Alejandro Garnacho (out) | Chelsea make enquiries

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).
 
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.
You are confusing euros with pounds.
 
No club will be able to afford Garna, I think the club will demand £80m or more, I won't be surprised if clubs brief their journos and say they backed out because the club demanded £100m, Chelsea can enquire all they want but they ain't getting Garna for anything below £80m and I suspect they would be willing to part with such an amount.

Napoli also will look elsewhere.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.

It all depends on our estimation of Garnacho’s potential. If there’s a chance that he gets stuck at his current level, we should take the money (not 40-50 million though). But many fans believe that he has the potential to be 20+ goal a season forward who is currently in the frustrating, temperamental youngster phase. I think this is a topic which rightly divides the fans because the likelihood of both scenarios isn’t too dissimilar.

My gut says to stick with him. He doesn’t seem like the Rashford mould where he will stop putting in the work. And the club is probably wiser too and wouldn’t be handing out mega contracts any longer. But I would understand why we would sell for 60 million+
 
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.
That's a reach from what I said.
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.
He doesn't though.
 
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?
Not sure on the technicals but it clearly would mean we have a lot more room to maneuver in the market which we need.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
Really want Amorim to try him at wing back, it's the only position where he would get space to run directly at defenders.
Would be silly to sell, unless someone offers 80m plus.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
This is fair, but it's also worth pointing out that Nani played in well functioning teams with a different calibre of teammates
 
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.
 
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.

Exactly. Garnacho is miles off achieving the level Nani was that season. He might get there if he improves a lot, but he might not.
 
Nani was a significantly better dribbler, better ball control, better passer, better crosser, struck the ball far better, stronger.

Garnacho works harder on the pitch, has similar pace (not the sort that terrifies teams but enough to get away on the break), similar level of self belief.
 
At the same age, not comparing to him at the peak of his career. There is a major difference.

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.
 
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.

These comparisons are usually silly and don't help.
 
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.
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.
 
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.

If someone claims two players are around the same level, no, I’m not going to assume they actually mean one of them “might” reach the level of the other one in the future. Because that’s a pointless hypothetical.

Your initial claim is just objectively false - Garnacho has never produced at the level Nani has and we have no idea if he ever will, so what’s the point in trying to claim he’s just as good?
 
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.
 
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.

Which is exactly why it’s pointless to try and claim that Garnacho is as good as Nani. He’s not, but one day he may reach that level.