Alejandro Garnacho (out) | Chelsea make enquiries

We should not sell Garnacho unless some bids like 90 mil plus which will never happen.

Are we really confident we could sell him for like 60 million and definitely improve the squad with that money?

I wouldn't be.

I can't believe we would even consider this deal at the prices touted. It's crazy
 
hellhunter said:
Like who? Who did we sell for financial reasons when they didn't actively push for a transfer or we wanted to get rid because they're not good enough?
Click to expand...
Where in the multiple reports does it say we're selling Garnacho for financial reasons? Everything I've read says we're trying to sell Casemiro, Rashford, Antony etc and IF Napoli offer £70m we will consider selling Garnacho also.

We've sold and released many academy players in recent years, goes back much longer than the last 10 years.
 
I'd be surprised given the lack of options we'd have in attack.

It's difficult to say how Garnacho will progress, especially in a new role, if someone offers close to £70mill then i reckon we'd be daft to turn it down.
 
crossy1686 said:
Where in the multiple reports does it say we're selling Garnacho for financial reasons? Everything I've read says we're trying to Casemiro, Rashford, Antony etc and IF Napoli offer £70m we will consider selling Garnacho also.

We've sold and released many academy players in recent years, goes back much longer than the last 10 years.
Click to expand...
No one is saying we're actively looking to sell Garnacho, but common sense tells you that if someone comes in with a big offer for him then given the PSR restrictions it makes sense that it could be considered, you can't really compare what has happened in the past because the financial rules are very different now
 
crossy1686 said:
Where in the multiple reports does it say we're selling Garnacho for financial reasons? Everything I've read says we're trying to sell Casemiro, Rashford, Antony etc and IF Napoli offer £70m we will consider selling Garnacho also.

We've sold and released many academy players in recent years, goes back much longer than the last 10 years.
Click to expand...
Yup. If we could get 60-70m for Casemiro, Antony and Rashford then things would look different. If we need to sell to buy big then Garnacho for 70m makes sense.
 
crossy1686 said:
I'm not buzzing about anything. Selling a player that isn't worth £70m for £70m is a great deal and one we should take if its on the table. That's my stance.

And you're overrating him in my opinion, this might be as good as it gets for him and then we'll be bemoaning the fact we didn't sell him for whatever Napoli offered in 3 seasons. I'd rather take the risk and keep him around unless Napoli offer daft money. As I've said before, he's not doing anything in my opinion to suggest he's going to be world class, and we've seen some world class players at United in the last 30 years.

We've been here before with many exciting prospects and hardly any of them kick on.
Click to expand...

For his age to performances over the past 2 years he couldn’t have done much better. Just a few months ago after scoring in the cup final and coming off being one of our better players of the season it would have been absurd to sell him. Judging him on this season when Mainoo has also looked off it until recently and Yoro hardly getting a game in a side that sit 15th is a mistake

We have a good young core of players (Yoro, Mainoo, Amad, Garnacho) that have a big future that we should be building around not selling

Also even if we got 70m and we presume Rashford goes we have like zero threat in attack that 70m isn’t going to stretch far when we still need a LB it seems completely pointless
 
Last edited:
crossy1686 said:
And if the lad we just signed gets an offer for £70m in 3 seasons and it's clear he isn't worth £70m, we should sell him also. There's nothing wrong with selling players for daft money they aren't worth.
Click to expand...

You keep saying he isn't worth 70m - firstly that's what we're asking, Napoli isn't going to match it, at best they'll come close. I'm the end, a player is always worth what a club plays for him, and there's enough posters who think he's worth more to make yours a subjective opinion. But let's say he's worth 50m, and we're making a 20m profit.

The cost of this 20m profit, in your cycle of buying and selling players, is giving sub par but developing youngsters 3 years of a lot of first team football. 3 years of promising and frustrating moments on the pitch that leads to a mid table finish, and a sale before that promise can have a chance to come good or be consistent.

You're trading any chance of success for money, because the moment a player comes close to getting good, you sell him for a profit. That's a selling club for you.
 
Gandalf Greyhame said:
Genuine question for those think 60m is a good price - who do you think we'll realistically get for that amount that will help fill the void of goals that Garnacho currently leaves behind?

Screw that, let's just look at value for money. Here are players the club has bought for around 60-70m over the last decade. Imagine signing them now, and them having the same career with us all over again.

- Hojlund
- Mount
- Casemiro
- Licha
- Bruno
- AWB
- Fred
- Martial

How many of them would you say offered more value to the team than Garnacho does by staying for, say, 3 more years? I would say one definite answer is Bruno - what do you think our chances are of finding another Bruno? For about 60m, the math says 12.5%. Even if you added Casemiro and Licha (I don't agree with either), it's 37.5%.

Which very roughly means that there is only a 12.5% chance (37.5% if you're arguing for the sake of arguing) that we add more value to the team by selling Garnacho than keeping him - unless you think we're going to buck all trends and find the right purchase when everybody and their dog knows we are desperate for goalscorers.
Click to expand...
I think I could confidently name several players who for £60m would be good signings.
 
Gandalf Greyhame said:
Genuine question for those think 60m is a good price - who do you think we'll realistically get for that amount that will help fill the void of goals that Garnacho currently leaves behind?

Screw that, let's just look at value for money. Here are players the club has bought for around 60-70m over the last decade. Imagine signing them now, and them having the same career with us all over again.

- Hojlund
- Mount
- Casemiro
- Licha
- Bruno
- AWB
- Fred
- Martial

How many of them would you say offered more value to the team than Garnacho does by staying for, say, 3 more years? I would say one definite answer is Bruno - what do you think our chances are of finding another Bruno? For about 60m, the math says 12.5%. Even if you added Casemiro and Licha (I don't agree with either), it's 37.5%.

Which very roughly means that there is only a 12.5% chance (37.5% if you're arguing for the sake of arguing) that we add more value to the team by selling Garnacho than keeping him - unless you think we're going to buck all trends and find the right purchase when everybody and their dog knows we are desperate for goalscorers.
Click to expand...

If we look at those attacker signings you listed, then all of Hojlund, Mount, Bruno and Martial were more talented and had more valuable profiles than Garnacho. Higher ceilings too.
 
Also need to consider the £60m is instantly accounted for and useable. Whereas let’s say we spend £60m on a player on a 5 year contract that’s only £12m accounted for this season (not including wages).

You could conceivably buy two £60m players for his one sale this window (I’m not saying we would do that)
 
BenitoSTARR said:
I think I could confidently name several players who for £60m would be good signings.
Click to expand...

Even if we just look at wingers/number 10s who have recently moved for similar fees or significantly below 60m...

Neto, Gordon, Olise, Kudus, Barcola, Palmer, Cunha, Dembelé, Maddison, Johnson, Doku, Minteh, Doué, Olmo, Diaby.

You can always find great players and prospects for that kind of money.
 
I think this will be one of the sales we look back on and regret in 5 years. 60m will be feck all by then, and he’ll be a much better player than he is now.
 
BenitoSTARR said:
I think I could confidently name several players who for £60m would be good signings.
Click to expand...
You mean could be.

Would is a 100% certainty. I did the paper napkin math just to show that it's not been a certainty. Whoever you name, less than a third of them would actually be good signings given our historic trends, which means you'd be spending thrice as much to get to that signing, probability wise.
 
Rojofiam said:
Even if we just look at wingers/number 10s who have recently moved for similar fees or significantly below 60m...

Neto, Gordon, Olise, Kudus, Barcola, Palmer, Cunha, Dembelé, Maddison, Johnson, Doku, Minteh, Doué, Olmo, Diaby.

You can always find great players and prospects for that kind of money.
Click to expand...
Which I was typing as you posted this which has saved me a job so thank you.

I rate Garnacho but I can see why £60m+ allows us to do more to the squad than what he might offer.

Mainoo however id have strong feelings of no don’t sell.
 
Gandalf Greyhame said:
You mean could be.

Would is a 100% certainty. I did the paper napkin math just to show that it's not been a certainty. Whoever you name, less than a third of them would actually be good signings given our historic trends, which means you'd be spending thrice as much to get to that signing, probability wise.
Click to expand...
I’ve never signed a player for United though. So my recommendation isn’t tainted in the same way. Arrogant of course but true.
 
Rojofiam said:
Even if we just look at wingers/number 10s who have recently moved for similar fees or significantly below 60m...

Neto, Gordon, Olise, Kudus, Barcola, Palmer, Cunha, Dembelé, Maddison, Johnson, Doku, Minteh, Doué, Olmo, Diaby.

You can always find great players and prospects for that kind of money.
Click to expand...

Problem is it’s January and we’re sitting 15th so it’s hard to attract good talent also we desperately need a LB so any funds raised would probably have to be split between the 2 positions

We obviously aren’t in a position to go out in the next 2 weeks and spend 60-70m needed to improve the squad it’s a disaster waiting to happen
 
Gandalf Greyhame said:
You mean could be.

Would is a 100% certainty. I did the paper napkin math just to show that it's not been a certainty. Whoever you name, less than a third of them would actually be good signings given our historic trends, which means you'd be spending thrice as much to get to that signing, probability wise.
Click to expand...

Can you confidently say that Garnacho will improve to a degree that makes him a top player?

We are all just guessing, you're guessing the above and some are guessing that the club will sign a better player/players.

Having watched every match Garnacho has played in his senior career I'd say both guesses are moderately fair based on the 60m fee.
 
Castia said:
Problem is it’s January and we’re sitting 15th so it’s hard to attract good talent also we desperately need a LB so any funds raised would probably have to be split between the 2 positions
Click to expand...
Which a £60m+ fee is more than achievable to do due to how it’s accounted.
 
hellhunter said:
That is incredibly debatable
Click to expand...

That's fine if you think that.

Bruno and Martial are not even debatable for me. One of the best and most creative number 10s of the last 10 years, and a real teenage wonderkid who was probably the best U21 player in the world at one point and a deserving winner of the Golden Boy award that actually did carry Manchester United and was our best player in his very first season. We probably only got one season out of the real Martial excluding his debut season, which was the 19/20 season. I doubt Garnacho can become a player that's on Martial's 19/20 level.

Mount was a really good player for Chelsea for a few seasons IMO.

Hojlund is a raw striker and a work in progress, but to me he's shown more than enough to know that he's a very valuable profile, and a more refined version of him - that hopefully gets to play in a collectively good United team - will be a goal machine.
 
Rojofiam said:
If we look at those attacker signings you listed, then all of Hojlund, Mount, Bruno and Martial were more talented and had more valuable profiles than Garnacho. Higher ceilings too.
Click to expand...

Debatable, but sure.

Even then there's only a 50% chance of finding more value in selling Garnacho than keeping him. You're flipping a coin to see if you can get something more valuable than what you have in hand, and the cost of that toss is what you have in hand.
 
Rojofiam said:
That's fine if you think that.

Bruno and Martial are not even debatable for me. One of the best and most creative number 10s of the last 10 years, and a real teenage wonderkid who was probably the best U21 player in the world at one point and a deserving winner of the Golden Boy award that actually did carry Manchester United and was our best player in his very first season. We probably only got one season out of the real Martial excluding his debut season, which was the 19/20 season. I doubt Garnacho can become a player that's on Martial's 19/20 level.

Mount was a really good player for Chelsea for a few seasons IMO.

Hojlund is a raw striker and a work in progress, but to me he's shown more than enough to know that he's a very valuable profile, and a more refined version of him - that hopefully gets to play in a collectively good United team - will be a goal machine.
Click to expand...
I'd be delighted if you end up correct about Mount and Hojlund, but a 20 year old Bruno was nowhere close to Garnacho for example. Not denying that Bruno is far and away better at this moment, no question about that
 
BenitoSTARR said:
Which I was typing as you posted this which has saved me a job so thank you.

I rate Garnacho but I can see why £60m+ allows us to do more to the squad than what he might offer.

Mainoo however id have strong feelings of no don’t sell.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't sell Mainoo either, no matter how good it would be for PSR. Considerably rarer profile plus higher ceiling than Garnacho IMO.
 
Gandalf Greyhame said:
Debatable, but sure.

Even then there's only a 50% chance of finding more value in selling Garnacho than keeping him. You're flipping a coin to see if you can get something more valuable than what you have in hand, and the cost of that toss is what you have in hand.
Click to expand...
But it’s not one something we’d get. It’s potentially 2 or 3 somethings.
 
hellhunter said:
I'd be delighted if you end up correct about Mount and Hojlund, but a 20 year old Bruno was nowhere close to Garnacho for example. Not denying that Bruno is far and away better at this moment, no question about that
Click to expand...

Maybe not, and I'll be the first one to tell you that a player's development is often not linear, but I still don't really know why it would be realistic to expect Garnacho to suddenly explode into peak Son/Hazard/Mané/Salah/Saka/Sterling/Mahrez/Rashford/Sánchez levels at one point in the next few years.
 
And I’ll reiterate we have no idea what Garnacho wants here.

He’s a winger, naturally, so he may want to play LW for the Serie A leaders and play CL football next season which we don’t have the realistic prospect of offering.
 
Gandalf Greyhame said:
Debatable, but sure.

Even then there's only a 50% chance of finding more value in selling Garnacho than keeping him. You're flipping a coin to see if you can get something more valuable than what you have in hand, and the cost of that toss is what you have in hand.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I'd argue that if United under this new leadership cannot even replace Garnacho's quality when they're one of the richest club in the world, then this new project isn't gonna go anywhere anyways. It's not like Liverpool letting Salah or van Dijk go. It's not like United letting Bruno leave, Arsenal letting Saka or Saliba leave, etc.
 
BenitoSTARR said:
But it’s not one something we’d get. It’s potentially 2 or 3 somethings.
Click to expand...

Like who could generally come in and improve the team to make it worth selling one of our best young players for? we seem so unprepared we’ve been making loan enquiries for the likes of Muani the 70m will be spunked on yet more shite
 
Rojofiam said:
Honestly, I'd argue that if United under this new leadership cannot even replace Garnacho's quality when they're one of the richest club in the world, then this new project isn't gonna go anywhere anyways. It's not like Liverpool letting Salah or van Dijk go. It's not like United letting Bruno leave, Arsenal letting Saka or Saliba leave, etc.
Click to expand...
Whilst I agree about replacing him, but you cannot compare 2 world class players in Van Dyke and Salah's worth to Liverpool Vs Gernacho's worth to us. We should not overrated our players lie this as that's why we are ein this mess in the first place. We venerate and reward average, our standards have dropped.
 
Castia said:
Like who could generally come in and improve the team to make it worth selling one of our best young players for? we seem so unprepared we’ve been making loan enquiries for the likes of Muani the 70m will be spunked on yet more shite
Click to expand...

I'm not sure many people would've thought that Napoli will allow Kvaratskhelia to leave mid-season, or that Frankfurt will let Marmoush go mid-season, or that Juve would be willing to sell one of their best defenders in Cambiaso mid-season...

I agree with you that it's more difficult to do business in January, but with Rashford being frozen out of the team too, if we let Garnacho go as well, we'll surely sign someone to replace him.
 
70M is a good price; anything below 60M is plain stupid. If we can get a buy-back clause, then it'd be great. It's not ideal to sell promising youngsters from the academy, but due to PSR, selling academy players is a must, it seems. I think he's good, and he'll be great in the future, but just not world-class. The most worrying thing is we'll likely use those funds to bring in someone who'll end up being way worse.
 
gulli_G said:
Whilst I agree about replacing him, but you cannot compare 2 world class players in Van Dyke and Salah's worth to Liverpool Vs Gernacho's worth to us. We should not overrated our players lie this as that's why we are ein this mess in the first place. We venerate and reward average, our standards have dropped.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I'm saying. We wouldn't be selling an irreplaceable player.
 
OverratedOpinion said:
Can you confidently say that Garnacho will improve to a degree that makes him a top player?

We are all just guessing, you're guessing the above and some are guessing that the club will sign a better player/players.

Having watched every match Garnacho has played in his senior career I'd say both guesses are moderately fair based on the 60m fee.
Click to expand...

His current base, as a 20yo, is a 8G/4A across all comps this season.

That's better than Hojlund (7G/1A), Mount (0/0), Martial's average in his last four full seasons as a United player (5G/2A), and all the other names in that list bar Bruno.

So yeah, I'm confident. He doesn't even need to be a better player, just maintain his current numbers and my guess is validated.
 
Castia said:
Like who could generally come in and improve the team to make it worth selling one of our best young players for? we seem so unprepared we’ve been making loan enquiries for the likes of Muani the 70m will be spunked on yet more shite
Click to expand...
A LWB and ball carrying/dribbling No10.
 
Castia said:
For his age to performances over the past 2 years he couldn’t have done much better. Just a few months ago after scoring in the cup final and coming off being one of our better players of the season it would have been absurd to sell him. Judging him on this season when Mainoo has also looked off it until recently and Yoro hardly getting a game in a side that sit 15th is a mistake

We have a good young core of players (Yoro, Mainoo, Amad, Garnacho) that have a big future that we should be building around not selling

Also even if we got 70m and we presume Rashford goes we have like zero threat in attack that 70m isn’t going to stretch far when we still need a LB it seems completely pointless
Click to expand...
But that's no indication of how well he will do moving forward and I, like many others, don't see a world class talent in him, its just not there unfortunately. I'm not judging anyone on this season, just from what I've seen from them since they all got into the first team. I think Mainoo is the one that would be very hard to replace, Garnacho is if your scouts are doing their jobs.

With the exception of Yoro because I haven't seen enough, and maybe Mainoo, the other two probably wouldn't get into a top 4 side, or at least wouldn't start, and that's not a criticism, it's just where they're at development wise, they aren't even first teamers in our thrown together squad yet.

I honestly think the money will go towards a LWB anyway, that seems to be what Amorim wants and where we're weakest. Could solve a lot of our issues also.
 
Rojofiam said:
I'm not sure many people would've thought that Napoli will allow Kvaratskhelia to leave mid-season, or that Frankfurt will let Marmoush go mid-season, or that Juve would be willing to sell one of their best defenders in Cambiaso mid-season...

I agree with you that it's more difficult to do business in January, but with Rashford being frozen out of the team too, if we let Garnacho go as well, we'll surely sign someone to replace him.
Click to expand...

I think a huge problem is we also need a LB so any funds raised are almost cut in half for the 2 positions making it even tougher

If Garnacho goes along with Rashford we’re left with Hojlund, Zirkzee, Amad and Antony I mean holy feck how bad is that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.