Alejandro Garnacho (out) | Chelsea make enquiries

Firstly, get fecked

Secondly, I’m assuming there’s some feckery afoot with the accounting? Unless we both record each sale as 60m then it doesn’t help us at all. We need cash.
 
Swapping a 20yo prospect who is fit almost every game for a 27yo who has a patchy at best injury record and has flattered to deceive in the PL. Surely has to be bollocks.
 
This INEOS mob would be no better than Woodward, Arnold and Murtough that came before them when it comes to transfers. Absolute clown show if we’re seriously considering this.
 
hellhunter said:
It somehow says something about how bad at selling and buying we are at the same time
Click to expand...
Actually it also says we are putting realistic figures for sale because we are desperate to sell and he is our probably not realistic saleable asset, which is not best suited to manager's formation. Plus we need money to buy players and need room for PSR purpose. Chelsea has no such issue, they will happily keep Nkuku.
 
Berbaclass said:
Nkunku is a very good player.

Quite a questionable injury record though. If he was healthy it's a total no-brainer.
Click to expand...
Nkunku was a great player in the bundesliga and it looks like it may have been a purple patch. 1 goal in 14 caps for France full team, 0 goals in 24 appearances for the youth teams he was part of.
 
VP89 said:
Isn't he always injured
Click to expand...

The first season he joined Chelsea was pretty bad, with a three month and a month long injury, plus two minor ones. Last season was horrible, obviously.

He had a very good injury record before joining Chelsea, and has not been injured for the last nine months.
 
Berbaclass said:
Nkunku is a very good player.

Quite a questionable injury record though. If he was healthy it's a total no-brainer.
Click to expand...
Nkunku has started 5 Premier League matches in 18 months at Chelsea. It's about as much of a red flag as you'll ever see
 
Gandalf Greyhame said:
Of course the vast majority of United fans wouldn't. They were sold because they were sub-par for us, and we remember their sub-par performances when they played for us.

But this is why the layer of leadership above the manger is important. They are supposed to see more than the fans - they're suppose to understand (1) those players were sub-par for United in that system for that manager playing next to certain players, and (2) assess whether they can add value in a new system, under a new manager, playing next to different players.

If we'd sold Diallo to Sevilla for 20m this summer, and he started shining there, you wouldn't want him back here either because you (and me, and vast number of fans) wouldn't know what he could offer to the side now. That's why people in these positions are paid - to see what we can't see, and make decisions based on it.
Click to expand...
No, those players all had shortcomings that make them unsuitable for the team we want to be.

Whether just in pure quality terms (Henderson has crisp packets for hands and struggles to keep goal kicks on the field of play. Telles couldn't run), or in stylistic terms (McTominay is pretty much only suited to being the one behind the striker in a Sean Dyche team - or the M&S equivalent, a Conte team. Elanga does very well playing on the counter with space to run into and offers very little in any other context).

If they look good in a new system, it's a system none of us would want United to be playing.
 
I would be shocked if we consider the profile of players we want regarding coping physically and then went out and signed Nkunku to replace a generally fit and available hard working player like Garnacho
 
hellhunter said:
Purely guessing here, but wouldn't be surprised if Shaw played more for us than Nkunku for Chelsea since he joined them
Click to expand...
Shaw played more Premier League minutes for us last season than Nkunku has since he joined Chelsea, so you're not wrong.
 
Swapping the two would likely happen more out of necessity than anything else. In practicality, Nkunku fits us better than Garnacho. Nkunku has a great work rate, is technically excellent, and more suited to playing centrally. But, he has a poor fitness record, which is a major concern. I would expect a lot of due diligence over this one. Thing is, this "swap" would likely happen as two separate transfers. 70m Garnacho going out, 60m Nkunku coming in. We could bank all 70m on the books this year, and amortise Nkunku at 12m a year, giving us a book profit of 58M this year, which could then be used to strengthen the squad in other areas.

So if this deal does happen, it would be to get a high level replacement in for Garnacho, but also to essentially act as a gateway to further signings for us, and to afford Garnacho for Chelsea. It's not a deal I am fond of, but it's the sort of deal that we might be forced to do due to our terrible recruitment over the last several years. Recruitment which has left us with enormous amortisation costs for players who are either no longer with us, or are not meaningfully contributing in any way. Shit planning essentially means sacrifices have to be made in order to improve the squad.
 
simonhch said:
Swapping the two would likely happen more out of necessity than anything else. In practicality, Nkunku fits us better than Garnacho. Nkunku has a great work rate, is technically excellent, and more suited to playing centrally. But, he has a poor fitness record, which is a major concern. I would expect a lot of due diligence over this one. Thing is, this "swap" would likely happen as two separate transfers. 70m Garnacho going out, 60m Nkunku coming in. We could bank all 70m on the books this year, and amortise Nkunku at 12m a year, giving us a book profit of 58M this year, which could then be used to strengthen the squad in other areas.

So if this deal does happen, it would be to get a high level replacement in for Garnacho, but also to essentially act as a gateway to further signings for us, and to afford Garnacho for Chelsea. It's not a deal I am fond of, but it's the sort of deal that we might be forced to do due to our terrible recruitment over the last several years. Recruitment which has left us with enormous amortisation costs for players who are either no longer with us, or are not meaningfully contributing in any way. Shit planning essentially means sacrifices have to be made in order to improve the squad.
Click to expand...
At the same time, Nkunku would also look at wages around 200k I guess. Garnacho is still a few years away from that
 
hellhunter said:
At the same time, Nkunku would also look at wages around 200k I guess. Garnacho is still a few years away from that
Click to expand...
Yeah, obviously that's a consideration. I am not sure what Nkunku is on now. The question is whether Nkunku is an impact now type of player. A player who can make a difference today, and suits our tactical approach, while still having resale value and growth potential. That obviously costs more in wages. There is little argument that Garnacho is still a very raw player that has to improve most areas of his game, and is more a case of high potential, rather than realised potential...so far. Looking at it holistically. If you shifted out Rashford and Garnacho, and collected 80m in the process, shifting 400K off the books, and brought in Nkunku for 12m (annual amortised) and 200K a week, you'd still have room to bring in another quality player on a decent salary, for a sizeable fee, and come out with a profit on this year's books.

I'm not saying I think we should sign Nkunku, but fitness issues aside, I can see why he'd be a much better fit for us than either Garnacho or Rashford.
 
chris123 said:
Napoli were never out. I think Conte is desperate for him.
Click to expand...
He's always had great success with buying from us tbf, like league winning success.

McTom is also doing bits for him this season so not surprised he's sniffing about this direction again :lol:

They know the price though, hopefully they get close to it and not Chelsea...
 
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...

The difference is guys like Henderson elanga and alvaro fernadez, and kovar were not given opportunities to play in the managers system under ten hag. Garnacho has been given plenty of opportunities to play in Amorim's system in multiple positions to have a chance to shine and he's shown that he is not to the required standard.

This guy is not a world beater and we can't be putting individual players over the well being of the club just because they're young or we go with the idea that Amorim should adapt himself to one player and should fit his system to accommodate a hot and cold player who is not even guaranteed to be a a high level player
 
Solius said:
Swapping a 20yo prospect who is fit almost every game for a 27yo who has a patchy at best injury record and has flattered to deceive in the PL. Surely has to be bollocks.
Click to expand...
Welcome to Man United in 2025, the world where we sell our best talents to make space for a 27 year old crock who had 2 good purple patch seasons in the bundesliga in an otherwise mediocre career.
 
For the first time since Amorim has been at the club, Garnacho finally started operating in areas expected of him centrally.

1. The lack of tactical sessions could be a contributing factor who him not doing the right movements off the ball, and,
2. Garnacho himself is so habitally used to his wide position that he forgets mid-game of his role and responsibilities.

But he did the right thing vs. Rangers, and, especially when Malacia came on he permitted Malacia to hold a higher and wider position up the field which helped Garnacho tremendously in terms of find more space centrally or in the channels and half spaces.

I think with more tactical sessions we're going to see it a click a lot more with every player. I really do. Garnacho was the one player I expected to "get it" least, but he clicked somewhat in the last game, and to some degree it'd be a shame to lose him at the precipice of this improved understanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.