Alejandro Garnacho (out) | Chelsea make enquiries

bb8 said:
No, that's not how it works. Selling Garnacho for £50M would free up £50M in space on this year's books. You're right that £250M in inbound transfers could be amortized across five year contract, but the problem is selling Garnacho doesn't create £50M extra room for the next five seasons! It only does in year 1.

This is what all the people hawking the "youth academy products are pure profit" line are missing. It really doesn't matter who you sell.

Take Holjund for example. If we sold him for £50M, we'd have less room than Garnacho for 24-25 because Holjund still has his previous transfer amortization from buying him. But the sale would create additional room in 25-26, and 26-27, because the previous amortization would be gone in those seasons. Overall, selling Holjund for £50M would create £50M in space, just like Garnacho. That £50M would just be spread out over four windows (this Jan, summer 2025, Jan 2026, summer 2026) instead of one.

Every pound counts the same for PSR purposes. You don't get extra profit for homegrown players, that's a myth. You just get access to spend the money earlier. We shouldn't be thinking on one season timelines though, and hence there is no particular advantage to selling Garnacho over other players.
Click to expand...
Thats not how it works, when people say selling youth academy players are pure profit, they mean there are no costs that need to be written off, so every penny that comes from selling a garnacho is pure profit, and player sales are accounted for the year they are sold in not carried forward over the period, so that entire 50mn can be set off against the year's amortization cost of player purchase. If you sell a Hojlund, for 50mn you may or may not end up getting any money in terms of psr because he was bought for a big fee that is being amortized over his contract period or whatever max term uefa rules say, so if we sold Hojlund right now for 50mn, his unamoritized cost will also have to be written off which will be set off against the 50mn, if there is an accounting profit only then is it useful in terms of PSR rules in that case, if not all it will do is reduce the amount of transfer cost that gets amortized in future.
 
Berbaclass said:
Rashford said it publically. Garnacho has been shopping himself about with his agents.
Click to expand...
Or we shopped him around when we leaked that we will listen to offers for Mainoo and Garnacho?

And Garnacho is getting bid because unlike so called United fans, other teams can see what he has achieved at 20 years old?
 
pratyush_utd said:
Or we shopped him around when we leaked that we will listen to offers for Mainoo and Garnacho?

And Garnacho is getting bid because unlike so called United fans, other teams can see what he has achieved at 20 years old?
Click to expand...

It’s not like there’s a big line up for him. Napoli and maybe Chelsea.
 
Garnacho has always been an exciting player because of his willingness to run at pace and take on defenders.
His end product can be quite frustrating especially when he picks the wrong option to pass or shoot. Will his football intelligence improve and his willingness to do so?

Compare it to some of the top wingers in the league at the moment like Salah and Saka. Palmer, Foden and Mbuemo to stretch it. I think Garnacho is still some distance away which is possibly why he is not an automatic choice even within our own starting XI.

Don't get me wrong. I'll still appreciate him as our player, but I wouldn't say he is indispensable but the current depth is definitely worrying
 
Zumbi said:
It’s not like there’s a big line up for him. Napoli and maybe Chelsea.
Click to expand...
Sky have been reporting that there are three teams interested besides Napoli and Chelsea, and that Garnacho isn't actively looking to leave.
 
If we sell him then surely we put a sell on clause on it. He’s destined to join Madrid or Barca at some point in his career.
 
SmallCaine said:
Thats not how it works, when people say selling youth academy players are pure profit, they mean there are no costs that need to be written off, so every penny that comes from selling a garnacho is pure profit, and player sales are accounted for the year they are sold in not carried forward over the period, so that entire 50mn can be set off against the year's amortization cost of player purchase. If you sell a Hojlund, for 50mn you may or may not end up getting any money in terms of psr because he was bought for a big fee that is being amortized over his contract period or whatever max term uefa rules say, so if we sold Hojlund right now for 50mn, his unamoritized cost will also have to be written off which will be set off against the 50mn, if there is an accounting profit only then is it useful in terms of PSR rules in that case, if not all it will do is reduce the amount of transfer cost that gets amortized in future.
Click to expand...
Mate, please. I work in finance. If you don't know what you're talking about, just hold off on commenting on PSR. I'm sick of people posting who don't understand the rules.

"Reducing the amount of transfer cost" as you call it, counts exactly as much as selling a homegrown player. Holjund's fee from our purchase is already on the books. If you sell him for £50M then revenue goes up by £50M. Your one year costs WILL go up as the amortization from his purchase is pulled into the current accounting year, but your OVERALL costs (across years) stay exactly the same. All you are doing is moving costs from future years into this accounting year; you're not increasing overall costs.

Hence, selling Holjund is worth exactly as much as Garnacho, to the penny. Garnacho just lets us spend more this winter, whereas selling Holjund would let us spend more in summer 2025 and summer 2026.
 
I know he is nowhere near as good as Messi & his finishing is awful at times but he has been one of our better players in recent times, are we making a mistake getting rid? :confused:
 
UTD_Since_1978 said:
I know he is nowhere near as good as Messi & his finishing is awful at times but he has been one of our better players in recent times, are we making a mistake getting rid? :confused:
Click to expand...
I believe it would be a mistake to sell him. As you said, he has been one of our better players and he will get better and better. We have not seen anything like his full potential yet.

Ten Hag/Woodward/Arnold have put us in a massive financial mess
 
horsechoker said:
"Hello my name is Miroma and I come from some place far away"

9hhvpu.jpg
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
shogunrua said:
Garnacho has always been an exciting player because of his willingness to run at pace and take on defenders.
His end product can be quite frustrating especially when he picks the wrong option to pass or shoot. Will his football intelligence improve and his willingness to do so?

Compare it to some of the top wingers in the league at the moment like Salah and Saka. Palmer, Foden and Mbuemo to stretch it. I think Garnacho is still some distance away which is possibly why he is not an automatic choice even within our own starting XI.

Don't get me wrong. I'll still appreciate him as our player, but I wouldn't say he is indispensable but the current depth is definitely worrying
Click to expand...
Compare him to those players at 20 year’s old, though. We have to consider he has the potential to get a lot better than he currently is with a bit of fine tuning.
 
I just don’t see how we are letting go of one of the best 20 year olds in the world for 50-60m.

He is very good for his age, he is still 5 years from his peak and is on course to being a great player.
 
Redivy said:
I just don’t see how we are letting go of one of the best 20 year olds in the world for 50-60m.

He is very good for his age, he is still 5 years from his peak and is on course to being a great player.
Click to expand...
It's a strange one, really. The current rules basically creates a separate market with different valuations for "academy players" where the selling clubs can add the full transfer sum to the bottom line immediately, and thus would be willing to accept a lower total transfer fee for these players.

Chelsea's acquisition strategy in recent years has essentially been to exploit this bizarro market inefficiency.
 
bosnian_red said:
I'm looking at top 5 leagues and cups, and UNDER 21 (so 20 and below).
https://www.transfermarkt.com/score...chtung=&spielerposition_id=&filter=0&yt0=Show

You can also look at his metrics, while being a 19/20 year old and playing in a garbage disaster team, showing his elite traits:

- 98th percentile in total shots
- 87th percentile in non pen xG
- 92nd percentile in progressive carries
- 95th percentile for carries into the box
- 87th percentile in progressive passes received
- 97th percentile in penalty area touches


He's 20. He's not a complete player. But he has elite traits, and players as they age tend to round out the weaker parts of their game while refining their elite traits. Garnachos profile lends itself to a player who is going to get 20+ goals per season as a winger and a big danger man.
Click to expand...
This, some say he has no qualities but he is actually very mature and productive for his age. He obviously wants to model after Ronaldo, the Real Madrid version. So he makes good runs, always wants to play off the shoulder of defenders, is very alert in counter attacks/transitions, he actually has very good low crossing/cutbacks and can curl it in the far corner. He will become a very productive winger in the right set-up.
 
Stop comparing him to Lamal Yamine, I don't think there's a lot between the two if they both play for a top team.
50m will be like farting right in front of our faces and running away with our doughnuts.
 
youngrell said:
Compare him to those players at 20 year’s old, though. We have to consider he has the potential to get a lot better than he currently is with a bit of fine tuning.
Click to expand...
Surely there are also some of those 20 year olds who don't meet their potential also. That's why it's potential.
 
For me the Alvarez fee should be the barometer. In my opinion Garnacho is already better than Alvarez and he’s younger. That should be the absolutely bare minimum fee to see him go. Personally though I hope we keep him as I still see a potential world beater in him if he puts it all together.
 
pocco said:
Cole Palmer was £40m, so really Garnacho is worth far less.
Click to expand...

Thats not the same - Garnacho has over 3 times the number of games for United than what Palmer had for City. Palmer was also not in any way a key player at any point for them whilst Garnacho has been for us at times in the last 2 years
 
Some say he is destined to play for Barcelona or Real Madrid - unfortunately he most likely will play for Lecce than either of them.
 
TrustInJanuzaj said:
For me the Alvarez fee should be the barometer. In my opinion Garnacho is already better than Alvarez and he’s younger. That should be the absolutely bare minimum fee to see him go. Personally though I hope we keep him as I still see a potential world beater in him if he puts it all together.
Click to expand...
In what way is he better? I would argue that the vast majority would say he's not close.
 
42 million is absolutely taking the piss.

It's so fecking infuriating that the muppets sanctioning our transfers over the past ten years have left us needing to sell to buy; genuinely think we could be demanding close to a nine-figure sum for Garnacho in the current market if this wasn't the case.
 
Im a little sad about this as I like Garnacho and felt he would shine for us. Unfortunately he doesn't fit well in Amorims system. I just hope we manage to find a good replacement!
 
To me he's always looked a level below the top talents when you watch him for 90 mins, so I have no qualms for letting him go for a good price.

If we're selling though, we need to sell in the next couple of days and have a replacement lined up in addition to whoever we bring in at wing back. Any less than two signings through the door after a ~£60m sale will be disappointing.
 
The sale of Garnacho, and potentially Mainoo, just epitomises what a shitshow this club has been for over a decade. First we grew dependant on academy players being our key performers, then we might end up selling them due to our financial situation and them being our only really sellable assets. After selling Garnacho also because he most likely will never fit Amorim's system, then I bet Amorim will get the sack due to poor results before he even gets a chance to create a team to suit his tactics.
 
Lewnited said:
To me he's always looked a level below the top talents when you watch him for 90 mins, so I have no qualms for letting him go for a good price.

If we're selling though, we need to sell in the next couple of days and have a replacement lined up in addition to whoever we bring in at wing back. Any less than two signings through the door after a ~£60m sale will be disappointing.
Click to expand...
When I watch the other top talents, he performs the same.
Inconsistent, can drop off of games, some tactical mistakes, moments of genius.
The difference is, most people watch Garnacho week in week out, and watch the other talents through highlights, thinking all the other 20yo put outstanding performances every game
 
LARulz said:
Thats not the same - Garnacho has over 3 times the number of games for United than what Palmer had for City. Palmer was also not in any way a key player at any point for them whilst Garnacho has been for us at times in the last 2 years
Click to expand...

Palmer is a better player though and, to those in football who did their homework, would have known just how good he was. Chelsea weren’t just taking a punt, and City didn’t charge £40m for no reason. It was known how good he was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.