Alejandro Garnacho (out) | Chelsea make enquiries

I feel Amorim would actually like to keep him but as a squad player. However given his value in the market it isn't really an option especially if we want funds to spend elsewhere. He's one of our only marketable assets.
 
So let me get this straight and correct me if I’m wrong.

If we sell Garnacho to chelsea for £60m. That will open £60m in our cheque book for 2025, and also still open £180m in our cheque book for 3 years (2025 to 2027), even if chelsea only pay us £12m per year in 5 years.

So that means we could spend Gyokeres (£83.6m of his release clause plus 23.4m of his 3 years salary ‘’150k pw’’), Dibbling (£50m, his salary is covered by Garnacho’s salary), and another £23m left to spend with 84% of Antony wages (Betis paid 84% of his wages).

We will still find it hard to find players that cost £23m to improve us in January, I would say we should play the hard ball and demands £65m to £70m guaranteed without adds on for Garnacho.
 
I don’t think he’ll leave and I think he’s young enough to be able to make the adjustment to play more as a 10. He’ll realise it’s good for his international career too when he stops emulating Ronaldo and tries to emulate Messi instead.
 
elmo said:
I don’t think he’ll leave and I think he’s young enough to be able to make the adjustment to play more as a 10. He’ll realise it’s good for his international career too when he stops emulating Ronaldo and tries to emulate Messi instead.
Click to expand...

What makes you so confident with all the noise
 
Who started here such a nonsense that he doesn’t and will not fit Ruben’s system?
And, there are bunch of people even believing that nonsense.
He is only 20yrs old. He has all the time and opportunity on his side to develop and evolve his game, as long as he takes care of and motivates himself.
 
city-puma said:
Who started here such a nonsense that he doesn’t and will not fit Ruben’s system?
And, there are bunch of people even believing that nonsense.
He is only 20yrs old. He has all the time and opportunity on his side to develop and evolve his game, as long as he takes care of and motivates himself.
Click to expand...

I would have less issue in spending on him IF we already had someone absolutely banging them in
 
If we sell Garnacho, and in return we get to sign Gyokeres and Dibbling in January. Selling your 20 years old player, replace him with another young talented 18 years old attacking midfielder plus signing Gyokeres to upgrade our striker. If this is what will happen then it’s a no brainer.
 
JE-365 said:
If we sell Garnacho, and in return we get to sign Gyokeres and Dibbling in January. Selling your 20 years old player, replace him with another young talented 18 years old attacking midfielder plus signing Gyokeres to upgrade our striker. If this is what will happen then it’s a no brainer.
Click to expand...
How do you expect to get both Gyokeres and Dibling for 50m?
 
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...
Yes yes yes. Captain! My captain!
 
bringbackbebe said:
How do you expect to get both Gyokeres and Dibling for 50m?
Click to expand...

I think the main reason why we couldn’t spend money now not because INEOS doesn’t want to spend but because INEOS cannot spend or else we’re breaking the PSR/FFP rule.

From what I heard if United were to bank £60m for Garnacho or any academy graduated this month, it would immediately register as £60m of pure profit in this season’s accounts under PSR/FFP rule. Basically, INEOS can invest £60m this January or the club can borrow £60m to use it in transfer January without worrying about breaking PSR/FFP rule if we sell Garnacho for £60m.

While when clubs buy players, the transfer fees are amortised over the term of the contract for accounting purposes - effectively spreading the cost. So that means £80m Gyokeres and £50m Dibbling divided into 3 years is like £43.3m per year, basically the club only need to invest/spend £43.3m on transfer fees in 2025 just to sign those two players, while we will have £60m free space in 2025 if we sell Garnacho for £60m.
 
Garnacho is young enough to be able to adapt to a new system or whatever Amorim wants. No way should we be selling him - and especially not to another PL club.
Imagine selling one of our better players and leaving the dross behind. I can't stand INEOS and I'm going to be pissed at Amorim if he really thinks this is a good idea.
 
city-puma said:
Who started here such a nonsense that he doesn’t and will not fit Ruben’s system?
And, there are bunch of people even believing that nonsense.
He is only 20yrs old. He has all the time and opportunity on his side to develop and evolve his game, as long as he takes care of and motivates himself.
Click to expand...
100% agree. Plus, with all this nonsense which Ineos already putting out, the protests should be starting again. United payed 60 mil in debt repayments last year cause the debt from the glazers are still there. Ineos starting to manipulating and sympathising with it is so hard with psr and ffp. It's only because they are too embarrassed to invest money in United. With this ownership model we will never play at the top again. Everyone invests, Chelsea owners find one trick after another to put money into the club and Ineos are spinning their wheels and are incompetent. They should never takeover this 25% ownership in the first place. Never would this had happend if quatar have bought us. Thats a fact.
 
Jazz said:
Garnacho is young enough to be able to adapt to a new system or whatever Amorim wants. No way should we be selling him - and especially not to another PL club.
Imagine selling one of our better players and leaving the dross behind. I can't stand INEOS and I'm going to be pissed at Amorim if he really thinks this is a good idea.
Click to expand...

I honestly think INEOS have taken more control on transfers after recent screw ups. Amorim is brutally honest in his interviews and genuinely seems more in the dark compared to previous managers when asked by the media about transfer situations.

Also INEOS are not putting any more money in to the club, because of the Glazers still being major shareholders it is not in their interest to so, despite certainly being wealthy enough to do it. Instead they are trying to do it on the cheap through club profits and reducing costs. There is no Chelsea or Citeh parallels here, with all the debt that the Glazers have put us in, it is going to take a long time and be very painful.

INEOS buying in to the club seems to be the worst thing that could’ve happened. They’ve allowed the Glazers to remain in place and intend on milking their investment…
 
Garnacho is absolutely capable of adapting to Ruben's tactics. He has never been a WB or a winger. Play him centrally and he will deliver. With the amount of time he has been getting lately, I will be very surprised if he leaves before the end of the month.
 
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...

Just a superb post. You’ve hit 4 or 5 consecutive nails on the absolute head there.
 
Berbaclass said:
Click to expand...

As soon as Chelsea became seriously involved it was obvious that one of their players would be involved. I can actually see this being Garnacho and £10-£20m for Nkunku. But the club being happy about it because Garnacho is 'pure PSR/FFP'......
 
Dave Smith said:
As soon as Chelsea became seriously involved it was obvious that one of their players would be involved. I can actually see this being Garnacho and £10-£20m for Nkunku. But the club being happy about it because Garnacho is 'pure PSR/FFP'......
Click to expand...
There's absolutely no world in which we'll give them 10-20 million plus garna. That's absolutely ludicrous.
 
redshaw said:
For Garnacho he is the victim of Amorim's system. Dorgu a left footer would be replacing Dalot as LWB, then someone like Bruno or Mount would be playing left side of the attack like usual this season.

Last night Garnacho played left side 10 and Bruno was put back as one of the two central midfielders. Usually Bruno would be playing where Garnacho is, at least on paper.

For Garnacho to stay he'd have to play as a left 10 or LWB. Both Rashford and Garnacho don't fit the managers plans and are just optional subs and useful for games like last night. Garnacho would have to oust Bruno from his left 10 position. Bruno would have to be alongside Ugarte.

The bad thing is if Amorim is gone and we go back to a 4213 which really suits Bruno central behind a front line of say Garnacho wide left. Fans like to see attacking players like him but Amorim calls for a Bruno/Mount Eriksen either side of a CF and robust LWB/RWB that cover a lot of ground up and down the pitch that Garnacho/Rashford are not going to favour and would rather be elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Makes sense in the long run, I do understand that, but not now. I'd rather have a bit part left wing back in Dalot for the remainder of the season and sell Garnacho in the summer when he can actually be replaced.

Mount is always injured and Eriksen isn't fit enough to play multiple matches in a week, or even play a whole game effectively most of the time.

I know a lot of people don't rate Garnacho, but I'm almost certain our results will get even worse if he's sold this window without replacing him now. Even taking ability and output out of the equation, I think it'll cause issues from a selection perspective.

And yes, worst case scenario, Amorim ends up going sooner rather than later and we see Garnacho fulfilling his potential on the wing for another club.....hopefully won't manifest in this way, but with us you wouldn't be surprised.
 
JE-365 said:
If we sell Garnacho, and in return we get to sign Gyokeres and Dibbling in January. Selling your 20 years old player, replace him with another young talented 18 years old attacking midfielder plus signing Gyokeres to upgrade our striker. If this is what will happen then it’s a no brainer.
Click to expand...
That would be fine, it doesn't sound like that's what will happen though...it sounds like we'll sell our twenty year old (who is one of few players we have who actually tries to take people on, and sometimes scores goals) in order to bring in a left wing back.

We need a left wing back, but taking a gamble on one now at the expense of the positives Garnacho brings to the attack (if he's not replaced) isn't really going to help us as much as some may think.
 
I wouldn’t take Nkunko if he was free. His injury record is terrible and he has not actually proved himself in the EPL.
 
Already made my peace with him going to Chelsea. Maybe it’s because I’ve grown up or simply feel more disconnected from the sport as a whole, but the grimness of this business has taken its toll. That and us being wank.
 
Nkunku is Mount 2.0. No thank you.

Only sell Garna if we get £100m and have the best plan in the world ready.

Sooo... No way this is going to be a win for us.
 
JE-365 said:
I think the main reason why we couldn’t spend money now not because INEOS doesn’t want to spend but because INEOS cannot spend or else we’re breaking the PSR/FFP rule.

From what I heard if United were to bank £60m for Garnacho or any academy graduated this month, it would immediately register as £60m of pure profit in this season’s accounts under PSR/FFP rule. Basically, INEOS can invest £60m this January or the club can borrow £60m to use it in transfer January without worrying about breaking PSR/FFP rule if we sell Garnacho for £60m.

While when clubs buy players, the transfer fees are amortised over the term of the contract for accounting purposes - effectively spreading the cost. So that means £80m Gyokeres and £50m Dibbling divided into 3 years is like £43.3m per year, basically the club only need to invest/spend £43.3m on transfer fees in 2025 just to sign those two players, while we will have £60m free space in 2025 if we sell Garnacho for £60m.
Click to expand...
We also just don't have the money.
 
I've no issue with selling him. But the idea of swapping him with another injury prone tosser from Chelsea is beyond stupid and simply won't happen
 
Hammondo said:
We also just don't have the money.
Click to expand...

Is that true? We had more cash at the end of the last reported quarter than we did 12 months prior. I don't know what the second quarter looks like but it is unlikely that we actually lack cash.
 
I’d like to think we are not foolish enough to basically swap Garnacho for Nkunku but then I remember it’s us.
 
JPRouve said:
Is that true? We had more cash at the end of the last reported quarter than we did 12 months prior. I don't know what the second quarter looks like but it is unlikely that we actually lack cash.
Click to expand...
We are massively in debt, second most worldwide.

I have no idea why you are looking quarterly.
 
Hammondo said:
We are massively in debt, second most worldwide.

I have no idea why you are looking quarterly.
Click to expand...

I'm not looking quarterly, I was partially using the most recent report. And yes, we have large borrowings within 5 years but it was already the case in the past 5 years, the difference isn't that substantial because we also happen to have more cash. Now it's not a good situation, in the sense that we need to be fiscally prudent but that's not a new thing and we aren't in a worse situationthan we were in the past 5 years, as long as results on the field improve and prize money increases within that 5 years period we will be fine. We need to keep in mind that in Football the easiest way to make big money quickly is by being competitive in big competitions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.