You can't simply put a good crop of youngsters coming through down to luck. Credit good scouting and good coaching, all of which comes back to the club having the financial muscle to employ and retain them.

I'd be happy enough for City to give up the Sheikh's billions if it meant a return to the days when the league was relatively open and a team like Forest could come from nowhere to win the title.



I feel rather less guilty about the possibility (if it happens) of City "buying success" in the distorted football world post the introduction of the Premiership and Champions League.

The main point is that our money came from being popular and succesfull for many years even pre-premiership. In 1989 we signed Ince, Webb and Phelan in 1982 we signed Robbo so you can't put our money and success soley down to being lucky. It's about being a big and succesful club for many decades, we didn't have the advantage of a sugar daddy. I think that is the point people are making. LFC have spent a load and haven't progressed any.

No, I don't think it's all down to luck. But how often in one youth team (I know Giggs was a year or two ahead) are there so many good players that can become the backbone of a team? Teams are usually lucky to get one a year that may become competent in the first team, never mind excel.

Rumour that Kuyt to Inter is a possibility

Wish LFC would stop getting rid of Rafas mistakes, they might be half decent soon.

Believe me, I'm all for Dirk going, but getting rid of Aquilani will be stupidly foolish. But, we all know, Roy's an English manager, so industry and defensive ability comes before class and technique.

But on the other hand, how many clubs would have the guts to throw so many young players into the first team all together as Man Utd did in '95? IMO you have to hand it to them that they showed faith in a group of players who complemented each other to carry it over with them, and that must have gone a large way to helping them become that backbone of the team. The understanding they already had became evident reasonably quickly.



Maybe if more clubs brought players through in numbers they'd find it helped the youngsters settle into first team football more easily, rather than them having to get used to everyone and everything being completely new?

There are manor factors that helped contribute towards Man United becoming as powerful as they are that are clearly down to luck. Being in one of the biggest cities in the country with only one other club in the city is one factor beyond your control. While you scouted him out in Ireland, there's clearly a huge amount of luck involved in managing to snag the greatest ever British footballer and reaping the rewards of him being the biggest star when TV become so influential.



You were lucky that Michael Knighton managed to make such a prick of himself when he was buying the club. If he'd acted in a professional manner then he'd have probably completed the purchase. I somehow doubt a Michael Knighton run MU would be the power they are now.



It was probably luck, rather than judgement, that meant that MU held off firing Fergie when there were loud calls for him to do so.



And I think there's a huge slice of luck in being the biggest and most successful side in the country at the dawning of the Sky TV and Champions League era. You've won the league the same amount of times as the scouse filth, but IMO the financial gains from your titles wins will be worth a lot more than Liverpool got for their titles.



IMO Man United would probably be up with the biggest clubs in the country without many of these factors. But I don't think that the present day MU would be as powerful and overwhelmingly strong as they are if many of these factors hadn't occurred.

True, but they've not done it since. In fact only Fletcher has really become a regular first team starter (O'Shea is pretty much first reserve) since that batch came through. Does that mean the coaching has declined, or that they've just not had the players through that have been good enough? IMO, it's the latter.

There are parallels IMO between the youth development at Man Utd and that at Leeds Rhinos.



Both clubs had a large number of talented young players of a similar age coming through at once (for the Utd ones listed earlier read Sinfield, McGuire, Burrow, Diskin, Jones-Buchanan, Bailey etc).



With these players holding down regular first team spots it becomes harder for the generations behind them to make the breakthrough, particularly those who play in the same positions. So those players move on to other clubs, or stick around and play very much a reserve role.



It looks from the outside like the youth development has stalled, whereas what has actually happened is it's still producing players, just not for that club.

Scott Parker in

Mascherano out

It's nice to know we've been lucky since the Newton Heath days. Unlucky that Chelsea have only been lucky since 2003 I guess.

Blame Blackburn for the ridiculous fees clubs pay now, there signing of Alan Shearer was a ridiculous amount of money.

Hmm, have to disagree there. They paid £3.3million for him in the summer of 1992. IIRC he was their top goal scorer for the next four seasons, played a major part in them winning the Premiership, then they sold him in 1996 (a mere four years after buying him), for £15million, a profit of £11,700,000. If that's not a good bit of business then I don't know what is.

3.3 million was a stupid amount of money at the time, and opened the floodgates for inflated prices.

Yeah but you could have used a better example.

Like I said when you look at the figures it proved to be a superb piece of business surely. Just 3 years after Blackburn signed Shearer, Liverpool were paying £8.5million for Collymore, absolutely no way was Collymore more then twice as good as Shearer.



Newcastle paying £20million for Owen then him leaving to join Man U on a free four years later - now that's bad business!

They got him for a inflated price, then sold him for a inflated price, its all there fault the mess clubs are now in lol

He wasn't even the record transfer at the time. We'd got £3.2m for Rush in 87, Platt and Gascoigne had been sold for £5.5m.



Inflated prices were being received for players already. Blackburn being blamed for buying the title was just an excuse by the big clubs who were being overtaken by a small club.

Twas a british record buy though.

No they haven't really done it in such numbers since, but as Andy Gilder points out, they've had no need to and the previous nucleus is still there keeping them out. Perhaps when the now 'old guard' all call it a day, it could happen then. The likes of Gibson, Cleverley, and Evans Jr could be the spearheads of another batch.

Yup. I think the silly money deal though was when they paid more for Chris Sutton. Or the fact that they paid at all for Stuart Ripley.

Weve had some corkers in the expensive flop department over the years.



Marcelino, 6.9m in 1999.

Albert Luque, 14.0m in 2005. He way have done alright for us had he been given a fair run in the side.

Jean-Alain Boumsong, 8.0m in 2005. Please, let me forget how bad he was...



and the beat goes on...

I wonder how much stick Benitez would have got for "squad rotation" if he'd left out Gerrard and only used Torres for 45 minutes if he'd been the manager for last night?

None. IMO.



He'd have got stick for it if he'd done it and they lost. But so would Hodgson.