Alejandro Garnacho (out) | Chelsea make enquiries

gajender said:
I am not misunderstanding you got your years mixed up , his remaining transfer value just got amortized for another year so basically 18 months not 3 years as you mentioned .
Click to expand...
Sorry yes, you are correct. My apologies!

Before the extension, there was one financial years worth of unamortised transfer fee remaining (£13.33 million) which has now become 2x years of ~£6.675 million freeing up ~£6.6 million in the PSR calculations.

Again though, along with Antony it is enough to cover the transfer of Dorgu regardless of Garnacho.

Laurie intimated as much in his article yesterday too saying it would be one in and one out, meaning Antony out and Dorgu in.
 
The only thing that would make me think that selling him is a bad idea, is if (as I expect) that money will go to finance debts rather than new players.
 
bosnian_red said:
Eh or Evans and Smalling as the main CBs for most of the past decade. Doubt it'd do worse than the crazy amounts we spent.

And obviously not exclusively. My point is that year after year, our academy graduates are the players bailing us out or being the shining lights.
Click to expand...
Chris Smalling is not a United Academy product, we bought him from fulham for about £10 million
 
bosnian_red said:
Or it appears that half a season of selective stats is nonsense and flukey to look at rather than the full picture, which continues to have him 4th for his age group or below? It underlying metrics?
Click to expand...

Looking at his PL performance, using Footystats. Stats per 90.

- 24/25: goals: 0.24, xG: 0.38
- 23/24: goals: 0.24, xG: 0.33
- 22/23: goals: 0.48, xG: 0.42

Looks pretty consistent to me, except that first season of 500 minutes.
 
Berbaclass said:
Sorry yes, you are correct. My apologies!

Before the extension, there was one financial years worth of unamortised transfer fee remaining (£13.33 million) which has now become 2x years of ~£6.675 million freeing up ~£6.6 million in the PSR calculations.

Again though, along with Antony it is enough to cover the transfer of Dorgu regardless of Garnacho.

Laurie intimated as much in his article yesterday too saying it would be one in and one out, meaning Antony out and Dorgu in.
Click to expand...

Agreed I think Dorgu signing would be done regardless of Any Sale and If we manage to loan out Rashford without subsidising his wages another sub 30m player could be on horizen .
 
gajender said:
Agreed I think Dorgu signing would be done regardless of Any Sale and If we manage to loan out Rashford without subsidising his wages another sub 30m player could be on horizen .
Click to expand...
Yeah, getting rid of Rashfords wages would be fantastic.

I heard there were takers for him in the summer but the club didn't want to let him go :lol:
 
bosnian_red said:
Eh the Glazers did shit but then Ineos came in, saw we were in a shit state and then proceeded to spend 70m on a teenage CB who isn't ready to start, extended a failing manager only to then sack him for more money after a few months, waited a year and paid big money for a sporting director, only to then sack him after a few months, spent big money on Zirkzee who has proved entirely suited to the league and the new manager (and the previous manager))... What else we got...

They're as much at fault as anyone if they sell Garnacho, especially as they don't actually have to do it, as I doubt we do much with the money in the last week of the window.
Click to expand...

Come on, I know Ineos messed up with the manager, but by our standards the summer transfer window wasn't a disaster. The damage the Glazers did before that with so much poor recruitment far exceeds anything Ineos have done in the last year many times over that's for sure.

I tell what the Glazers have worked an absolute miracle doing what they did to United and then successfully shifting so much of the blame to Ineos, whilst still retaining majority ownership of the club.
 
Berbaclass said:
Yeah, getting rid of Rashfords wages would be fantastic.

I heard there were takers for him in the summer but the club didn't want to let him go :lol:
Click to expand...

You cant fault Rashford's PR you can argue the results but they atleast put in the efforts unlike Rashford .
 
bosnian_red said:
Ok great, if we sell Garna for 60m do you think we're spending 180m in the last week of the window? Who are we signing? Patrick Dorgu? Glad we're selling one of our best talents to sign a random danish left back which 1 year under him.

I'd rather keep him, because I don't think United should be a club that sells their best talents, especially the type of player Garnacho is, to fund other transfers. And given our history of signings .. why would anyone think we will actually improve the squad with these signings? Did the Zirkzee or Hojlund signings fill people with confidence in our recent attacking signings?
Click to expand...

I agree with you on Dorgu. If you look up my previous posts you'll see I've been strongly against his signing so yes if the idea is to sell Garnacho for 60m euros then spend 30-40 on Dorgu I'd be very much against it.

I don't think we're spending 180m in the last week of the window but I'd like to think we have a number of targets already lined up I.E Cunha.

Hojlund wasn't signed by INEOS and I think Zirkzee will prove to be decent value at 34m.

At the moment it's speculation so time will tell. If we sell him and sign no one or spend big on players like Dorgu I'd be pissed. If we sold him and signed Cunha/Gyokeres then I'd be fine with it.
 
Feeling very melancholy about this. Manchester United should be selling 20 year old talents, but its just indicative of where we are as a club and how far we have fallen :(
 
C'est Moi Cantona said:
Come on, I know Ineos messed up with the manager, but by our standards the summer transfer window wasn't a disaster. The damage the Glazers did before that with so much poor recruitment far exceeds anything Ineos have done in the last year many times over that's for sure.

I tell what the Glazers have worked an absolute miracle doing what they did to United and then successfully shifting so much of the blame to Ineos, whilst still retaining majority ownership of the club.
Click to expand...
Not absolving them of blame at all. But Ineos have been pretty shit since they came in and deserve to take shit. Not that I didn't expect bumpy times and some mistakes. But selling Garnacho is something that was entirely avoidable (and still is). Selling Garnacho to fund buying someone like Cunha (which is the best case scenario I see happening) is just a very not-Manchester United thing to do imo.
 
CM said:
I don't think we're likely to receive a good enough offer to justify selling Garnacho in this window. Chelsea sold us Mount for £60m with a year left on his contract after an injury ravaged season, we shouldn't be giving them any concessions if they come with a bid for Garnacho.

It does feel like there's a decent chance he'll go with all the noise about PSR but it will be frustrating if we sell him and half of the proceeds go on a wing back who is still a bit rough around the edges.
Click to expand...
Painful reading this. Idiots running the club :mad:
 
If they were offering 80m + then think about it but if we were looking to buy him there's no fecking way we'd get him for less than that so it's just stupid to even think about it.
 
Feck Napoli, feck Chelsea, and feck INEOS/Glazers

Pragmatically, considering the level of shit we are in, if somebody offers us £70M+ we probably should sell.

But, should or not, under no circumstances do I *WANT* us to sell a 20yo wonderkid product of our academy. That is against everything United has been and should be. Feck people who put us in the kind of predicament that we are even open to something like this "for the right price"
 
Wing Attack Plan R said:
Today Nachos played with Dalot and then Malacia as his LWB. Neither of those two are creative enough to unlock defenses, more often than not Dalot just made a late overlap but didn’t drag anyone with him. Malacia played some good passes up the channel to him, but then didn’t join in the attack. So the key to this system is wingbacks creating width and then providing support , and we don’t have those players. That left Nachos to go 1v1 every time, which isn’t his best attribute—although he was okay today. The entire attack was bad today because the WBs weren’t working and there was a void at the tip of the spear.

What Nachos does provide is pace and energy and the occasional moment of brilliance—and usually crafted by himself out of nothing. He’s not the finished article, he’s sloppy, he makes plenty of wrong decisions, but he’s only 20 and playing with a bunch of donkeys.
Click to expand...

Amorim has made concessions when he’s played, the role he is playing isn’t the role of that player typically in his system. He’s allowing him to basically play as a winger, and in turn the wing back is either staying deep to not crowd his space, or inverting. I think I even read Amorim say as much himself, and there’s been loads of analysis of these positions for Sporting vs what we’re doing instead.

So I’m not entirely convinced it’s a Dalot/Malacia issue only, but a tactical one also which is brought on by Garnacho.
 
pocco said:
Amorim has made concessions when he’s played, the role he is playing isn’t the role of that player typically in his system. He’s allowing him to basically play as a winger, and in turn the wing back is either staying deep to not crowd his space, or inverting. I think I even read Amorim say as much himself, and there’s been loads of analysis of these positions for Sporting vs what we’re doing instead.

So I’m not entirely convinced it’s a Dalot/Malacia issue only, but a tactical one also which is brought on by Garnacho.
Click to expand...
This failure has many fathers.
 
We surely can't let him go.

He's literally our main attacking output at the minute and his crossing has been better. Gets plenty of shots away and on another night, he could've had a hat trick. Him and Amad are the only bit of direct attacking play we have left in the whole squad.
 
A bit sad about this, it will be a shame. But ultimately I think the sale would be forgotten pretty quickly if we can sign a more productive player that fits the current team better. That should theoretically be very doable
 
NewGlory said:
Feck Napoli, feck Chelsea, and feck INEOS/Glazers

Pragmatically, considering the level of shit we are in, if somebody offers us £70M+ we probably should sell.

But, should or not, under no circumstances do I *WANT* us to sell a 20yo wonderkid product of our academy. That is against everything United has been and should be. Feck people who put us in the kind of predicament that we are even open to something like this "for the right price"
Click to expand...
If a player does not fit our game plan, then he must be sold. That’s how top teams operate.
 
LARulz said:
I don't see why we have to sell now and not in the summer. We have no fecking players
Click to expand...

We need players now to try and salvage the league position and securing some sort of European competition for next year. It's shortsighted but what else would you expect from this club. Maybe we could get more for him in the Summer? No guarantee.
 
Sir Erik ten Hag said:
If a player does not fit our game plan, then he must be sold. That’s how top teams operate.
Click to expand...
Top teams coach players in the system or game plan. They nurture talent, they don't sell because the fecking owners have bled the club dry and we haven't got a pot to piss in. Top teams don't pay stupid money in wages to players that are at the end of their careers, permanently crocked, or are just simply not good enough to wear the shirt. Top clubs don't let bankers run a football operation. We are a fecking clown show and no manager can fix that and until the Glazers are gone for good, it will stay that way.
 
Sir Erik ten Hag said:
If a player does not fit our game plan, then he must be sold. That’s how top teams operate.
Click to expand...

Top teams don’t sell midseason and leave themselves with 4 attackers for 3 positions, one of which seems to be a better fit in midfield (Bruno), one is slower than molasses and has never been prolific (JZ), one is young and also not prolific (Hojlund), and Amad who’s pretty good but let’s not act like he’s been banging them in for years.

I personally don’t believe that if we sold Garnacho tomorrow, we’ll replace him with someone better in this window. That means we’re completely writing off the next few months. That also wouldn’t be very top team thing to do.

Teams in financial trouble who are languishing in mid table and have no aspirations of any better, however, do indeed sell their better players to the likes of Chelsea mid season.
 
We cannot sell Garnacho to Chelsea for less or equal than what we paid for Mount with 1 year on his deal. Club already has about 30 nails in the "humiliated in the transfer window" coffin, cant handle another one especially not at the hands of Chelsea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.