Alejandro Garnacho (out) | Chelsea make enquiries

croadyman said:
Think we would keep him if those clowns at the top hadn't put us in such a PSR mess
Click to expand...

Most likely, but that's unfortunately the situation we need to hope the INEOS led board can lead us out from so that we don't need to make decisions like this. Whether anybody has faith in them or not is a separate issue, but we are now fully having to bear the cost of the widespread damage done with destructive spending on the squad under the Glazers watch by Woodward and then Murtough/ETH.
 
Selling him to Napoli fair enough, rather we didn't. But Chelsea should be out of the question. Any PL should.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Technically Amad is pretty much the same player as he was two years ago, physically obviously not. Amad has always had elite attributes, which is the main reason people have had high hopes for him even when he wasn't performing.

Garnacho has no elite attributes, and isn't especially good at anything, even when he's performing.
Click to expand...
So you agreed with my post then...
 
Rojofiam said:
Rashford is 27 with 3 bad seasons under his belt in his career so far, including the current one. Coincidentally, in all of those three seasons United have collectively been performing like a mid-table side, and we're talking about three of the four worst seasons in the last 30 years, with the only comparable one being 13/14 under Moyes...and you're trying to tell me Rashford only has purple patches. 7 good seasons and 3 terrible ones in abysmal teams equals purple patch. Let's not continue this discussion I think.
Click to expand...
Come off it, Rashford has not had seven good seasons.
 
Eplel said:
"Nowhere near" is a term you'd use to compare Buffon and Onana. One is a solid 9/10 and the other is a 6 at best. Garnacho and Amad are on very similar levels, but recency bias dictates that Garnacho is shit now and Amad is the next best thing.
Click to expand...
Nah, Amad is a much better player.
 
This sale has pretty much become necessitated by the INEOS minority takeover. Its their involvement in the club that's prolonged the Glazer cancer when they were essentially forced to sell, and hence being force to consolidate the crippling debt the parasites burdened us with. They've done nothing to remedy the debt situation, and on top of that they've put us in more financial hardship by extending Ten Hag and allowing him to spend even more on dross.

I'll get the usual apologists reminding me that the Qatar bid wasn't real, or those that do believe it was but prefer the moral high ground of not being taken over by state actors (because Jimbo is such an outstanding moral and ethical example), but the fact remains that we wouldn't be looking to sell the likes of Garnacho if these INEOS pricks weren't getting into bed with the Glazers, nor would we be looking at frivolous and pathetic cost cutting measures like raising ticket prices, cutting charitable endeavours, slashing the wages of club legends and ambassadors or overseeing mass layoffs.

I'm resigned to selling him, but I don't buy this was always the inevitable and unavoidable outcome, it only did so once Jim and his cronies got their crusted billionaire hands all over the club. Wish the old scrote bought Chelsea instead.
 
dinostar77 said:
Selling him to Napoli fair enough, rather we didn't. But Chelsea should be out of the question. Any PL should.
Click to expand...

I agree about that, at least see if there is a deal to be done with Osimhen. Obviously would still need to get someone capable of finding him
 
JB7 said:
So you agreed with my post then...
Click to expand...

No, I don't think so. Unless I'm blind to some bold text or another indicator, your comment said that the Amad of two years ago was not close to the Amad of today, neither technically nor physically. I agree with you about the physicality, but not at all about technically.

I also read an implication into your comment, that might not be there: because Amad has improved so much the last two years, Garnacho can improve as much his next two. I disagree with that as well, if that's what you're saying, because of the reasons I mentioned.
 
Kaos said:
This sale has pretty much become necessitated by the INEOS minority takeover. Its their involvement in the club that's prolonged the Glazer cancer when they were essentially forced to sell, and hence being force to consolidate the crippling debt the parasites burdened us with. They've done nothing to remedy the debt situation, and on top of that they've put us in more financial hardship by extending Ten Hag and allowing him to spend even more on dross.

I'll get the usual apologists reminding me that the Qatar bid wasn't real, or those that do believe it was but prefer the moral high ground of not being taken over by state actors (because Jimbo is such an outstanding moral and ethical example), but the fact remains that we wouldn't be looking to sell the likes of Garnacho if these INEOS pricks weren't getting into bed with the Glazers, nor would we be looking at frivolous and pathetic cost cutting measures like raising ticket prices, cutting charitable endeavours, slashing the wages of club legends and ambassadors or overseeing mass layoffs.

I'm resigned to selling him, but I don't buy this was always the inevitable and unavoidable outcome, it only did so once Jim and his cronies got their crusted billionaire hands all over the club. Wish the old scrote bought Chelsea instead.
Click to expand...

Yeah so true, also didn't help those leeches priced out any serious full sale options as well
 
croadyman said:
I agree about that, at least see if there is a deal to be done with Osimhen. Obviously would still need to get someone capable of finding him
Click to expand...
We're still paying salaries for Rashford and Casemiro and they are nowhere near playing. Not sure we are in for someone costing north of 250k/week.
 
Eplel said:
"Nowhere near" is a term you'd use to compare Buffon and Onana. One is a solid 9/10 and the other is a 6 at best. Garnacho and Amad are on very similar levels, but recency bias dictates that Garnacho is shit now and Amad is the next best thing.
Click to expand...
I cannot tell if you are seroius.
 
Paul778 said:
We're still paying salaries for Rashford and Casemiro and they are nowhere near playing. Not sure we are in for someone costing north of 250k/week.
Click to expand...

Yeah I fear you are right hence the lack of links from anyone remotely reliable
 
NotThatSoph said:
No, I don't think so. Unless I'm blind to some bold text or another indicator, your comment said that the Amad of two years ago was not close to the Amad of today, neither technically nor physically. I agree with you about the physicality, but not at all about technically.

I also read an implication into your comment, that might not be there: because Amad has improved so much the last two years, Garnacho can improve as much his next two. I disagree with that as well, if that's what you're saying, because of the reasons I mentioned.
Click to expand...
He wasn't close to the levels he's reaching at times right now, particularly with his dribbling and passing players. He was very a tidy player who looked to have a future but you're pretending he hasn't made improvements in his game over the past couple of years, and that it's just his physicality that's improved, which I'd strongly disagree with. The implication side is in your head; Ive not said anything about whether I think he can improve or not; obviously he can but to what level is up for debate.
 
JB7 said:
He wasn't close to the levels he's reaching at times right now, particularly with his dribbling and passing players. He was very a tidy player who looked to have a future but you're pretending he hasn't made improvements in his game over the past couple of years, and that it's just his physicality that's improved, which I'd strongly disagree with. The implication side is in your head; Ive not said anything about whether I think he can improve or not; obviously he can but to what level is up for debate.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not pretending that he hasn't made improvements in his game or that it's just his physicality that has improved. I think we're both just wasting time here now.
 
NotThatSoph said:
No, I'm not pretending that he hasn't made improvements in his game or that it's just his physicality that has improved. I think we're both just wasting time here now.
Click to expand...
Evidently we are wasting time if you actually do agree he's improved both technically and physically. Jesus christ
 
DomesticTadpole said:
How much would £60m as a home grown player give us to spend?
Click to expand...

£60m.

Technically, if players brought in are on five year contracts or longer, it allows £300m of extra spending (not counting wages) in a specific year, but if that happens £240m will have to be found somewhere in the coming seasons.
 
The guy has the most goal involvements of any under 21 player across the top 5 leagues since 22/23. The potential is there for him to sky rocket really.

If you think about how many players leave us and seem improve these days then 60 million may well be a bargain. All ifs and buts of course, however stable club conditions tend to have more success in breeding talented players.

Would have to be some replacement brought in immediately to make this move ok in my mind. Not sure who we’d bring in that we could afford and guarantees more than Garnacho has given us.
 
DomesticTadpole said:
How much would £60m as a home grown player give us to spend?
Click to expand...
croadyman said:
Apparently depends if deals are amortised
Click to expand...
NotThatSoph said:
£60m.

Technically, if players brought in are on five year contracts or longer, it allows £300m of extra spending (not counting wages) in a specific year, but if that happens £240m will have to be found somewhere in the coming seasons.
Click to expand...
All deals are amortised. Limit is now 5 years - so in theory you could buy 5 players for 60m each and that would break even.

The issue will be wages - Garnacho isn't on a huge salary so whatever deals are signed by incoming players also have to be accounted for in addition to transfer fee.
 
Swedish_Plumber said:
The guy has the most goal involvements of any under 21 player across the top 5 leagues since 22/23. The potential is there for him to sky rocket really.

If you think about how many players leave us and seem improve these days then 60 million may well be a bargain. All ifs and buts of course, however stable club conditions tend to have more success in breeding talented players.

Would have to be some replacement brought in immediately to make this move ok in my mind. Not sure who we’d bring in that we could afford and guarantees more than Garnacho has given us.
Click to expand...

Cunha?
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
All deals are amortised. Limit is now 5 years - so in theory you could buy 5 players for 60m each and that would break even.

The issue will be wages - Garnacho isn't on a huge salary so whatever deals are signed by incoming players also have to be accounted for in addition to transfer fee.
Click to expand...
Cashflow too.
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
All deals are amortised. Limit is now 5 years - so in theory you could buy 5 players for 60m each and that would break even.

The issue will be wages - Garnacho isn't on a huge salary so whatever deals are signed by incoming players also have to be accounted for in addition to transfer fee.
Click to expand...

Yes, for a specific year, but you then have to sell Garnachos for five years straight to make up for that one season of spending.

£60m=£60m. Amortization, book value and all that stuff allows for some time distortion and front loading of spending, for a limited period, but you're not creating money. It's a bit like saying that 60m of income makes you eligible for a medium term £240m loan. Which, fine, and it might be useful, but the loan will have to be paid back.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Yes, for a specific year, but you then have to sell Garnachos for five years straight to make up for that one season of spending.

£60m=£60m. Amortization, book value and all that stuff allows for some time distortion and front loading of spending, for a limited period, but you're not creating money. It's a bit like saying that 60m of income makes you eligible for a medium term £240m loan. Which, fine, and it might be useful, but the loan will have to be paid back.
Click to expand...
Or you make the money elsewhere to absorb the cost, is that right?
 
DavelinaJolie said:
I think it's more a sign of how we overrate or react to young players coming through. Maybe we should cool our jets before we anoint young players as potential world class?

Chelsea spent, what, £100m on Mudryk? Just because they are willing to spend a lot of money it doesn't mean Garnacho is of a level or will be of a level to meet that transfer fee.

We dont really have many players that fit the system, as others have said we need to build a first team. And flexibility and adaptation doesn't mean walking away from the principles of the general style of play or formation.

The statement of how far the club has fallen are the performances on the pitch.
Click to expand...
Its 2025. Not the 90s. Player transfer amounts are dictated by the hype and the money the buying club are willing to pay. United fans are the worse when it comes to under valuing the club players. Garnacho was joint 6th in Ballon D'Or Kopa trophy. He is the Puskas award winner
 
NotThatSoph said:
Yes, for a specific year, but you then have to sell Garnachos for five years straight to make up for that one season of spending.

£60m=£60m. Amortization, book value and all that stuff allows for some time distortion and front loading of spending, for a limited period, but you're not creating money. It's a bit like saying that 60m of income makes you eligible for a medium term £240m loan. Which, fine, and it might be useful, but the loan will have to be paid back.
Click to expand...
Drastically overlooked in the whole PSR discussion
 
Berbaclass said:
Or you make the money elsewhere to absorb the cost, is that right?
Click to expand...

Sure, though presumably if a club has a potential extra £240m laying around they're going to take that opportunity anyway. Unless you're talking about stupid stuff like Barcelona selling future revenue streams for cash, which is a system failure that probably shouldn't count anyway, because it's not income.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Sure, though presumably if a club has a potential extra £240m laying around they're going to take that opportunity anyway. Unless you're talking about stupid stuff like Barcelona selling future revenue streams for cash, which is a system failure that probably shouldn't count anyway, because it's not income.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking more CL revenue etc. that we probably aren't getting this season.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Yes, for a specific year, but you then have to sell Garnachos for five years straight to make up for that one season of spending.

£60m=£60m. Amortization, book value and all that stuff allows for some time distortion and front loading of spending, for a limited period, but you're not creating money. It's a bit like saying that 60m of income makes you eligible for a medium term £240m loan. Which, fine, and it might be useful, but the loan will have to be paid back.
Click to expand...
Yes love the loan analogy. That's exactly the right way to think about it.
 
hellhunter said:
Drastically overlooked in the whole PSR discussion
Click to expand...

Yes, football fans talking about PSR sometimes gives me teenagers with credit card vibes: only looking at the monthly payment, not the total cost.
Berbaclass said:
I'm thinking more CL revenue etc. that we probably aren't getting this season.
Click to expand...

That's true. You can temporarily spend beyond your means with the goal of achieving quick sporting success that will make up for it financially. Though, if it fails you might be in big trouble.
 
DavelinaJolie said:
I think it's more a sign of how we overrate or react to young players coming through. Maybe we should cool our jets before we anoint young players as potential world class?

Chelsea spent, what, £100m on Mudryk? Just because they are willing to spend a lot of money it doesn't mean Garnacho is of a level or will be of a level to meet that transfer fee.

We dont really have many players that fit the system, as others have said we need to build a first team. And flexibility and adaptation doesn't mean walking away from the principles of the general style of play or formation.

The statement of how far the club has fallen are the performances on the pitch.
Click to expand...
What? Not even close. €70m.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.