Manchester United Transfer News: United Won't Loan Nick Powell Back to Crewe
Manchester United's latest transfer rumor, Nick Powell, will not be loaned back to his former club next season by the Red Devils once a deal has been finalized by the two clubs.
Powell was touted as one of the hottest youth prospects in England after his stellar season with Crewe Alexandra and was chased by several high-profile English Premier League clubs once the summer transfer window opened.
Once Manchester United appeared to have landed the teenage sensation, a move back to bis former club on loan was suggested, but recent reports have flatly denied such a process would take place.
According to both Mirror Football and Daily Mail, Crewe boss Steve Davis has ruled out the possibility of the striker returning on loan from Old Trafford.
One thing I can confirm is that he [Powell] won't be coming back here on loan. That wouldn't be part of it because we want to bring in a replacement of our own and give our own players, such as [England under-18 international] Max Clayton, a chance...
Powell was named Player of the Season for Crewe last year and represents another excellent youth signing for Sir Alex Ferguson. who continues his reputation of signing the best youth talent available.
With one of the strongest youth-development programs in the world, Powell would no doubt thrive at Old Trafford as a Red Devil and is certainly a player to look out for in the years ahead.
The Daily Mail also revealed that a £4 million deal had been done between United and Crewe, with £2 million to be paid up front and the remainder once personal details had been finalized.
Powell netted 16 goals in 45 appearances for Crewe last season, including this fantastic strike in Crewe's 2-0 win over Cheltenham in the nPower League Two Playoff game at Wembley.
Do you think Nick Powell is a good signing for United?
Comment below or hit me up on Twitter — Follow @dantalintyre
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?