Alejandro Garnacho (out) | Chelsea make enquiries

Status
Not open for further replies.
Even though he's far from perfect, he's still one of our most productive attackers, at a time when we can't score goals, with his career ahead of him.

Selling him to Chelsea would really, really hurt unless it was for all of the money. He has a long contract left too. I'd be looking at record fees personally, something that would enable at least 3/4 players to come in.

Also, do Chelsea really need to spend big on yet another wide attacker?
 
Ekeke said:
If we pay half his wages and sell him for whatever number £, thats half his wages off the books. Thats the only good outcome from freezing him out and transfering him out.

Personally I would have been playing him, though if someone wanted to buy him in the summer - perhaps because he hit form and scored some goals for us, then I'd listen. Because his wages are a big issue if he isnt in the team, scoring loads of goals. He does need to be sold if he isnt doing that. But I think the route to getting there would have been much better if he was on the pitch having the chance to score goals for us.
Click to expand...
Why the hell would youdo that after all rashford has done? That's just giving in to player power which we're supposedly trying to end.
 
TheNewEra said:
I don't feel Garnacho is as great as people think. He obviously has huge potential but we do need wing backs for the system.

I'd rather it be Garnacho than Mainoo
Click to expand...

What if the wing backs are shite, and God forbid Ruben gets sacked before the season is out. We'll be down to only Amad and Rashford as our only recognizable wingers.
 
Mike Smalling said:
If we set our expectations after two of the dumbest deals in recent memory, we won’t make many sales.

Mount being a terrible buy at 60m, doesn’t mean Garnacho is a terrible sale at the same price.
Click to expand...

But it does perpetuate the perception in football that United are a soft touch and mugs in the transfer market.

The only other club you could possibly compare to us in terms of being a farce in the market is Chelsea and if this goes through, we’ll have allowed them the upper hand in two transfers.

Obviously the geniuses of RedCafe know better than the journalists voting on the golden boy index, that goes without saying. But those journalists point to a perception of the player outside the club as a huge talent. A serious club capitalises on that perception.

If we had signed permacrook Mount, with less than a year left on his deal, for a reasonable sum of say 20-25m, then there would be no issue selling them Garnacho for 60-70m. The fact they demanded, and we paid 60m for him, means that we lose credibility in selling Garnacho from a far stronger position (in terms of fitness, games played, contract status and player profile) for the same amount.

Like it or not, that credibility carries over to future negotiations with other clubs. We are never going to be taken seriously again until we start acting seriously.
 
OverratedOpinion said:
Should we sign Daniel Szori, Erik Lamela, Marcin Oleksy, Guilherme Madruga?
Click to expand...

So did they all match the rest of the description I gave or are you trying to make a cheap point by zeroing in on one thing. Chelsea have spent signifcant sums of money on players and yet for some reason we seem determined to give them mates rates for one of the few players of value that we currently possess. Our financial woes are a combination of overpaying on incoming players and failing to get good value when we sell and your stance seems to be that we should maintain the fine tradition of taking budget prices for our players. Chelsea can go a lot higher than 59M and based on everything that Garnacho has accomplished so far we should certainly be asking for more.
 
If he goes to Chelsea then Sancho is gonna be extra pissed when Garnacho takes his place in 2 different teams.
 
Dr. StrangeHate said:
United's whole identity is having home grown players in the first team and winning with them, kind of like Barcelona. This just feels like we are becoming Chelsea.
Click to expand...
How does selling one player change that, we have always sold players of this age.

Really, there are so many drama queens in this thread, from those who think Garnacho is the second coming, to those who think it will the end of Manchester United. It's pretty pathetic really.
 
Gandalf said:
So did they all match the rest of the description I gave or are you trying to make a cheap point by zeroing in on one thing. Chelsea have spent signifcant sums of money on players and yet for some reason we seem determined to give them mates rates for one of the few players of value that we currently possess. Our financial woes are a combination of overpaying on incoming players and failing to get good value when we sell and your stance seems to be that we should maintain the fine tradition of taking budget prices for our players. Chelsea can go a lot higher than 59M and based on everything that Garnacho has accomplished so far we should certainly be asking for more.
Click to expand...

The rest of your description was subjective and nowhere near true in my opinion. Apart from him being 20, which is factually his age.
 
I would definitely take him at Spurs, he's the type of player we need.

I don't understand why Chelsea is interested. I don't think he's better than Madueke, Neto, Sancho, Felix, etc.
 
Judas said:
Would Brighton be selling him so cheaply to Chelsea? I don’t think so, so why should we settle for so little?
Click to expand...

Because you seeming need the money, the manager doesn't fancy the player and the player is reportedly happy to leave. Brighton didn't need to sell so could ask for crazy money.

Also the only two clubs who have shown interest are Napoli (who don't have much more to spend) and Chelsea (who have about 200 players in that position so are not desperate).
 
Solius said:
Not really. I know he has his faults but he's 20 years old and has already done a lot in this league in a largely dysfunctional side. He was top 3 for Golden Boy right? Too see him potentially flourishing at Chelsea for years would be a bit sickening. You know the media would mention it every chance they got too.
Click to expand...
He wasn’t top three of golden boy. Mainoo was, though.
 
duffer said:
Because you seeming need the money, the manager doesn't fancy the player and the player is reportedly happy to leave.

Also the only two clubs who have shown interest are Napoli (who don't have much more to spend) and Chelsea (who have about 200 players in that position so are not desperate).
Click to expand...
That's fairly debatable
 
Shark said:
Nobody actually believes either of these things, you're just being dramatic. People can be against selling a player like Garnacho without believing either of these things.
Click to expand...
Someone just said they would give up watching United if he goes to Chelsea. In fact, they said they would give up watching football.
 
SirBillNic said:
I would definitely take him at Spurs, he's the type of player we need.

I don't understand why Chelsea is interested. I don't think he's better than Madueke, Neto, Sancho, Felix, etc.
Click to expand...

Most of those won’t be at Chelsea next season tbh.
 
Posh Red said:
Someone just said they would give up watching United if he goes to Chelsea. In fact, they said they would give up watching football.
Click to expand...

The poster you quoted said it feels like we're becoming Chelsea, didn't see anything about giving up watching United or football.
 
Shark said:
The poster you quoted said it feels like we're becoming Chelsea, didn't see anything about giving up watching United or football.
Click to expand...
I saw ‘the end of Manchester United’. Suggesting you will give up watching the team and the sport entirely is similarly absurd.
 
Mike Smalling said:
Yeah, but those deals say nothing about Garnacho’s actual market value. Do you think the club is going to go: “Look, we overpaid for Mount, so you gotta cut us some slack here”? It doesn’t work like that. Look at each deal individually - does it enable us to move forward?

You can reasonably argue that 60m isn’t enough for Garnacho, but it has nothing to do with the Mount or Mudryk transfers.

I’d ask two things. 1) Would you be thrilled to buy Garnacho for 60m, if the clubs were reversed? 2) What are Chelsea fans thinking of this?
Click to expand...
If we played with a LW, instead of a LAM, yes. Also, if I were Chelsea, I'd immediately sign him for 60m if available. He doesn't have a future here, but I think if he goes to the right club, his ceiling is pretty high.
 
Really don't want him to go to Chelsea. feck sake
 
alexthelion said:
How does selling one player change that, we have always sold players of this age.

Really, there are so many drama queens in this thread, from those who think Garnacho is the second coming, to those who think it will the end of Manchester United. It's pretty pathetic really.
Click to expand...

To be fair for it to be like our usual business we'd need to give him a £250k a week contract and then accept a bid of £20m in 2-3 years time when he's ambling around the pitch like a geriatric.
 
JBG said:


Sounds like he's a fan...

Edit: Berbaclass

Edit 2: can't answer you Devil_forever, but I was being sarcastic.
Click to expand...

I mean Kvra scored like 28 league goals in 3 years at Napoli, so he's talking out of his arse. As per usual.
 
Posh Red said:
He wasn’t top three of golden boy. Mainoo was, though.
Click to expand...

Yes he was. Mainoo was 7th.

football-benchmark-index-golden-boy-ranking-as-per-august-v0-11nsvdvfsdhd1.jpeg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.