Alexis Sanchez | Done deal

Status
Not open for further replies.
Even if Sanchez turns out to be a dud (which I very much doubt) this transfer is a masterstroke. Ashton and Ballbag with their smug know it all inside track bullshit, betrayed Pep bullshit, £180m bullshit, and it ends up a straight swap. STRAIGHT feckING SWAP.
 
That would make sense of it didn’t ignore the fact that Sanchez himself also has value.

Yes, Mkhitaryan isn’t the equivalent of ‘£0’, he’s about £35m. So does that mean Arsenal got him for free? No, obviously not.

If two people swap assets worth £35m each, it’s fair to say they were ‘free’.

No it is not

If you swap an asset that is worth £35m to get another asset than you have paid £35m for that asset and it has not been free.

If we had paid £35m in cash for Sanchez instead of giving them Mkhitaryan, you wouldn't have said we were getting him for free. But if we give up Mkhitaryan (who if we sold him for cash we could get £35m) to get Sanchez, than you say it is for free. That makes no sense.
 
kbsxgx.jpg
:lol:
 
I know. I agree that it's a straight swap with no money changing hands.
What I was saying is that if you have to put value on the players Alexis market value will be much higher than Mkhi's once they sign contracts.
Why do you have to put a higher market value on it? What does it matter for?
 
Video of Mkhi in London a few minutes ago on SSN. So they have actually travelled now, not at 11pm last night.
 
The graphs :lol:

I still can't believe barely over a week ago I bet on him joining City because I thought United so called interest was pushing the odds, and now we're signing Alexis Sanchez :eek:
 
It's a bit like real life panini swaps. Mourinho: "I need Sanchez to complete my Man United team, I'll give you Mkhitaryan".
 
It’s a fair swap. Nothing to see here. If we give them money it would only be out of kindness. Miki is worth at least 30m.

But clearly they aren't equal players in terms of quality, despite contract situations. City low balling probably worked in our favour, because he's clearly worth more than mhki, 6 months left or not.
 
I don't understand why the media keep harping on about the wage thing and adding it into the cost.

1. If Mhki was on £150,000/week, over the next 2.5 years we'd pay out £19.5m

2. However, we're swapping him for Sanchez who may be on something like £350,000/week. That extra £200,000 over 2.5 years is £26m.

3. If the contract is 4.5 years, the total cost of wages expenditure for him will be £62.4m more than if Mhki stayed with us for 4.5 years on £150,000/week (which would have been unlikely because he'd likely get a pay rise if we wanted to keep him). (£26m + £36.4m). An extra £15.6m a year...pretty doable for United.

Now where is the extra £120m coming from?

I'm pretty sure there's a huge flaw in my maths, but at this point, I really can't be arsed checking it all over.
 
Yea it is a bit ridiculous, we swapped Mkhi for Sanchez. Mkhi had 2.5 years left on his contract, his marketprice is surely around £35m, so we paid £35m (or whatever you would value Mkhi at) for Sanchez and not 0£. On top of that It seems that we had to also buy out Mkhi's contract to get him to agree to switch to Arsenal. I don't know what his salary is but I've been reading amounts between 140k and 200k per week so if it is true we bought his 2.5 year contract out than that would have cost us somewhere between £18m-£26m. That is not taking into account whatever amount we agreed to pay Sanchez as a signing fee, it is not taking into account how much money we are paying to Felicevich (Sanchez is agent) and it is also possible we are paying something to Railoa to make this swap deal happen. All that ofcourse on top of making Sanchez one of the best paid players in the world (his salary will be huge).

This deal is an absolute steal but to say we are getting Sanchez for free is really ridiculous.
I'll ask again but where is this coming from. The 180 mil media?

The sensible thing would be that we would simply subsidise the difference between his United contract and his Arsenal one for the duration of his contract. That's what City did with Adebayor. And its not like he's joining Spurs so he won't be on slave wages.
 
I don't understand why the media keep harping on about the wage thing and adding it into the cost.

1. If Mhki was on £150,000/week, over the next 2.5 years we'd pay out £19.5m

2. However, we're swapping him for Sanchez who may be on something like £350,000/week. That extra £200,000 over 2.5 years is £26m.

3. If the contract is 4.5 years, the total cost of wages expenditure for him will be £62.4m more than if Mhki stayed with us for 4.5 years on £150,000/week (which would have been unlikely because he'd likely get a pay rise if we wanted to keep him). (£26m + £36.4m). An extra £15.6m a year...pretty doable for United.

Now where is the extra £120m coming from?

I'm pretty sure there's a huge flaw in my maths, but at this point, I really can't be arsed checking it all over.
Raiola’s fee, which we probably handed over to Arsenal á la Pogba/Juventus deal. :D
 
It's just to end the well Mkhi has value brigade who are ignoring the fact that Alexis does too.
Oh. Carry on so. I couldn't care less. Miki is a good player but his mentality was lacking. Sanchez is a great player with some serious fight. It's a fantastic deal for us.
 
It's quite remarkable how Ed Woodward has become successful at transfers, ever since Jose came in as manager.
 
Literally don’t give a feck about the money involved.

Is he better than what we’ve got? Yes.

Can we get him? Yes.

Let’s do it. Football isn’t about accountancy. It’s about entertaining. And he will, based on previous excursions.

Welcome Alexis.
 
He’s on massive wages that very few clubs in the world could afford, and those that can afford him wouldn’t want someone who has been so abysmal, even Dortmund don’t want him back - if we sold him on the open market he would be similar to when we sold Nani (although he was a vastly superior player). Maybe we can meet on the middle... no one would pay anywhere near £35m for him.

We paid £26m for him when he had 1 year left on his deal at Dortmund and that was 1.5 years ago. He is a good palyer with value to many teams. Surely his big salary and poor form reduce that value but I think £35m isn't that far off to be honest.
 
I don't understand why the media keep harping on about the wage thing and adding it into the cost.

1. If Mhki was on £150,000/week, over the next 2.5 years we'd pay out £19.5m

2. However, we're swapping him for Sanchez who may be on something like £350,000/week. That extra £200,000 over 2.5 years is £26m.

3. If the contract is 4.5 years, the total cost of wages expenditure for him will be £62.4m more than if Mhki stayed with us for 4.5 years on £150,000/week (which would have been unlikely because he'd likely get a pay rise if we wanted to keep him). (£26m + £36.4m). An extra £15.6m a year...pretty doable for United.

Now where is the extra £120m coming from?

I'm pretty sure there's a huge flaw in my maths, but at this point, I really can't be arsed checking it all over.

The signing on fee is apparently £10m and the agent fee is apparently £10m, but yeah your logic and maths are correct. The media are just making things up and including tax. It’s a fantastic deal for United who will be getting a player worth around £80m.
 
It's quite remarkable how Ed Woodward has become successful at transfers, ever since Jose came in as manager.

He has been doing well under LVG too, according to what was asked from him. The thing changed is Mourinho. He's more organized in his transfer policy than the Dutch.
 
These are their top players of all time for GI ?



Luc Nilis on that list :lol:

I think he was a great player, who didn't get everything out of his career, but that is ridiculous.

Apparently their rating is a measure for their effect on goal difference. If I understand correctly, the algorithm looks at scores of the team when the player is playing and scores when he's not playing and then calculates their impact on goal difference...
 
Literally don’t give a feck about the money involved.

Is he better than what we’ve got? Yes.

Can we get him? Yes.

Let’s do it. Football isn’t about accountancy. It’s about entertaining. And he will, based on previous excursions.

Welcome Alexis.

Is the same cavalier attitude that Rangers had prior to going into administration twice...and still not entertaining anyone.
 

:lol:

Great times.
Hopefully, by the end of this, Alexis blows up here just like Namek! Not literally, though...
Or DBS where they after every 20-30 minute episode say that 1 more minute has passed in the tournament of power. :lol:
:lol: To be fair, because they're so overpowered now, I find it quite believable that they manage to do all that they do in 1 minute!
Let me ask my son about that - I will get back to you in season 2
:lol: Your son is new to the show and is watching it now? Awesome! Frieza's whole battle was season 3, though! You ever fancied it? :p
 
It's quite remarkable how Ed Woodward has become successful at transfers, ever since Jose came in as manager.
Even before that.

2015 was a good Summer. The double Schmifield deal were we only paid 24 mil for Morgan and just 6 for BFS. Signed Martial and got a decent deal for Memphis. The manager who signed them just had no clue how to use them. But Woody did his job well.
 
Goal Impact charts....does that take into account the BBC's "Expected Goals" stats?
With all due respect, those graphs mean nothing. Sanchez will bring United what we have been missing.
I hope he fancies a return to the right hand side with some freedom to move in. Debut against Yeovil, or baptism of fire against Spurs?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.