It's all about the money. 8.5m and Tel's salary is probably still way less than 5m and 50-75% of Sancho's salary.
Also: United wanted Sancho gone and Spurs wanted Tel.
Jadon Sancho - Chelsea (loan) watch | £5M opt-out fee
- Thread starter horsechoker
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) talk about the proposed new stadium, season ticket prices, Sir Jim Ratcliffe and all things INEOS after the first year of their co-ownership.
They also discuss back-to-back victories vs. Real Sociedad and Leicester City - was this the best week for Amorim so far?
Also: United wanted Sancho gone and Spurs wanted Tel.
That's not a bad theory and I was willing to cling my hopes on it.
Until I remembered he has 250k in United for another season. So, he can take that and than probably sign for 70-80k on a free for someone. He will have suitors for such contract. Feck, he will be encouraged to do that from other clubs and maybe get a bit more.
My Chelsea supporting mate went on a long rant after Spurs game, telling me how we passed on a world class player and how they were able to restore his form so quickly... he's h ad 0G/1A in 18 games since it seems.
Yeah he has no reason to accept considerably lower wages. Maybe a 20-30% pay cut if it means he can get a 4 or 5 year deal, but no way he's going somewhere to make in 3 years what we would make here in 1 year next season.
Oh yes! the good old... How should I know how good a player is... you know what I have realised, you are here just having a go at the club. That's all you have done..
This line of, "I didn't think he was good" doesn't work... when there are multiple posts where you say he is better than Haaland who you thought is mid tier and that Manutd cannot attract Sancho...
Now, you are like, I didn't think he was good anyway....
So please, dont do this... all you do is moan how bad the club is, with your terrible takes.
Wouldn't suggest getting our hopes up too much but implication here that Chelsea remain remarkably easily impressed.
The real fiction was portraying it as an obligation to buy when it was nothing of the sort. It was an option to buy with a partly deferred loan fee.
Any news on the Titanic?
What you have there was United, Arsenal, Villa and other clubs interested. That's how you can asked the most deperate of them to pay 8.5m of a loan fee.
The reputation of our first team in the gutter, therefore any of our players not able to make first team is considered less than gutter.
£5ancho. What a clause. INEOS, genius!
You had no other offers. This deal was done in the last day of the window. There was nothing else on the table. Chelsea made this deal without even agreeing wage with him ffs, that is insane(and it does mean the "obligation to buy" was a fiction from the very beginning)
Given the mess we've been for years now and Sancho's stint at Dortmund last season (which wasn't that great but PSG game was a big one and he did well there) your mate probably thought it was mostly ten Hag/United fault.
Hopefully some club will be thinking the same about Rashford and that whole situation and buy him this summer.
they had multiple offers for a young player who'd generally done well when given minutes and is on low wages. Chelsea are paying more than that for Sancho, who had like 5 good games in 3 years, while bidding against themselves
The only difference is whether to write it down in the books for 24/25 or 25/26, not sure they have to option to choose but possible. Another explanation is it was a pressure move to get Sancho to agree a Chelsea contract
I don't want to sound like a Glazer's apologist (which I am not, the Glazers are the worst thing ever to happen to the club in the past half a century or so) but as said before this had been happening way before the Glazers bought the club. We sold Nicky Butt for 3.75m euros and Forlan for 3.2m euros at a time when we bought young Pique for 5.25m euros and Smith for 9m euros. We sold Yorke for 3.5m euros, (we bought Ricardo for 2.25m). We sold Phil Neville for 5.2m euros (less then Pique who was bought the year before). We sold RVN for 12m less then we bought Carrick in that same year and the list go on and on. The amount of talent we sold for less than a million is staggering and it doesn't only include academy players (ex VDB and Silvestre). Wes was sold off for 1.5m euros, Park for 3.1m euros while Berbatov was sold for 5m euros.
This is an issue that had been long coming. We sell cheap and we buy at premium. We love to call it the United tax. However there's no Real Madrid tax or Liverpool tax. Therefore we should call it for what it is ie incompetence.
This is the main reason Chelsea will have to pay through their nose for Sancho. With United going to play hard-ball asking for even more than pre agreed 20 (raising to) 25mil. Boehly frankly has to back his coach.
Vaguely remember that older presser so I can only paraphrase Maresca: "I´d love to have the team of Sanchos. Check back as the rule number one, keep the ball, pass backwards and sideways, establish total control of the ball for as long as possible.
"If the opposition players dont have any balls they are simply impotent so will never score, willy they? If there is going to be any penetration from my lads I´d like to see it later in the night."
Seriously thought, would this break clause work both ways? Like some crazy Saudi now offering United big bucks for Sancho, or a Laussanne outfit putting 40mil on SJR table. Would CFC have any say in such deals? Suddenly crying wolf its them signing Sancho for 25mil so they can swiftly move him on for profit..
Either way, I find it sad that a lot of posters still blame the new regime for this fiasco, citing ´incompetence´ in dealing with CFC for this loan. INEOS were simply dealt a shocking hand with Jadon. Akin to stoned rimaldo or horsechoker to face William O'Connor in Limerick local pub darts tournament.
the incompetence in this case was signing Sancho, not failing to get rid of him. The latter is a consequence of the former. Look at Real Madrid with Bale and Hazard. If you feck up a massive money signing, you're gonna be stuck with it
Do you really think that Bayern wanted to keep Tel? If so then I assure you they wouldn't have let him go. The difference is that they know how to negotiate a deal and no one believe that they are mugs.
Let's take the Sancho deal as an example which in itself a parody from top to bottom.
- We ignored every red line even though some of them were pretty public (ie Dortmund had discipline issues with him), while others needed a basic investigation to be unearthed (ex asking Southgate about him)
- We increased his salary to the ridiculous from 53k to around 250k.
- We bought him to play as a RW only to learn that he hate playing there. That's a problem considering that our best player of the time played in Sancho's favorite position (LW)
- When things didn't work out instead of selling him quietly and swiftly we kept airing our dirty linen in public. Everyone in the media knew that Sancho had 'personal issues' which in turn irked him and made him unsellable. That lead to the famous outburst were Jadon was accused that he wasn't training hard enough and which made things even worse.
That would have never had happened at Bayern. Take for example Bastian. Every man and his dog knew that the player was at his last legs. Instead of outing him, they worked together with him to find a solution and they managed to find some mug who was ready to spend real money and to give this pensioner a 3 year contract. Real outdid them by having us spend 60m for a 29 year old Casemiro (4 year contract) and Chelsea made us pay 50m for an injury prone player with 1 year left on his contract.
United can't afford to be taken for mugs anymore. INEOS knows it, we fans know it and its about time the highly paid people we hired know it as well.
You can clip ANYBODY's random posts from across multiple years, without context, and make it sound like a story you want to portray.
You are proving nothing except you seem obsessed by me. It is unhealthy. Nobody is forcing you to read anybody else's "takes" if you dislike them
A* detective work here
Yep, that’s why Chelsea will keep him, he suits how they want to play. I get the numbers are not looking good for him but Maresca will put that down to not having a quality striker over Sancho being poor.
From all the wingers Chelsea have, Sancho might be the managers favourite, since joining, he has played most games for Chelsea, more than Madueke, Felix, Murdryk, Nkunku and Neto. Other players are moved around but Sancho generally gets to play his favourite position.
Why would a manager spend all this time integrating a player he does not see fit for his system? It makes no sense considering he has banished Chilwell, Sterling, Chukwemeka etc.. because they didn’t suit his style, yet people are telling me Chelsea are not happy with him..
It may be the fans that have an issue but the manager clearly doesn’t.
With respects to posters citing it as a INEOS fiasco, those posters are just here to moan about INEOS, whatever they can hit them with they will.
I had a poster earlier claim he knew Sancho expensive and we shouldn’t have paid it… only to find out the poster during 2020 Sancho chase was saying… pay what it takes.
Doesn't matter. They had multiple offers for him. And in the end they were forced to take a worse offer than they were aiming for anyways
Yes, as i said, that was incompetence. I agree with that
Not so sure you could have sold him quietly. You paid a lot for him and gave him massive wages. Realistically, your best bet here was to shop him around and swallow a loss - a likely significant one - after his first season
So all of that points to desperation and incompetence when it comes to signing players on your part. Ok. I'm not even arguing your guys aren't incompetent here, i'm pointing out that *this* particular Sancho deal isn't it. If anything, that negotiating team looking incompetent here is Chelsea's
No.. I dont dislike your post. You can clip me, I have made loads of comments which were untrue / I changed my mind on players...
Its not about liking... its about you constantly having a go at the club...
You start with... what makes United think they can attract a player like Sancho, he is too good for us...
If he is good enough we should pay whatever it takes.... this was when his fee was over 100m.
3 years later... calling the club a criminal for paying 50m less than what was quoted 1 year ago.
lets all agree... we all made a mistake, I thought he was going to be amazing, we got it wrong just like the club.
If you're referring to myself I think I went to great lengths to show that this issue preceded INEOS and even the Glazers for all its worth. All I am saying is that its time someone puts a stop to it. We shouldn't accept being taken for mugs and at this point, we can't really afford it anymore
Bears repeating. Big money feck ups don’t just go away.
A* detective work here
It frustrates me... I get it we all have bad takes. I have been one of them... players change opinion, they get better, they get worse.What that poster has continuously done is continue to have a go at the club, which yes he is entitled to do so but with Sancho, I think it was unanimous on here that we had to sign him.
So to now say the club made a mistake spending that much when we were all guilty of overrating the player, doesnt sit well with me.
This was the one time, under old regime we did well, not pay the 100m, wait a year get him cheaper.
Dont come out 3 years saying "I knew he was a waste of money"
They had multiple offers because Bayern gave him a reasonable salary and they pushed him out swiftly. There was no more 'Oh poor Tel, go on holiday to Amsterdam because maybe you're sad or something'. No they identified the problem early, they didn't create a fuss about it and they put him on sale without shitting on his reputation first.
Regarding Sancho being sold quietly, well it could be done. As said before United had always been a mediocre seller even in our prime (brought the proof for it in previous posts) yet despite that mediocrity we were still able to get things right once in a while. For example the JSV sale was done right. SAF kept his cool despite JSV saying all sort of nonsense while on 'holiday' in Italy and right till the end when it became obvious that he's going to be sold he still spoke about JSV as if he was friggin prime Keane. In the end we sold him for a reasonable loss.
Everything surrounding Sancho (pre buying, buying and selling) was amateur at best
No, not you this time. I was arguing with a poster about Sancho being criminal fees but you cant put 100% blame on INEOS or Glazers on this one.
We were all fooled, we had hundreds of pages during 2020 window, so many fans desperate to sign him, the answer to our right side etc... but it didn't work out.
We as fans thought it would and we were wrong too.
They signed Tel as a 17 year old with no pro experience. Of course he was on relatively low wages.
Bolded is real scummy btw. Don't fecking make light of depression
Yes, if you decided to get rid after one super disfunctional season at a significant loss of money
Fair enough.
Fans are fans mate and they can't be held accountable on anything really. As a fan I expect that the club would do his due diligence on a player before even approaching his agent, something that its clear United hasn't done regarding Sancho. Else there was no chance in hell that we would have signed a player who clearly had disciplinary issues prior of us signing him. I read somewhere that only 60% of transfers reach the expectations set by clubs and that despite clubs having an army of employees whose job is to minimise risks (data analysts, scouts, head scouts, sporting directors, doctors etc). We certainly lack that knowledge.
Agreed. Just dont come thinking you knew all along that it was never going to work out and we overpaid..
Well, even SJR in his latest interview has come out saying we dont have data analysts still. I hope we have changed in that, looking at the transfers we have made in the last 2 windows, none of the players seem to have weak mentalities.
Prior to that, we signed players just because they were good at the time, which meant we had to pay 20/30m more.
If you look at Maguire, Sancho, Casemiro, Antony... there was no strategy either. Manager wants a DLP who is FDJ mould and gets Casemiro...
Then when it comes to selling, we are just a myth really. For example... how much do you think West Ham would charge us for AWB if we never bought him and signed him after this season? 30/40m? But we sold him for charity fee.
I have depression myself mate, something that usually comes as a package deal with HFA.
It's evident that the issue here wasn't depression but a lack of professionalism, something Sancho's had been plagued with since his City days and which he had taken with him both at Dortmund and with England. Irrespective of that a well run club would acknowledge that United is not the right place for someone who suffers from depression to be in. Thus they would cut the losses and move on for both his sake and theirs. We sent him to Amsterdam instead.
The low goals and assists in recent form are obviously terrible for his chances to impress at a new club, but its not 100% of the picture. For example he had 3 key passes against Leicester and his teammates missed all 3 chances. So he could have had an assist there.
But despite easily being able to say that he had a good performance despite not getting a goal or assist in that match, Eriksen also had 3 key passes for us against Leicester and Bruno had 6. He does need a goal or assist soon and for a player trying to convince a new club to spend hundreds of thousands a week in wages, its a poor situation. After a good start, injuries and now form are making it look likely that Chelsea will look elsewhere. I thought he would do better and I think he would be decent in our current formation as one of two 10s, I think he can outdo Zirkzee, Eriksen and Mount at least (Not Amad, Bruno) but nowhere near to the extent that its worth having him at over 150k pw. Of course Mount is the same thing
But despite easily being able to say that he had a good performance despite not getting a goal or assist in that match, Eriksen also had 3 key passes for us against Leicester and Bruno had 6. He does need a goal or assist soon and for a player trying to convince a new club to spend hundreds of thousands a week in wages, its a poor situation. After a good start, injuries and now form are making it look likely that Chelsea will look elsewhere. I thought he would do better and I think he would be decent in our current formation as one of two 10s, I think he can outdo Zirkzee, Eriksen and Mount at least (Not Amad, Bruno) but nowhere near to the extent that its worth having him at over 150k pw. Of course Mount is the same thing
Would not call Bale's signing a feck up. Scored over a 100 goals for Real and contirbuted significantly to winning major trophies in his first few seasons. The mistakes with Bale were renewing his contract when the Manager was not an admirer and then persuading him to stay after that CL final when Ronaldo and Zidane announced they were off only to turn around and bring back the manager he did not get on with a few months later. Bale effectively had two careers at Real and if they had sold him on as they should have done after the first 4 or 5 seasons he would be seen as a great signing, it just ended in a really bad and protracted way.
Feels as though people are getting carried away here.
Comparing Tel’s £8.5m loan fee with the £5m seems disingenuous. Surely there was a loan fee already paid for Sancho this year so you would need to add the £5m to that for a true comparison.
As for the obligation. It’s disappointing it isn’t there, but if it couldn’t be agreed to that’s life.
I would want to know the full loan fee and wage contribution including the added £5m before I started condemning the deal.
Comparing Tel’s £8.5m loan fee with the £5m seems disingenuous. Surely there was a loan fee already paid for Sancho this year so you would need to add the £5m to that for a true comparison.
As for the obligation. It’s disappointing it isn’t there, but if it couldn’t be agreed to that’s life.
I would want to know the full loan fee and wage contribution including the added £5m before I started condemning the deal.
Im sorry but the link you have posted takes me to the following.. so could you re-link it?
The problem remains one of money. If you're on the hook for 170m over 5 years(70+100), and the player sucks to the point you immediately want rid, after 1 year you need a buyer willing to pay 56m to you and match the player's wages to avoid losing money. And if the player in question is coming off a terrible season while earning 20m/y in wages, good fecking luck finding a buyer.
Hell, let's say you found someone willing to pay 50m for him. Ok. They're offering him 15m/y in wages. Sancho stands to "lose" 20m over the nexf 4 years. He doesn't want to, so you have to pay him off to accept the offer. Congrats, you invested 170m into one of the most exciting young players in the world and paid 26m on top of that to get rid of him a year later, without even giving him a real chance to prove himself
After his second season selling likely wasn't an option at all - ruinously expensive
It's a weird situation, us United fans are like hahaha told you so to the Chelsea lot, but with the realisation that he is coming back. A practical example of "oh no, wait"
How bizarre! Not only is my very prescient post not linking properly but it's been replaced by what is clearly someone else's terrible one that's somehow been misattributed to me.
Obviously that's what I was referring to. We gave him a ridiculous extension that was obviously going to blow up in our face at some point, and it did. And it turned out to be actually even worse than expectations