Jules72 2) “Both Man CIty and Man Utd have also only won the FA Youth Cup once in the last 10 years.”… and rehabs, but City have been runners up many times over the last 10 years, United haven’t
I think it’s more that whichever side comes up against Chelsea first usually just gets knocked out first, whether they’re drawn against them in say a SF or a Final. Albeit I can’t see the timelines for every FA Youth Cup year, but initial glances suggests it’s the main common denominator.
Jules72 City’s first team is far harder to get into than United’s
Rashford, Garnacho and Greenwood are all better talents than any single youth player City have produced in recent years aside from Foden. Of the youth players City have ditched there aren’t really any who would have also got in to Utd’s side apart from perhaps Lavia in future and an ageing Trippier.
Jules72 City’s academy has been way way more profitable… see here:
Considering it doesn’t even show what Utd received, I don’t see how you can conclude that it’s “way way” more from the given article?! Sancho is also counted as the largest sale in that at £16mil, who I wouldn’t even count as a City youth product given he was only there for 2 years. Utd also sold Garner in the summer for an almost £15mil fee after the article was published.
Utd’s problem has more been that it hasn’t cashed in on a number of its academy products for decent fees when it should have - players like Tuanzabe, Williams and Henderson have all received double-digit offers in the time period that article is looking at, but instead Utd held on to them but without even really playing them. The sale of Garner this summer suggested a learning from such previous errors.
Not selling the products at the right time isn’t the same thing as not producing them in the first place.
