Jadon Sancho

[decmancity]

I agree this could send a dangerous message to our Academy players - once you hit 17/18, refuse all contract talks and transfer to a club which guarantees you a huge boost in salary and playing time from the off, then if you perform, simply get City to buy you back as a first team player.

There would be no point whatsoever in any promising Academy player staying at City and fighting for their chance to play, as Foden and Garcia (so far) are doing - which could end up costing the club a fortune in the long run.

Tempting though he may be, I'm not sure this transfer would be worth it.

He'd be our Pogba, for better or worse!

Not at all, we have only bought one player back in the last 10 years that I can think of and he is about to be sold again (Angelino).

Sancho isn't going to set any sort of precedent for the future, footballers are in a different world to us.

 

[Nicholas van Whatsisface]

Not at all, we have only bought one player back in the last 10 years that I can think of and he is about to be sold again (Angelino).

Sancho isn't going to set any sort of precedent for the future, footballers are in a different world to us.

Angelino has got nothing to do with the precedent being set.

There is a fundamental difference between a club sanctioned sale with an easily affordable buy back clause - designed to further a player's development and give them greater opportunities than they would have by staying at City for another season, with a view to coming back if all goes to plan - and refusing to sign your first professional contract when the club has made a very reasonable offer to you, forcing our hands to sell at a reduced price and with any return likely costing us somewhere in the region of £90million.

Why would the next Foden decide to play ball when we've so clearly demonstrated there was no need for them to do so?

And to your point on being in a different world - Sancho has taken by far the most lucrative route to first team football by getting a transfer - if we were to buy him back, we'd end up paying him a lot more than we would have done if he'd followed Foden's example.

If we do this deal, it essentially says to any promising kids in the academy it's fine to take the piss - we don't mind. We'll welcome you back if you do so!

 

[BillyShears]

People overthink these things way too much. The club don't really care about how they 'look' when it comes to academy players (including Sancho). It's almost impossible we'll bring him back because in the end we'll consider other players to be better value in terms of wages/transfer fee. Nothing more and nothing less.

There's always this tendency to talk about how much of a failure it is to bring youth through or consider it a failure if players move on and succeed elsewhere. But that simply ignores the realities of our cut throat highly competitive first team squad.

A have always known since we put all this money into the academy that we'd end up selling FAR more players than we ever promoted, and that's exactly the way it should be. City are built to win today - not develop for tomorrow.

 

[daztrueblue91]

I think re-signing Sancho for a huge sum would be a very, very bad move from PR POV. Would clearly show academy players they can use City's facilities and coaching, then leave without any repercussions in the future. 'If you're good enough, rich City are going to pay and buy you anyway' - the agents will say.

No, you should either fight for your place in the team or leave. No second chance.

How can someone fight for their place when they are not guaranteed a chance, yet alone regular minutes?

At the moment we have three academy graduates who summarise the system we have in place:

1. Foden - a bench player who makes the occasional start is yet to receive a full international cap

2. Angelino - had multiple successful loans and was brought back to the club. Not given much of a chance and is now out on loan again.

3. Sancho - Didn’t want to follow the path of Foden or Angelino and wanted to choose his own path. Is now an England regular and one of the most highly regarded youngsters in the world.

There is a strong case to be made that Sancho made the best decision for his career by leaving. For every Sancho there is also a Patrick Roberts or Alex Garcia who have not progressed at all.

All teams will be looking for the next Sancho and this can only benefit our academy. The trick is to negotiate better sell on/buy back clauses.

 

[decmancity]

Angelino has got nothing to do with the precedent being set.

There is a fundamental difference between a club sanctioned sale with an easily affordable buy back clause - designed to further a player's development and give them greater opportunities than they would have by staying at City for another season, with a view to coming back if all goes to plan - and refusing to sign your first professional contract when the club has made a very reasonable offer to you, forcing our hands to sell at a reduced price and with any return likely costing us somewhere in the region of £90million.

Why would the next Foden decide to play ball when we've so clearly demonstrated there was no need for them to do so?

And to your point on being in a different world - Sancho has taken by far the most lucrative route to first team football by getting a transfer - if we were to buy him back, we'd end up paying him a lot more than we would have done if he'd followed Foden's example.

If we do this deal, it essentially says to any promising kids in the academy it's fine to take the piss - we don't mind. We'll welcome you back if you do so!

Selling Sancho was club sanctioned and I think everyone knew he would develop hence why we have first option and sell on clauses. The next Foden might not play ball but they can't look at Sancho as the blueprint of what to do. Sancho is a one in a million, a player who leaves a club as big as City and goes onto post great stats at a top team. For every Sancho there is an Ademola Lookman.

What is wrong with us buying Sancho back, if it happens he has proven he is good enough. Never in a million years would he be doing for us what he has for Dortmund in the past 3 seasons.

 

[Otamendi's Beard]

What's the clause we have on him? Is it just the option to match an accepted offer?

 

[Nicholas van Whatsisface]

Selling Sancho was club sanctioned and I think everyone knew he would develop hence why we have first option and sell on clauses. The next Foden might not play ball but they can't look at Sancho as the blueprint of what to do. Sancho is a one in a million, a player who leaves a club as big as City and goes onto post great stats at a top team. For every Sancho there is an Ademola Lookman.

What is wrong with us buying Sancho back, if it happens he has proven he is good enough. Never in a million years would he be doing for us what he has for Dortmund in the past 3 seasons.

Yeah - sanctioned was a poor choice of word, granted. Of course Sancho's sale was club sanctioned - otherwise he wouldn't have been able to leave when he did. This is about intention though - and it was not the Club's intention for Sancho to leave when he did. Also - as far as I'm aware, we don't have first option on Sancho at all - we have a sell on, which means he'd cost us less than anyone else, but no first option.

Angelino was very different - the club and the player decided together it would be best for him to leave on a permanent deal to build on his promising loan experience with NAC, and structured to sale to allow for his easy return through a buyback at a low price, providing he continued to develop as intended.

Sancho refused to sign his first professional contract despite the Club's best efforts, and a very reasonable offer on the table, to further his career elsewhere. It was absolutely the right decision for him, as has been proven - but a shit one for the Club, which we shouldn't be rewarding.

Players will leave because they back themselves - even shit ones - as they often have out of control egos, actively inflated by their agents. I still remember Abdul Razak making a big show of deciding to leave City as he wasn't getting the opportunities his talent deserved - joining the brief Anzhi youth revolution to show us what we were missing. A cursory glance at his Wikipedia shows he's probably found his level at Swedish 'giants' IK Sirius. Players will back themselves, even when they're shite.

The point is, by bringing Sancho back, we are essentially validating this approach to our Academy talent - signposting to them that it's a perfectly acceptable route into the first team, on way more money than those who stay and show patience, and one which the Club is happy to support. That sets a dangerous precedent - in my opinion.

But I don't intend to clog the thread up with going back and forth on this any longer, so why don't we agree to disagree.

 

[skiddypants]

No thanks, but if Dortmund want to use city name to increase his price to the rags then I'm happy

 

[mike1923]

What's the clause we have on him? Is it just the option to match an accepted offer?

just a 15% sell on clause I think, so effectively a 15% discount if we buy him

 

[cjn]

People overthink these things way too much. The club don't really care about how they 'look' when it comes to academy players (including Sancho). It's almost impossible we'll bring him back because in the end we'll consider other players to be better value in terms of wages/transfer fee. Nothing more and nothing less.

There's always this tendency to talk about how much of a failure it is to bring youth through or consider it a failure if players move on and succeed elsewhere. But that simply ignores the realities of our cut throat highly competitive first team squad.

A have always known since we put all this money into the academy that we'd end up selling FAR more players than we ever promoted, and that's exactly the way it should be. City are built to win today - not develop for tomorrow.

I mostly agree on Sancho, and the youth philosophy in general, but I'd argue that the real failing isn't necessarily that we haven't brought through X amount of players, it's that we've tried with so few and have so little credibility in the bank that the most talented guys don't see a real path forward when we tell them that they need to be patient and trust us. Obviously the vast, vast majority won't be good enough, but if we had a 16 year old Kylian Mbappe in our youth system right now, would he be playing for City in two years or for Dortmund? Hard to say. Whatever hit we take in terms of short term competitiveness thats the problem we need to solve.