more than £30 million and he's on £160 thousand per week. Hardly good business. What are these new rules that are coming in?

What would good business be then?

Homegrown rules mate, sorry if unclear about that.

What new homegrown rules?

Have I just dreamt that there are stricter regulation that requires more homegrown players in the premier league coming up? Boring dream if that's the case.

Have I just dreamt that there are stricter regulation that requires more homegrown players in the premier league coming up? Boring dream if that's the case.

Cocacolajojo wrote:Have I just dreamt that there are stricter regulation that requires more homegrown players in the premier league coming up? Boring dream if that's the case.

I think you have mate. Gordon Taylor mentioned that he'd like to see 3 English players in every 1st team which sparked a little debate elsewhere as it may fall inline with the thought that the old guard might by picking up the best English talent prior to changing the rules to suit themselves.

This is just one of those same old stories where the old guard snaffle up the talent from a team that has proved to work, leaving it dessimated to the point where there could be a chance of them struggling the season after. That's obviously the Saints choice but it does highlight the fact that although we now have rules in place to stop heavy spending and discouraging debt to enhance your team, it seems to be OK for certain clubs to do it.

Shaw looks a decent prospect and could go on to be as good, if not better, than Ashley Cole but at this moment in time he is just that, a prospect. Unless they're going to turn him into the new Bale or Tranny then I cannot see how an 18 year old lad who has one decent season in him is worth that sort of money.

Shaw looks as if he could develop into a nice solid defender, who is, quick, decent on the ball & has a good cross etc on him. He hasn't so far shown the same kind of attacking flair & ability Bale showed though, not at any level.

Bale was always a clever fucker with the ball, too clever most of the time, but he was the worst fullback in the world, ever. He necame a match winning attacker. Shaw looks like a fullback. For 30 mil.

We have lads at City who are potentially as good or better than Shaw imo. Note: 'potentially'. They have to keep getting better & reproduce it one day in the Prem or they are nothing. But the ability is there & I would suggest there is more 'Bale' in Angelino than in Luke Shaw.

I think you have mate. Gordon Taylor mentioned that he'd like to see 3 English players in every 1st team which sparked a little debate elsewhere as it may fall inline with the thought that the old guard might by picking up the best English talent prior to changing the rules to suit themselves.

Well ok, if there aren't new rules coming into effect then I'm way off in my initial assessment. I think it could turn out well for United with this signing anyway, but it's a hefty price they've paid. Or rather, it would be hefty for us but somehow I've got a feeling it won't cause as much potential bother as it would for us.