Andycoleno9
snowflake obsessed matchday malcontent
He is not 100 mil player but also, 40-50 mil is laughable price. We should aim to get 70-80 mil euros (including add ons).
You are confusing euros with pounds.Arsenal and Chelsea paid similar money for Mudryk and Havertz. Liverpool paid £100m for Nunez.
Young talent comes at a (massive) premium these days. Garnacho is probably our most valuable player when you take age and contract length into account.
Thank youGreat post
You are confusing euros with pounds.
Arsenal and Chelsea paid similar money for Mudryk and Havertz. Liverpool paid £100m for Nunez.
Young talent comes at a (massive) premium these days. Garnacho is probably our most valuable player when you take age and contract length into account.
But it doesn't matter. Transfer fees are stupid by default without comparing to other transfers if it's between Premier League clubs. So we should fleece them or they can feck off. Garnacho still has a future here because it's not like he has done a Rashford. Everton was asking similar price for Branthwaite and Garnacho is a bigger talent, younger, and is an attacker.Again you're looking at a handful of signings that most people would include in the top 10 worst Premier League signings of all time and using those as a barometer of what to expect.
I agree he's one of our most valuable players financially. He's worth about 60m and not many of our players if any are.
If we were a well-run club making title challenges year after year, then we wouldn't hesitate for a second to sell Garnacho for 40-50 mill. But we have to live in the real world. And the reality is that we are mid table. And despite all the valid criticisms of Garnacho he's still better than Rashford, Antony, Højlund and Zirkzee (although he's in a good period). And he's only 20 years old so he has lots of time to grow as a player.
But it doesn't matter. Transfer fees are stupid by default without comparing to other transfers if it's between Premier League clubs.
That's a reach from what I said.Nani was shadows below Ronaldo, Rooney and even Tevez at our best CL years. Nani was a very annoying player until he reached his peak.
Its only when Ronaldo and Tevez left that Nani became more our first team regular and still his peak was only a year and a half at max for me during the Rooney Bycicle Kick Era.
Garnacho is easily capable of that level of gameplay of being a player on top form for 1 &a half years continuosly which is how i would personally describe Nani. Considering he is 20, i feel like he can be as good as Nani or even better but unlikely to be elite standard either.
Even at 20, Garnacho's goals have been better for me to watch with some already having importance in the FA Cup etc & he has a good 7-8 years to go before reaching peak Nani levels.
He doesn't though.Nani was always extremely frustrating similar to Garnacho now and his ability has increased over the years by the looks of it. He was a good player for us, might have had the odd great season but that’s about it. Most people only remember his red card against Madrid and go on about that like we’d have won the whole thing if he hadn’t got it.
Garnacho is a good player and I think has the ability and more importantly the mentality to become a very good one. To your points above, he can also beat players consistently and has already shown can score from anywhere.
Not sure on the technicals but it clearly would mean we have a lot more room to maneuver in the market which we need.I'll admit I'm not 100 % sure how this 'pure profit' thing works, but say we sell him for £60 million, does that mean we get all that money in at once from an accounts point of view.
So in theory as transfers are amortised over 4-5 years this means we actually have £240 million-£300 million of new new money to potentially spend on new and previous transfers in the fitst year?
This is exactly what I’ve been saying.We pay over the odds because we're stupid tbf.
Romeo Lavia cost 50m last time they were relegated. Why would the English Dibling be any cheaper, Meg?Call me mystic Meg but I think Southampton will get relegated.
He beats enough people either taking it past them or using his pace. If you don’t rate him that’s fair enough, but Nani was not a significantly better player.That's a reach from what I said.
He doesn't though.
Fair enough mate, I think for all of Nanis flaws he was a far better footballer. Agree to disagree though.He beats enough people either taking it past them or using his pace. If you don’t rate him that’s fair enough, but Nani was not a significantly better player.
He was. I think our fanbase have forgotten the talent Nani had. Garnacho so far hasn't shown that level of talent.Fair enough mate, I think for all of Nanis flaws he was a far better footballer. Agree to disagree though.
Southampton won’t have a bidding war on there hands for him.Romeo Lavia cost 50m last time they were relegated. Why would the English Dibling be any cheaper, Meg?
He beats enough people either taking it past them or using his pace. If you don’t rate him that’s fair enough, but Nani was not a significantly better player.
Nani was a good player as Garnacho is, both frustrating and both have produced great performances. Of course was more productive over his career than Garnacho has been.Yes he was. Nani had a better assist per minutes ratio than Beckham, Cantona, Sheringham and Giggs. He could be frustrating at times, but he was still a much more productive and consistent player over a longer period of time than Garnacho is. Of course, Garnacho may reach those heights later in his career, but he may not.
Nani was a good player as Garnacho is, both frustrating and both have produced great performances. Of course was more productive over his career than Garnacho has been.
This is fair, but it's also worth pointing out that Nani played in well functioning teams with a different calibre of teammatesNo. It’s objectively true that Nani was a more productive player with a more consistent end product per minutes played than Garnacho.
Garnacho may develop into a player as productive as Nani, but he may not.
Let’s compare again at the end of Garnacho’s careers cause your not comparing apples with apples.No. It’s objectively true that Nani was a more productive player with a more consistent end product per minutes played than Garnacho.
Garnacho may develop into a player as productive as Nani, but he may not.
Let’s compare again at the end of Garnacho’s careers cause your not comparing apples with apples.
Wasn't there a season where Nani got in Prem team of the year because he made an incredible record amount of insists that season?
Nani could regularly dribble and make a fool of players, they would foul him out of frustration due to the tricks he use to pull off against them, then he had his trademark rocket shots, it's nuts to think Garnacho has anywhere that kind of talent and ability. garnacho struggles if we are playing teams deep and doesn't have anywhere the flair finishing or dribbling ability of Nani.
At the same age, not comparing to him at the peak of his career. There is a major difference.I’m not the one claiming Garnacho is as good as Nani was - you were. Did you forget that?
At the same age, not comparing to him at the peak of his career. There is a major difference.
Nani was good enough to play 41 times for the best team in the world at the same age. Garnacho doesn't even get into the squad of any of the best teams in the world and is not even a guaranteed starter for a failing United.At the same age, not comparing to him at the peak of his career. There is a major difference.
Of course you have to compare at the same age, it’s just stupid not too. Do you always compare entire careers against 2 season??You said “Nani was not a significantly better player”. He was though. When called out on that you’ve now changed the goal posts to “at the same age”.
So if you admit that Garnacho now is not as good as Nani was at his peak, then you’re implicitly accepting that we don’t know if Garnacho will ever reach that level, because we can’t predict the future.
Look at it in Thai baht and it’s even more alarming:Yeah you're right, Antony was even more of a rip off than I thought.
95m Eur... ffs
Of course you have to compare at the same age, it’s just stupid not too. Do you always compare entire careers against 2 season??
Of course no one knows if he will but I believe he will, it’s ok with me if you don’t, I really don’t care, but I’ll happily have this chat with you in 15yrs time.
What has this thread descended into. Nani was older than Garnacho is now when he joined United. What is the point in comparing their stats at this point, it’s massively unfair.
Then you don’t sell him
No-one in their right mind would pay £100m for hi.