Sky have been reporting that there are three teams interested besides Napoli and Chelsea, and that Garnacho isn't actively looking to leave.
Alejandro Garnacho (out) | Chelsea make enquiries
- Thread starter Luca[4]
- Start date
- Status
Next to no source backing this up, rather the opposite
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.
He’s got a long way to go before he ends up at one of those but I expect a bunch of clauses in his sale which see us get £20m+ if he ends up that good.
Don’t know man, I vividly remember people on here saying we couldn’t sell Martial under Mourinho because he’d go on to become our Salah.
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? 
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.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?
Ten Hag/Woodward/Arnold have put us in a massive financial mess
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 19,562
- Supports
️
"Hello my name is Miroma and I come from some place far away"
Or Pedri
When did he move to the wing?Or Pedri
Wasn't specifically mentioning any position, but rather listing actual special talents.
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.
The poster you laughed about did though
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.
He is very good for his age, he is still 5 years from his peak and is on course to being a great player.
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.
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.
50m will be like farting right in front of our faces and running away with our doughnuts.
Cole Palmer was £40m, so really Garnacho is worth far less.
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.
Cole Palmer showed feck all for City, not comparable at all
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.
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.
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!
And everyone on earth thinks that was a disastrous decision given what’s then happened over the next 2 years.
Wow
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.
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.
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
It was very well known how talented he was. City believed he was better than Foden.
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.
Nonsense, they would've never sold him if they believed that
It was, but like I said above, City knew what they had. They knew he was better than Foden.
They knew, you don’t know what you’re on about. It was spoke about a lot whilst he was there.
Using yourself as a source is certainly a play
- Status