Alexis Sanchez / 1 year loan deal to Inter

Status
Not open for further replies.
The only bad thing about this deal is that is not a permament. I hope he will do a much better for Inter and they will buy him next summer.


roonster09 said:
I don't mind players like Greenwood, Gomes, Chong getting chances. Forgot about Chong tbh. I don't agree with Mata and Lingard being better. Lingard has contributed to 0 goals in nearly a year, Mata doesn't have legs to play with bit of pace.

Let's see how we get on. Hopefully we won't have any big injury crisis and also our young players will step up.
Click to expand...

The main reason for Mata's new contract is our lack of characters in dressing room and to play part in De Gea's new contract.

If Chong, Gomes and Greenwood step up I can see one(I hope both) of Mata and Lingard leaving next summer.
With 2 new players in attack (1 in the winter) we will have a very good attack with potentional to be better with time.
 
I can see him to well in a two striker system. Hopefully he more than impresses for them
 
Can someone help me understand this. The times and others saying Inter are paying the majority if his wages and that equates to Inter paying £9 ish mil. And us the rest. That doesn't add up.

£391,000 × 52 = £20,332,000

£9,000,000 ÷ £20,332,000 × 100 = 44.26%

So United are paying 55.74% of his wages?
 
Suvvernmanc said:
Can someone help me understand this. The times and others saying Inter are paying the majority if his wages and that equates to Inter paying £9 ish mil. And us the rest. That doesn't add up.

£391,000 × 52 = £20,332,000

£9,000,000 ÷ £20,332,000 × 100 = 44.26%

So United are paying 55.74% of his wages?
Click to expand...

The times articles says how much we will pay also
 
Suvvernmanc said:
Can someone help me understand this. The times and others saying Inter are paying the majority if his wages and that equates to Inter paying £9 ish mil. And us the rest. That doesn't add up.

£391,000 × 52 = £20,332,000

£9,000,000 ÷ £20,332,000 × 100 = 44.26%

So United are paying 55.74% of his wages?
Click to expand...
Sanchez probably took a 25% wage cut for missing Champions League, so I guess his wage is £293,250
£293,250 x 52 = £15,249,000
£9,000,000 ÷ £15,249,000 x 100 = 59%

Maybe, I really don't know though.
 
I view this as out of sight, out of mind. For United to be doing this deal, he must cause one Hell of a ruckus in the dressing room. From the outside looking in, his wages are a huge issue, he doesn't seem close to any of the squad that is now here, his form has been poor for months and months. I can imagine we have taken the decision based on the fact he won't play much at all moving forward, Sanchez himself won't like that and possibly make things hard behind the scenes and there are lots of other existing issues as mentioned. For the year, we may have just decided to take the hit and buy ourselves 12 months without him then re-assess next summer.
 
is incredible and meaningless what we did this summer, we are very short upfront and we continue to give away players without replacing them.
 
Suvvernmanc said:
Can someone help me understand this. The times and others saying Inter are paying the majority if his wages and that equates to Inter paying £9 ish mil. And us the rest. That doesn't add up.

£391,000 × 52 = £20,332,000

£9,000,000 ÷ £20,332,000 × 100 = 44.26%

So United are paying 55.74% of his wages?
Click to expand...

From memory, his base salary isn't 391k to get that amount you need to add some bonuses.
 
Suvvernmanc said:
Can someone help me understand this. The times and others saying Inter are paying the majority if his wages and that equates to Inter paying £9 ish mil. And us the rest. That doesn't add up.

£391,000 × 52 = £20,332,000

£9,000,000 ÷ £20,332,000 × 100 = 44.26%

So United are paying 55.74% of his wages?
Click to expand...

His wages is 15 million after it was reduced by 25%. We are paying 6 million, so that's 40%.
 
12OunceEpilogue said:
So we've saved nearly ten million notes and got this:



We need to bear in the mind there were no 'good' deals, the damage had been done signing a near-30 declining player on world-class wages. What we've done is the least-worst deal; Alexis gets the chance to put himself in the shop window at nearly a third of the cost to us, without disgruntling our squad. If you have misgivings that a player who could contribute in a threadbare position for us is being given away fair play to you, personally I've given up any hope of Sanchez doing anything positive in a United shirt and getting him closer to the exit door is the main positive of this deal.
Click to expand...

100% this. Anyone wanting to still keep him is ignoring how he has been for us and still clinging to the illusion that he will come good. We should get rid at all costs and so this sounds like a great deal as far as I'm concerned. We are very light in attack but keeping Sanchez wont fix that unfortunately, the only difficulty with him and lukaku leaving is that they weren't replaced during the summer when we had ample opportunity to do so.
 
roonster09 said:
His base salary is 391K, on top of that he has multiple bonuses.
Click to expand...

Surely his bonuses only apply to playing for us? (eg. 75k every appearance)

In Fabrizio Romano's article for The Guardian, he says Inter will pay 175k p/w and we'll pay 215k p/w.

So we're still paying most of his wages. Must've been one hell of a disruption in the dressing room!
 
short term pain for long term gain chaps

Might leave us short in terms of numbers now (not so sure about quality) but if it gets rid of him then I'm all for it
 
jderbyshire said:
Surely his bonuses only apply to playing for us? (eg. 75k every appearance)

In Fabrizio Romano's article for The Guardian, he says Inter will pay 175k p/w and we'll pay 215k p/w.

So we're still paying most of his wages. Must've been one hell of a disruption in the dressing room!
Click to expand...

Not sure whom to believe, Paul Hirst reported we are paying 40% of the wages, rest by Inter.

Yeah, I'm assuming he won't be getting any bonuses from ManUtd.
 
Suvvernmanc said:
Can someone help me understand this. The times and others saying Inter are paying the majority if his wages and that equates to Inter paying £9 ish mil. And us the rest. That doesn't add up.

£391,000 × 52 = £20,332,000

£9,000,000 ÷ £20,332,000 × 100 = 44.26%

So United are paying 55.74% of his wages?
Click to expand...
I guess it has to do with the italian taxes. I guess he wants the same net salary and with less taxes that means his gross salary could be around £15m. But it's just a guess.
 
Sometimes you need to pay to correct an industrial mistake.

It was vital for our dressing room to get rid of some players including him and Lukaku.

Even if we pay 60% of his wages, it will be better not having him on the bench, not having our top ever earner being so miserable.

You are all crying for Gomes, Chonge and Greenwood to play. Now that we have a light squad (I can still count 23 international players) our kids will have to play and provider things on the pitch. Fans will be happy to see kids, but at the end, Sanchez will not be wearing our shirt again hopefully.
 
maybe our playing style not match him

i still believe he is good player
 
It's good to loan him out. It's very risky to not properly replace him. We are likely to play 52-55 games this season (ormore!) and the options in attack are pretty limited. Imagine both Martial and Rashford getting injured at some point.
 
sem said:
maybe our playing style not match him

i still believe he is good player
Click to expand...
That's true, being able to run just doesn't suit him anymore.

I'm sure a walking pace league like Seria A will be better for him.
 
Glad we can get the majority of that waste of money off our books. I dont know what happened to him when he signed, or what problems he had with our playing style, but he had to go. Him and Lukaku leaving frees up a large chunk of our wages. Now lets see if we are going to reinvest them.
 
kafta said:
Glad we can get the majority of that waste of money off our books. I dont know what happened to him when he signed, or what problems he had with our playing style, but he had to go. Him and Lukaku leaving frees up a large chunk of our wages. Now lets see if we are going to reinvest them.
Click to expand...

It didn't happen when he signed for us mate, he was already shite in his final season at Arsenal. Probably a mental issue. Maybe he'll feel like he has something to prove again after getting kicked out by us. Hopefully he does because then we can maybe get our money back on him.
 
It's a 10 months loan. United have already paid the first two months. They're splitting the other 10, hence the confusion with the numbers
 
Bit miffed that it doesnt include a requirement to buy at the end of the loan.

Still gutted that it didnt work out. Still think he had the best unveiling video ever.

Shows how much we wanted to offload him considering how threadbare the striking options are now. I can just see us playing Mata and Lingard up front in the Europa League some game. (Christ help us if we need to do it in a league game).

Maybe we can do a Van Gaal and resign Nick Powell to play him up front.
 
The worst deal in the history of football keeps getting even worse. How does that even happen ?

I have mixed feelings about this. Massive pressure on Greenwood and Gomes/Chong now. This is not going to end well. They are all one bad game away from getting ripped by social media.

The part I don't like is that we are paying most of his wages. How does this deal even benefit us? Is he that bad for the dressing room atmosphere?
 
LoneStar said:
The part I don't like is that we are paying most of his wages. How does this deal even benefit us? Is he that bad for the dressing room atmosphere?
Click to expand...

Because we're not paying as much of them as we would be otherwise. If he's not going to play anyway then its no surprise the club would rather save some money.

We aren't going to miss his contributions, but with no backup at all it's sure going to be interesting if Rashford and Martial need a rest or are injured.
 
LoneStar said:
The worst deal in the history of football keeps getting even worse. How does that even happen ?

I have mixed feelings about this. Massive pressure on Greenwood and Gomes/Chong now. This is not going to end well. They are all one bad game away from getting ripped by social media.

The part I don't like is that we are paying most of his wages. How does this deal even benefit us? Is he that bad for the dressing room atmosphere?
Click to expand...
Because he's on something like 425k a week, plus a 75k appearance fee.

If we can get Inter to pay us a loan fee + around half his wage, that's a huge saving across the year.

Yes we practically pay 200k for nothing, but it's better than paying the full amount for nothing also.
 
LoneStar said:
The worst deal in the history of football keeps getting even worse. How does that even happen ?

I have mixed feelings about this. Massive pressure on Greenwood and Gomes/Chong now. This is not going to end well. They are all one bad game away from getting ripped by social media.

The part I don't like is that we are paying most of his wages. How does this deal even benefit us? Is he that bad for the dressing room atmosphere?
Click to expand...
This is the question really. Just think how much of a cock you must be to get loaned out when the club is bereft of players in your position?

People are quick to judge the club here but all fingers should really be pointed at Alexis.

Plus side is we get to see more of the youth players and we'll know by the end of the season if they've got what it takes to make it here. Worse case scenario is they become good squad options in coming seasons.
 
Adam-Utd said:
Because he's on something like 425k a week, plus a 75k appearance fee.

If we can get Inter to pay us a loan fee + around half his wage, that's a huge saving across the year.

Yes we practically pay 200k for nothing, but it's better than paying the full amount for nothing also.
Click to expand...

As per Paul Hirst, we are paying 6 million with Inter paying 9.5 million. So that's around 115k per week we are paying. Also there is no loan fee. It's a free loan.
 
Macedonian Red said:
The only bad thing about this deal is that is not a permament. I hope he will do a much better for Inter and they will buy him next summer.
Click to expand...

Have to hope he does really well over there. It's a double edged sword though. If he does well then Ed might decide to bring him back.


kafta said:
Glad we can get the majority of that waste of money off our books. I dont know what happened to him when he signed, or what problems he had with our playing style, but he had to go. Him and Lukaku leaving frees up a large chunk of our wages. Now lets see if we are going to reinvest them.
Click to expand...

These savings aren't going anywhere but the Glazers pockets. I wouldn't be surprised if they are plotting behind the scenes to get shot of Pogba too. These 3 gone with no replacements bought would be a great transfer window for the Glazers.
 
roonster09 said:
As per Paul Hirst, we are paying 6 million with Inter paying 9.5 million. So that's around 115k per week we are paying. Also there is no loan fee. It's a free loan.
Click to expand...
I see thanks, so a pretty substantial saving. Plus it gets him out the dressing room which can only be a good thing if he's not happy.

No point having an angry Diva stropping around the place. Now Pogba/De Gea can go back to being the top dogs in terms of wage.
 
Bit weird there’s no option to buy, so we just leave ourselves short and end up having him back next season
 
Status
Not open for further replies.