Alejandro Garnacho (out) | Chelsea make enquiries

bosnian_red said:
1. United is not a club who should be selling our best academy talents to fund random other signings. That's not what we as a club should stand for.
2. What makes you so confident the money will be reinvested? Hell even Whitwell on the latest pod was saying he could see it that we just sell Garnacho and not reinvest it as a way to calm our finances down and get out of the red (as in, dump our assets to fix the problems the owners created rather than the owners investing their own money).
Click to expand...

The club is clearly only trying to sign Dorgu after the Garnacho transfer started to gain traction, so yeah the club is wanting to back Amorim with his own players, and selling the only player with real value is the way to do that.

I hate to break it to you but United now are not in the same position as they once were, so I don't think you should be getting on the high horse with (the club is not a club that should be selling the best talents. United sold Beckham when he was the best player, the club sold Ronaldo when he was the best player.

Garnacho is not even that good anyway, is second fiddle behind Bruno and Amad and can't play as a 10.
 
The holy trinity 68 said:
The club is clearly only trying to sign Dorgu after the Garnacho transfer started to gain traction, so yeah the club is wanting to back Amorim with his own players, and selling the only player with real value is the way to do that.

I hate to break it to you but United now are not in the same position as they once were, so I don't think you should be getting on the high horse with (the club is not a club that should be selling the best talents. United sold Beckham when he was the best player, the club sold Ronaldo when he was the best player.

Garnacho is not even that good anyway, is second fiddle behind Bruno and Amad and can't play as a 10.
Click to expand...
This isn't a case of United selling a top player who wanted out or fell out. It's the club starting to sell our best academy talents to make money for other transfers. That's what I fundamentally disagree with. Find other ways to make money, be smarter with your signings.

If the club is seriously selling Garnacho to then go and spend over the odds on fecking Dorgu, then we've all lost our minds. He's some random left back who has had 1 year in senior football playing for a relegation candidate in serie A. Might be a decent talent. He's probably not ready to do much in this league. He's definitely not as good a talent as Garnacho.
 
Garnacho is not a bad player but he's not a great one either, he's clearly decent but would never have broke through United 10 years ago.
If the money can be spend on 1-2 players who fit Amorims system, then sell sell sell.
 
bosnian_red said:
This isn't a case of United selling a top player who wanted out or fell out. It's the club starting to sell our best academy talents to make money for other transfers. That's what I fundamentally disagree with. Find other ways to make money, be smarter with your signings.

If the club is seriously selling Garnacho to then go and spend over the odds on fecking Dorgu, then we've all lost our minds. He's some random left back who has had 1 year in senior football playing for a relegation candidate in serie A. Might be a decent talent. He's probably not ready to do much in this league. He's definitely not as good a talent as Garnacho.
Click to expand...

Yep, selling a 20 year old potentially great academy winger to a rival to raise funds is just sickening.

It's an absolute shame. And you know we're gonna piss away that money. There's a reason we've spent 1B+ and secured very few good players over the last decade. I have little faith that will change.

feck the Glazers. feck INEOS.
 
bosnian_red said:
This isn't a case of United selling a top player who wanted out or fell out. It's the club starting to sell our best academy talents to make money for other transfers. That's what I fundamentally disagree with. Find other ways to make money, be smarter with your signings.

If the club is seriously selling Garnacho to then go and spend over the odds on fecking Dorgu, then we've all lost our minds. He's some random left back who has had 1 year in senior football playing for a relegation candidate in serie A. Might be a decent talent. He's probably not ready to do much in this league. He's definitely not as good a talent as Garnacho.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the last 10 years of the club being ran terribly has led to this, Ineos are doing this to try and get out of the shit and sort the mess out.

Dorgu costing £25m is only going to cost £5m in year 1, which leaves £55m of the Garnacho funds.

Garnacho is not as good as you and others are making out, and he is not suited to this Amorim system. His sale makes sense and I am not really bothered if he is sold.
 
Do we not think we’re getting a bit hysterical over this? I mean, I’m finding it hard to buy into this notion that we’re just selling off our best players to make ends meet. Why on earth would INEOS buy into the club to effectively asset strip it and make no money or win any trophies? It would just make no sense. And the fact that we’re throwing decent money towards Dorgu, which says we are investing in the squad. Selling a HG player in accounting terms probably does allow us to balance the books to an extent, but it gives us so much leeway under PSR that we cash spend some money and still see positive income.

I think people need to relax until it becomes more clear what the plan is.

Another thing to consider, would Amorim really be interesting in coming or even stick around if we were just going to sell players with no replacements? If we really do go down that route then we’ll 100% be relegated within the next 2 or 3 years in my opinion. Which makes no sense at all.
 
Gandalf Greyhame said:
Yep, selling a 20 year old potentially great academy winger to a rival to raise funds is just sickening.

It's an absolute shame. And you know we're gonna piss away that money. There's a reason we've spent 1B+ and secured very few good players over the last decade. I have little faith that will change.

feck the Glazers. feck INEOS.
Click to expand...
This is a big reason why Amorim is happy to let him go, he is a winger, he does not fit into the system for Amorim.

The sale is also not on INEOS. They are having to sell Garnacho to try and get the club out of the mess that the Glazers, Woodward and co have left the club in and also so they can back Amorim with transfers.
 
I was in favour of the sale when it was to Napoli. Selling him to Chelsea and buying Nkunku and Dorgu for 80/90m sounds almost as bad as buying Mount.
 
Idxomer said:
I was in favour of the sale when it was to Napoli. Selling him to Chelsea and buying Nkunku and Dorgu for 80/90m sounds almost as bad as buying Mount.
Click to expand...

Garnacho is one of the top two or three academy graduates we've had in a decade. Selling him "down" a level (while fully acknowledging that relatively speaking, they've been much more successful than United recently) is one thing and the PSR relief would begin to unshackle the club moving forward. Selling him to a direct competitor for a bargain, whatever the reason - is a damning statement of intent...or lack thereof.
 
hellhunter said:
Well obviously, but you can't really absolve them of playing a part in this mess. Of course neither the only nor the biggest part
Click to expand...

I don't think the signing of Zirkzee should be used as part of bad stuff INEOS have done so far, he has came into a dreadful United team while being young and has only been at the club 6 months. He is clearly a talented player and might actually turn out alright.

Delaying ETH was trying to do the right thing as he just won the FA Cup, especially as the fan base was split 50:50 on wanting him to stay or go at the time. INEOS definitely should have just had some back bone and got rid in the summer though, the delay was a mistake which should have been obvious considering the league form. They would have faced backlash either way anyway.

Regarding Ashworth, it is better to cut the loss on him now than keep him for longer. They realised his vision didn't align with Wilcox and co, how would they have truly known that without hiring him.

I think some of these decisions are easy to see now in hindsight, but they didn't have a crystal ball to foresee this stuff, what would you suggest they should have done?
 
I will have no faith in our board if they decide to sell one of our most promising young players. Surely, Amorim won't support this idea?
 
forevrared said:
Garnacho is one of the top two or three academy graduates we've had in a decade. Selling him "down" a level (while fully acknowledging that relatively speaking, they've been much more successful than United recently) is one thing and the PSR relief would begin to unshackle the club moving forward. Selling him to a direct competitor for a bargain, whatever the reason - is a damning statement of intent...or lack thereof.
Click to expand...

He is behind Greenwood, Mainoo and Rashford in that regard, so no he is not. I would hardly count a player the club bought at 16 as a true academy player like the 3 I have just mentioned anyway. They had been with the club since they were under the age of 10, and are true academy players.

He is also behind Pogba.
 
The holy trinity 68 said:
Unfortunately the last 10 years of the club being ran terribly has led to this, Ineos are doing this to try and get out of the shit and sort the mess out.

Dorgu costing £25m is only going to cost £5m in year 1, which leaves £55m of the Garnacho funds.

Garnacho is not as good as you and others are making out, and he is not suited to this Amorim system. His sale makes sense and I am not really bothered if he is sold.
Click to expand...
Arent we going to get the £55m of Garnacho funds spread out over multiple years too?
 
hellhunter said:
The actual money? Very likely. But for PSR (god I hate those three letter), you can count it as an upfront payment.
Click to expand...
But we have a cash flow problem at the club dont' we? At least from some reports.
So it's not like we can reinvest that Garnacho money just because we're good with PSR it seems
 
VP89 said:
But we have a cash flow problem at the club dont' we? At least from some reports.
So it's not like we can reinvest that Garnacho money just because we're good with PSR it seems
Click to expand...
Bit unsure about the details, but there are certainly sources claiming our cash flow is holding us back (regardless of PSR)
 
Unam333 said:
I will have no faith in our board if they decide to sell one of our most promising young players. Surely, Amorim won't support this idea?
Click to expand...
The same Amorim who dropped him in December for an infraction. Whilst he's trying his best and looking more productive in the 343 in the past couple of weeks he's far from a definate starter.

The noise coming out tonight suggests he's going nowhere anyways.
 
hellhunter said:
Bit unsure about the details, but there are certainly sources claiming our cash flow is holding us back (regardless of PSR)
Click to expand...
Yeah, which is the sad thing. My worry is that we still cant flex even from satisfying PSR, though I suppose there's always a scare before we go on to spend big anyway.
 
croadyman said:
Who is that striker we can get now then, Ruben won't move for Gyokeres until summer, Osimhen has no intention of ending loan with Galatasaray and Sesko seems more interested in Arsenal. Anyone?
Click to expand...
I read Cunha is available and so is Nkuku from Chelsea both of them can be deployed as ST and would be great option, Another option for CAM position is Madrid are loaning Endrick, it would be a smart pickup for us. Specially if we are selling Garnacho, we have already loaned Antony and then possibly let go Rashford so we need bodies.
 
The holy trinity 68 said:
This is a big reason why Amorim is happy to let him go, he is a winger, he does not fit into the system for Amorim.

The sale is also not on INEOS. They are having to sell Garnacho to try and get the club out of the mess that the Glazers, Woodward and co have left the club in and also so they can back Amorim with transfers.
Click to expand...

He's 20 years old and capable of playing on either side. He's plenty young enough to adapt and is in the top 3 in Europe for under 21 players goal involvements.

He is also doing in the Premier League.
 
Fahad Jawaid said:
I read Cunha is available and so is Nkuku from Chelsea both of them can be deployed as ST and would be great option, Another option for CAM position is Madrid are loaning Endrick, it would be a smart pickup for us. Specially if we are selling Garnacho, we have already loaned Antony and then possibly let go Rashford so we need bodies.
Click to expand...
Is Cunha really all that? Or going to be another hot/cold player. He looks decent but nothing that says he’s going to push us to the next level.

Nkunku, no chance at £70m. If he was our player you’d have half the cafe saying we can’t even give him away, ala, Antony, Hojlund as he hardly played and can’t force his way into the Chelsea first 11. He’s worth a punt at about £30-35m.

Endrick, I’ve not seen much off, doubt he’d be able to perform in the PL from the off.
 
The holy trinity 68 said:
He is behind Greenwood, Mainoo and Rashford in that regard, so no he is not. I would hardly count a player the club bought at 16 as a true academy player like the 3 I have just mentioned anyway. They had been with the club since they were under the age of 10, and are true academy players.

He is also behind Pogba.
Click to expand...
How egregious, top 3 or 4 instead of 2 or 3. :rolleyes: Greenwood is a dogshit human and I don't care to remember he exists in any way, shape, or form - so I did not include him. Pogba came through closer to 15 years ago.

The point remains the same. We've signed a boatload of 15/16-year-olds over the past couple of decades and almost universally they've not panned out. How many of the others had a Puskas award and Golden Boy shortlist in their first full season?
 
lex talionis said:
This is madness. So we're better off -- financially that is, meaning the Glazers are further enriched -- by depleting the club of outstanding young talent rather than cutting our losses on deadwood such as Casemiro, Antony and Onana?

Do club supporters only exist as props only to fatten the bellies of scumbags like the Glazers who feast at banquet while we watch our club sink further and further down the table as each season passes by? If this is how it has to be, I'm out.
Click to expand...

No.
 
VP89 said:
But we have a cash flow problem at the club dont' we? At least from some reports.
So it's not like we can reinvest that Garnacho money just because we're good with PSR it seems
Click to expand...

hellhunter said:
Bit unsure about the details, but there are certainly sources claiming our cash flow is holding us back (regardless of PSR)
Click to expand...

Eriksen and Evans are leaving in the summer on free transfers. Eriksen is on £170k per week, Evans is on £50k per week. That is £11.4m annually off the books. Lindelof is also leaving in the summer on a free transfer. He is on £120k per week. That is another £6.2m off the books.

Reports are saying Betis will pay 85% of the Antony wage for the next 5 months which of his £200k per week salary is £170k per week. Over roughly 22 weeks that is £3.74m in savings. Chelsea also have to pay £25m for Sancho in the summer.

I am predicting that the following players end up leaving in the summer as well, Rashford, Malacia, Shaw, Antony

Rashford leaving will save £15.6m annually. Shaw will save £10.4m annually. Malacia will save £3.9m annually. Antony will save £10.4m annually. This is not including any fees the club will receive as well.

The club will save £61.6m in wages when or if all of these players leave. Not including the Sancho wage as Chelsea are already paying the majority of that, (I couldn't find out the exact percentage they are paying).

Add the £25m transfer fee for Sancho and that comes to £86.6m.

Say if the worst happens and none of Rashford, Malacia, Shaw and Antony leave, then the total comes to £46.3m. But the club will definitely sell at least 1 player in the squad in the summer and that will also help the cashflow.
 
These arguments have been done to death, but I'll go again.

The holy trinity 68 said:
This is a big reason why Amorim is happy to let him go, he is a winger, he does not fit into the system for Amorim.
Click to expand...

It should not matter what Amorim wants in a decision of such magnitude. The whole point of having football directors or equivalents is so that the club's footballing identity is not completely in the hands of the manager - each successive manager will have certain needs that differ from their predecessor, and the club must reduce the overhead needed in such transitions. You have to acknowledge that the club is no longer operating in a world where there's one right man for the next decade for whom you go all in. Those days are gone, you hedge your bets to protect squad quality across managers. For instance, here is how we've handled the recruitment of some positions in the the last two years under EtH.
- GK: Henderson is starting for Palace, they're ahead of us in the table. Sold for 14m.
- LWB: We are crying out loud for anyone at left back - just the presence of a natural wing back, not even a competent one. We're paying what, 30m, for an unproven Dorgu? We let Alvaro and Telles leave for 19m.
- AMR: Elanga could have been tried out at the right sided 10, he's doing quite well at a CL-placed side. We let him go for 14m. (Let's not consider what a natural fit Sancho would have been position wise because he was a terrible fit personality wise).
- CM: Mctominay is now a key part of a dominant Napoli side. Sold for 25m. At a stretch, Fred - sold for 8m.

Are you telling me none of the above would have added value to Amorim worth more than the price we brought in or the wages we saved?
This 'doesn't fit the system' line is rubbish. Most managers in the world play with attacking wingers, you don't know if Amorim will make it for even the next two years. What happens when the next manager comes in and wants an attacking winger?

The holy trinity 68 said:
The sale is also not on INEOS. They are having to sell Garnacho to try and get the club out of the mess that the Glazers, Woodward and co have left the club in and also so they can back Amorim with transfers.
Click to expand...

Sure, the club is in a mess because of the Glazers. But that's no reason to absolve INEOS of their blunders. This summer, under INEOS, we spent:

- 52m on Yoro, a center back with potential. That was before we knew we'd play 3 at the back, to a squad that had De Ligt, Martinez, Maguire, Lindelof, Evans. We wouldn't need to sell Garnacho if that call wasn't made. If he didn't fit into the manager's plans, loan him out for a season like other top clubs do.
- 35m on Zirkzee, a forward with potential. He offered nothing to EtH and offers nothing to Amorim now.
- EtH's termination fee, his staff's termination fee. Ashworth's signing fee and termination fee. Amorim's signing fee. His staff's signing fee.

If the financial situation was so dire, why did we take punts on potential? Doesn't it make sense to add value to the team now? To strengthen our attacking output now? Buying potential is a risk, you don't know if it will turn out. Selling potential at non-crazy prices is also a risk - the player may turn out to be good later, and his replacement may cost more now. We took one risk (that's not completely worked out) and forced ourselves into a corner to take another risk (that may not work out - let's see what we do with the money). None of this was necessary, and all of this is on INEOS.

And that's not even going into the principle of it. Man United bring through top academy players - it's kinda our thing. We cherish them, especially when they're attackers with great mentality and potential. Garnacho may not even be a world beater, he may end up being an average PL winger. Whether or not he'll ever realize his potential is secondary, we have been a club that believes in finding out. Selling him should be a no in principle. Reduce his starting time by signing a better starter, loan him out if you need to - and then, if he doesn't have a pathway or wants to leave - you can cash in. You let them go when there's no way forward.
Breaking this principle is on INEOS. Raising ticket prices to ridiculous numbers is on INEOS. The brutal cold-hearted nature of their staff treatment is on INEOS. So feck them, too.
 
Gandalf Greyhame said:
These arguments have been done to death, but I'll go again.



It should not matter what Amorim wants in a decision of such magnitude. The whole point of having football directors or equivalents is so that the club's footballing identity is not completely in the hands of the manager - each successive manager will have certain needs that differ from their predecessor, and the club must reduce the overhead needed in such transitions. You have to acknowledge that the club is no longer operating in a world where there's one right man for the next decade for whom you go all in. Those days are gone, you hedge your bets to protect squad quality across managers. For instance, here is how we've handled the recruitment of some positions in the the last two years under EtH.
- GK: Henderson is starting for Palace, they're ahead of us in the table. Sold for 14m.
- LWB: We are crying out loud for anyone at left back - just the presence of a natural wing back, not even a competent one. We're paying what, 30m, for an unproven Dorgu? We let Alvaro and Telles leave for 19m.
- AMR: Elanga could have been tried out at the right sided 10, he's doing quite well at a CL-placed side. We let him go for 14m. (Let's not consider what a natural fit Sancho would have been position wise because he was a terrible fit personality wise).
- CM: Mctominay is now a key part of a dominant Napoli side. Sold for 25m. At a stretch, Fred - sold for 8m.

Are you telling me none of the above would have added value to Amorim worth more than the price we brought in or the wages we saved?
This 'doesn't fit the system' line is rubbish. Most managers in the world play with attacking wingers, you don't know if Amorim will make it for even the next two years. What happens when the next manager comes in and wants an attacking winger?



Sure, the club is in a mess because of the Glazers. But that's no reason to absolve INEOS of their blunders. This summer, under INEOS, we spent:

- 52m on Yoro, a center back with potential. That was before we knew we'd play 3 at the back, to a squad that had De Ligt, Martinez, Maguire, Lindelof, Evans. We wouldn't need to sell Garnacho if that call wasn't made. If he didn't fit into the manager's plans, loan him out for a season like other top clubs do.
- 35m on Zirkzee, a forward with potential. He offered nothing to EtH and offers nothing to Amorim now.
- EtH's termination fee, his staff's termination fee. Ashworth's signing fee and termination fee. Amorim's signing fee. His staff's signing fee.

If the financial situation was so dire, why did we take punts on potential? Doesn't it make sense to add value to the team now? To strengthen our attacking output now? Buying potential is a risk, you don't know if it will turn out. Selling potential at non-crazy prices is also a risk - the player may turn out to be good later, and his replacement may cost more now. We took one risk (that's not completely worked out) and forced ourselves into a corner to take another risk (that may not work out - let's see what we do with the money). None of this was necessary, and all of this is on INEOS.

And that's not even going into the principle of it. Man United bring through top academy players - it's kinda our thing. We cherish them, especially when they're attackers with great mentality and potential. Garnacho may not even be a world beater, he may end up being an average PL winger. Whether or not he'll ever realize his potential is secondary, we have been a club that believes in finding out. Selling him should be a no in principle. Reduce his starting time by signing a better starter, loan him out if you need to - and then, if he doesn't have a pathway or wants to leave - you can cash in. You let them go when there's no way forward.
Breaking this principle is on INEOS. Raising ticket prices to ridiculous numbers is on INEOS. The brutal cold-hearted nature of their staff treatment is on INEOS. So feck them, too.
Click to expand...
Brilliant post
 
Gandalf Greyhame said:
- GK: Henderson is starting for Palace, they're ahead of us in the table. Sold for 14m.
- LWB: We are crying out loud for anyone at left back - just the presence of a natural wing back, not even a competent one. We're paying what, 30m, for an unproven Dorgu? We let Alvaro and Telles leave for 19m.
- AMR: Elanga could have been tried out at the right sided 10, he's doing quite well at a CL-placed side. We let him go for 14m. (Let's not consider what a natural fit Sancho would have been position wise because he was a terrible fit personality wise).
- CM: Mctominay is now a key part of a dominant Napoli side. Sold for 25m. At a stretch, Fred - sold for 8m.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't want a single one of these players back. Possibly Fernandez/Carreras depending on how he's developed since he left, but we have a buyback clause on him anyway.

Just because we've largely bought poorly doesn't mean that keeping dross like Henderson and limited players like Elanga and McTominay would have been the answer.
 
Ollie Derbyshire said:
Is Cunha really all that? Or going to be another hot/cold player. He looks decent but nothing that says he’s going to push us to the next level.

Nkunku, no chance at £70m. If he was our player you’d have half the cafe saying we can’t even give him away, ala, Antony, Hojlund as he hardly played and can’t force his way into the Chelsea first 11. He’s worth a punt at about £30-35m.

Endrick, I’ve not seen much off, doubt he’d be able to perform in the PL from the off.
Click to expand...
Cunha gives me Mane type vibes, as in whenever he plays against us, he tore us recently. From my experience, there are a lot of players who score against us (because we are shit) for a while, however very rarely do i see, attackers absolutely rinsing our defenders.

I am sure we should be able to find some attackers in top teams which are not getting much game time and should be available on loan. Remember the times when we got Larrson or Ighalo, Sabitzer etc. We need to tap into loan market and not get fleeced.
 
Fahad Jawaid said:
Cunha gives me Mane type vibes, as in whenever he plays against us, he tore us recently. From my experience, there are a lot of players who score against us (because we are shit) for a while, however very rarely do i see, attackers absolutely rinsing our defenders.

I am sure we should be able to find some attackers in top teams which are not getting much game time and should be available on loan. Remember the times when we got Larrson or Ighalo, Sabitzer etc. We need to tap into loan market and not get fleeced.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure about that, if I really think about it I’m sure there’s plenty of attackers who rinse our defenders over the last couple of years.

Loans I’m not a huge fan but will accept if we’re really financially broke. Larson, Ighalo, Sabitzer, Weghurst were all underwhelming for me. I’d take Nkunku on loan with an option.
 
It says everything about how bad we are at selling players when Chelsea's starting valuation for Nkunku is higher than what we're prepared to accept for Garnacho
 
CM said:
It says everything about how bad we are at selling players when Chelsea's starting valuation for Nkunku is higher than what we're prepared to accept for Garnacho
Click to expand...
It somehow says something about how bad at selling and buying we are at the same time
 
You must log in or register to reply here.