I guess it all depends on how you view youth development, and what that means, in my eyes if you are already playing a teams first team, and then you buy them, that is not youth development as such (I guess there could be exceptions to this, as with any rule, such as say Freddy Adu playing for D.C. United at 14 years of age).

Youth development is bringing them through the academy, and under 21's, then playing for the first team, that to me is what I personally view as bringing through a player or players.

Would you view Origi for example in the same way of say Fowler or Owen, when both were playing for Liverpool?

I presume either a CL or premier league trophy is nailed on for our third season, seem to remember him saying something along those lines considering it's not yet happened.? Well as the CL probably won't happen it's going to have to be the premier league instead.

Maybe someone should ask him about this at the next press conference instead of banging on about whether he thinks his job is safe?

I think Sam Wallace is very good, and a lot better than the man he replaced at The Telegraph who thinks up a narrative and then bends the article around that narrative. But signing youngsters who are established first team players for multi millions of pounds, and those figures would be the equivalent of twice as much today, is not an example of a guy who develops youth.

The other examples in the article may well be, but those three are not. This is more a criticism of the slant of the journalism than mourinho and young players

I genuinely don't understand where you are going with this. Three, if not entirely wasted, then certainly barren, joyless years after not appointing Mourinho, you seem in danger of wanting to repeat the mistake for similar reasons that were trotted out before, not least about Mourinho's character/personality and whether he has actually been present at the cutting of umbilical cords of young footballers. United need to start winning things, not little things, but big things, like league titles and European titles. Mourinho is the price worth paying to do that. And if he is just passing through for a couple of years, well that will give plenty of time to search for a replacement and for Giggs or whoever time to acquire some meaningful managerial experience. United should have been challenging for the title this year and nothing Van Gaal or anyone who supports him will change my mind about that.

Time to grasp the nettle and, if necessary, keep the Savlon handy.

Ah so "giving young players a chance" has now been changed to "developing young players"?

Presumably we would now have to drop the current youngsters from the argument as they would already be at the club and playing in the first team when he arrived?

Nothing to add except I couldn't agree more.

I wasn't trying to start an argument... I thought the discussion on here was about developing youngsters who weren't yet first team players. Signing multi million pound young first team players does not negate the argument that someone doesn't promote youngsters or develop them.
I don't care what mourinho does with young players, I was criticising the article as evidence though.

Will step away from this particular point now as I know you don't ever do so.

Yeah this obsession with making sure the next manager has certain characteristics before getting the Job is bonkers.

Fergie behaved like a right arse at times, it was a part of his character that I admired, similiar to Roy Keane.

Utd fans have been referred to as arrogant in the past, we need a manager with bollocks,a decent track record of success and an air of arrogance about him.

A bit of a machiavellian character if you like.

To be fair, even if Mourinho had brought through 11 players all born within a freekick of Stamford Bridge, the argument would then move on to him not being a very nice man or something equally stupid.

It seems some have decided they don't want him here regardless of anything, and nothing will change their minds.

I just wish to say that I am in full agreement with your point of view, buying already established players for millions of pounds, is not developing young players, and is not a plus point in that area for any manager, be it José or anyone else.

I wasn't really aiming it at you particularly however if you are playing 18,19,20 year olds in your team regardless of how they came to be in your team Im not sure how that can suddenly be ignored when the accusation was initially "not giving young players a chance". No matter how good, any player at that age is still very much developing.

If people are looking for "youth school player to first team superstar" style development then there aren't too many examples at the bigger clubs anymore.

Giggs, Fowler, Owen, Rooney.... The only absolute top class ones from schoolboy to first team stars since I started watching football.

Cheers Batdude! That helps my credibility!

Buying a player who has already played for another teams first team, is vastly different to developing a young player already at the club, but is needing that chance to make the breakthrough.

Zouma for example is very different to Rashford for example, both similar ages yes, but before Zouma went to Chelsea he had already played first team football, whereas Rashford prior to this season had not.

If you wish to see Zouma or players in that sort of scenario, as a product of José's development, and a way of showing that he can nurture youth players, then that is up to you or anyone else, but I can only speak for myself, but that is not what I perceive as youth development, or bringing through the young players.

No Scholes, Becks, Gerrard, Lampard, or Ashley Cole?

As off the top of my head those are some more that I would put in there.

I hope that it does!

Yup - All bar Rooney was 20+ years ago and arguably some of those underachieved in later years. Its not the norm for top clubs to be able to bring through players. The onus is on the truly great youngsters to force their way in and I have no problem with that. The fact that it happened to multiple players in 1992 doesn't mean that we have either the ability nor obligation to do it with lesser players now.

I said it doesn't happen any more you quote players from 20 years ago.

None of those.. Gerrard and rio were both making the odd first team appearance at 18 and were touted as future stars but did it come into the league and tear it up and look a level above anything else they were playing with from that age... Lampard and Becks nowhere near that age or level

Admittedly my last point abiut those 4 is a slight tangent. There are of course other young players who have broken into premier league teams in the last 20 years.

Okay more recently Welbeck, Barkley, and to a degree Whilshire.

I guess it all depends on how you view when a player has broken through.

Welbeck was sold on because he wasn't good enough, Barkley is not playing at the very top level he is playing for a club where there is more leeway in terms of expectation and i'm not even going to comment on you mentioning Wilshere.

None of these are the types of player we were talking about

We are getting slightly off topic here, but the point being that players should get the chance to play for the first team is if they are good enough to do so.
A first team manager should have a responsibility to the future of the club to do so.

Just seen that Herrera is apparently out injured. How the **** did Noble get away with that?

Name a time when a manager has refused to play someone good enough to play.

We might as well debate the subject of "should managers try to win?" arguing it is their duty to do so.