25 Jun 2015 12:47:33
If the price being branded around for Clyne is correct (£12million) then why on earth did we pay out our backsides for Shaw? There isn't a gap befitting that difference in transfer fee between the two players in my opinion.
25 Jun 2015 12:52:24
shaw is a far better player imo .
clyne is also in the last year of his contract
25 Jun 2015 12:53:36
JMB - Clyne is 24, shaw was 18, so you have to take into consideration some compensation we had to pay. Also the simple fact is we are Manchester United. Clubs know we have money and know that we want their players. They can swindle us until their hearts content.
25 Jun 2015 12:55:36
JMB,
I am pretty sure you know as well as I do that you cannot judge two players against each other when it comes to these things. Age, length of contract, other interested parties, how much the selling club are willing to accept are all variables that are important and there are many others too.
I also don't think the amount being said for Clyne will be correct anyway, Southampton wouldn't accept that, so you are comparing an accepted offer against a rejected offer.
25 Jun 2015 12:56:52
I rate Shaw more highly than Clyne. Also Shaw didn't have a year left on his contract which helps. I'm sure if we offered £15 million we could sign Clyne.
25 Jun 2015 12:57:45
Simple, Shaw had a longer contract, we wanted to buy him, and, most importantly, we were willing to pay that fee. As Ed002 said, no other club would go near the valuation, but we did.
Someday people will have to accept that transfer fees have less to do with the talent of the player, than what the buying club is willing to pay.
25 Jun 2015 13:04:59
Because United negotiations in transfers are not great. This is not a new thing. But as you say, it is ridiculous.
And if clyne is only £12m then why aren't we in for him?
I think the best negotiators in Europe are juve. They seem to be able to pay lower prices for their players. I honestly don't rate Woodward at all and Gill was a big loss to United.
Spoke to someone here who knows lvg very well and they play golf and socialise a lot, and he said that lvg told him 4 weeks ago that he had a list of 4-5 players which was given to Woodward to negotiate. We are still waiting!!
25 Jun 2015 13:21:42
I think its because we desperately needed to bring our team back to her glory days. Southampton didn't want to sell and we needed to pay an outrageous amount they couldn't say no to. Remember Chelsea were also after him. It was a desperate move anyway.
25 Jun 2015 13:23:40
Shaw had 4 years left on his contract where as clyne only has 1
Pretty good signing for liverpool considering the lack of quality right backs available
25 Jun 2015 13:33:05
we would have paid 25m for clyne.
25 Jun 2015 13:34:28
Year left on his contract and has made it clear he won't sign another one.
25 Jun 2015 13:36:21
We paid over the odds for Shaw, about £20m for a very promising young English player would have been right. That said, I do think he is a better player than Clyne and will turn out to be a great LB for us in the coming years, so we won't be bothered about the cost in the end.
25 Jun 2015 13:36:28
Clyne is 5 years older than Luke and also is in the last year of his contract (I believe Shaw has signed a new contract at Southampton not long before we signed him though can't be certain). That pretty much sums up the price difference tbh. Also we probably overpaid for Shaw due to our need and Southampton not needing to sell.
25 Jun 2015 13:39:50
I think most people might disagree, for me shaw was more consistent over the course of the season and is the much better defender, clyne is good but not a good as shaw.
Maybe shaw is worth double and we overpaid a little but for me shaw, wheb fit and has a run games he can become one of the best lbs.
But only time will tell any price is a gamble but I do think when an english player has a good season/seasons thier price goes through the roof
25 Jun 2015 13:53:14
Haha I think everyone has answered your question there JMB!
25 Jun 2015 14:17:30
Indeed Redrosie. I didn't realise he was in his last year of contract but still I don't think there is much between him and Shaw at the moment. I, like everyone else, have high hopes for Shaw but I believe he was very poor last season.
Just on Clyne, I have been an avid advocate in my belief that Coleman would be the ideal RB but at the price being branded Clyne could most definitely be screwed business for Liverpool. Time will tell I suppose.
25 Jun 2015 14:53:51
he needs a run of games he's only 19, but i feel we should give rafeal another season, he is a good defender when fit.
25 Jun 2015 15:16:40
I think shaw is a class above and shouldn't be judged on last season. clyne is not united quality imo, never quite understood the interest from united, but what do I know I'm on the rafael bandwagon.
25 Jun 2015 17:56:55
I think shaw is a different class and apples to oranges boys. Wait until he is healthy and gets a good run of games. Will ned up being one of the best around.
25 Jun 2015 18:14:24
I'm with Jred, Shaw is 3 times the player Clyne is. 😎