Alexis Sanchez | Done deal

[Mindhunter]

Arsenal want to keep Sanchez and have reportedly offered him 300K/wk. He's refused to sign. So their remaining options are to 1) let him go for free in the summer, 2) sell him now for whatever the mark is willing to pay. His value didn't drop because there only remain 6 months on his contract -- it dropped because the market isn't willing to pay 60m anymore, and Arsenal have almost zero leverage to raise it. If it were Neymar instead of Sanchez, he'd go for 200m. The clubs wouldn't give a feck about the 6-months lifetime left on the contract. I don't get how that point keeps sailing over some of your heads.



His value is determined by what he offers potential buying clubs' future success. That, and the prevailing transfer fees for other top talent, determine his transfer value.

No, Neymar woudn't go for less than his valuation if his contract was longer. You need to wrap your head around the fact that a valuation won't drop from 60m to 0 suddenly during the summer a player is out of contract. As you mentioned that market value of an asset is determined dynamically, you also need to take the useful life of the asset into the equation.

I am surprised that you are surprised people aren't buying your 60m to 0 in a few seconds theory.

 

[Mr Smith]

I just want to see him start for us. We're also going to be amazing on FIFA.

Funnily enough I bought Sanchez on Fifa as United like a week before this story first broke. I feel like something of a prophet now

 

[eat_grass]

So you are saying that a guy with 1 year on contract left should go for same as guy with 6 months left, What bizarre world does this work in?

The length of the contract is merely the impetus for Arsenal to sell. Since that lessens Arsenal's leverage (they now must sell), the price drops. In what fairytale land is that not obvious, lol? United aren't picking up Arsenal's contract -- they're scrapping it and giving Sanchez a brand new one with new terms, including length.

 

[matador]

wonder what people in Chile think of this. these days a substantial amount of people that i see from south america on twitter are "city fans", which is explainable since they are playing well and all but yeah, would like to have some insight into how the chilean football fans feel about this

We’re so excited mate! The amount of City fans is probably explained for having Bravo there, but everyone knows what United means. It’s a no brainer.

We’ve been waiting for something like this ever since Zamorano got to Real Madrid and Salas and Vidal to Juve (and then to Bayern Munich).

It’s almost 2 AM here and all I can do is refresh the news to see if the announcement is done!

We had Henriquez, but he never made the senior side, of course.

Was really excited about him at the time.

Dante Poli (CB) was at United too a long time ago, but he was (and still is) a great flop.

 

[eat_grass]

You don't think clubs would've been willing to pay £60m for Sanchez if he had let's say 2 years left on his contract? That's odd considering how players like Gylfi Sigurdsson went for £45m, Drinkwater and Oxlade-Chamberlain went for £35m, Ousmane Dembele went for £92m, Benjamin Mendy went for £52m, Morata went for £70m, Andre Silva went for £33.5m. Some of them, like the Ox, even had short contracts. So people are paying these fees but they wouldn't pay £60m for Sanchez who's significantly better than all the names mentioned. 45 million for Gylfi Sigurdsson but not 60 for Sanchez?

No, because they can't afford the rest of the cost of buying Sanchez: agents fee, signing-on fee, and salary. Nobody else but United can either afford it or is willing to pay it. The total cost has been quoted at ~180m. Who else could afford that but Man City and United?

 

[P-Nut]

Jesus Christ of course the length of contract impacts how much he'll sell for. Why are some of you even bothering arguing with this guy.

Why do clubs extend contracts just to sell players a few months later? They get more money.

 

[jungledrums]

The length of the contract is merely the impetus for Arsenal to sell. Since that lessens Arsenal's leverage (they now must sell), the price drops. In what fairytale land is that not obvious, lol? United aren't picking up Arsenal's contract -- they're scrapping it and giving Sanchez a brand new one with new terms, including length.

Arsenal want to keep Sanchez and have reportedly offered him 300K/wk. He's refused to sign. So their remaining options are to 1) let him go for free in the summer, 2) sell him now for whatever the mark is willing to pay. His value didn't drop because there only remain 6 months on his contract -- it dropped because the market isn't willing to pay 60m anymore, and Arsenal have almost zero leverage to raise it.

Are these not contradictory statements though?

 

[KM]

I liked Mkhi and all but I don't think I've ever seen a more Arsenal player than him, ever.

 

[prateik]

This thread has officially become boring.

 

[sglowrider]

Its a pretty good win-win deal for both clubs.

We get a world class player at tuppence -- we write down Mikhi's asset value annually as with each player, so on the books, we might actually be making money on swop if its valued at 35million. If Sanchez had 2 years left on his contract, it would have cost us upwards of 80-100 million last summer.

For the Gooners, they will get possibly two good-great players in return instead of losing one for nothing. If they had got the 60mllion cash from City in the summer, if the past is anything to go by, it may not have been all been spent by the board.

 

[eat_grass]

No, Neymar woudn't go for less than his valuation if his contract was longer. You need to wrap your head around the fact that a valuation won't drop from 60m to 0 suddenly during the summer a player is out of contract. As you mentioned that market value of an asset is determined dynamically, you also need to take the useful life of the asset into the equation.

I am surprised that you are surprised people aren't buying your 60m to 0 in a few seconds theory.

Lmao, you're trolling me.

Where did I say drop from 60m to 0? Where did I say a player's valuation drops to 0 when he's out of contract? You seem to be implying the opposite of what I've been arguing in this thread. :|

The drop from the initial quote from Arsenal (80m) to the current quote (35m) is due to the loss of leverage on Arsenal's part, and from the fact there is only one willing buyer on the market.

 

[Macern]

No, because they can't afford the rest of the cost of buying Sanchez: agents fee, signing-on fee, and salary. Nobody else but United can either afford it or is willing to pay it. The total cost has been quoted at ~180m. Who else could afford that but Man City and United?

PSG, Real Madrid, Barca? Even Liverpool, they just paid £70m for a center back. Not to mention several Chinese clubs. The total costs are spread out over several years. They can definitely affort paying 60 million for a player. Liverpool could probably not fit him into their wage structure, but the other mentioned clubs could.

 

[eat_grass]

Are these not contradictory statements though?

Hmm, I suppose in a sense. But only insofar as Arsenal aren't able to drive the price higher because they've lost almost all leverage. The player's valuation hasn't changed -- it's Arsenal's ability to recoup his full value that's changed.

 

[RAVred]

He's the missing piece in our attack and will be a game changer I feel. Theres hardly anything mata offers (and I love Juan) that Alexis wont. He'll really step our attack up a gear and I genuinely feel we will be much better equipped for big games.

 

[eat_grass]

PSG, Real Madrid, Barca? Even Liverpool, they just paid £70m for a center back. Not to mention several Chinese clubs. The total costs are spread out over several years. They can definitely affort paying 60 million for a player. Liverpool could probably not fit him into their wage structure, but the other mentioned clubs could.

But do they want him? And does Sanchez want them? The answer is clearly "no," or they would have bid.

 

[BigCaine]

The length of the contract is merely the impetus for Arsenal to sell. Since that lessens Arsenal's leverage (they now must sell), the price drops. In what fairytale land is that not obvious, lol? United aren't picking up Arsenal's contract -- they're scrapping it and giving Sanchez a brand new one with new terms, including length.

These are your words not mine.

His value didn't drop because there only remain 6 months on his contract -- it dropped because the market isn't willing to pay 60m anymore, and Arsenal have almost zero leverage to raise it.

The leverage thing is pure bs you are using to try and sound smart.

No one in their right mind would pay 60mn for a player who they can get for free in 6 months just because they were willing to pay 60mn 6 months before it doesn't mean he isn't worth the 60mn anymore or have anything to do with sterling or sane it just is smart to pay less than what you did before taking the contract situation into consideration.

Take the contract out of this equation and change it to something like say 2 years his price won't drop a cent sterling and Sane's improvement notwithstanding. You on the other hand are attributing this drop in price to everything but the contract length.

 

[idmanager]

These are your words not mine.



The leverage thing is pure bs you are using to try and sound smart.

No one in their right mind would pay 60mn for a player who they can get for free in 6 months just because they were willing to pay 60mn 6 months before it doesn't mean he isn't worth the 60mn anymore or have anything to do with sterling or sane it just is smart to pay less than what you did before taking the contract situation into consideration.

Take the contract out of this equation and change it to something like say 2 years his price won't drop a cent sterling and Sane's improvement notwithstanding. You on the other hand are attributing this drop in price to everything but the contract length.

No leverage is the only thing that got us RVP and Sanchez.

 

[eat_grass]

Jesus Christ of course the length of contract impacts how much he'll sell for. Why are some of you even bothering arguing with this guy.

Why do clubs extend contracts just to sell players a few months later? They get more money.

They do it to increase their leverage in negotiations, and to add higher release clauses. It's that simple. How is that not obvious?

If the contract is left unchanged, the player basically colludes with his parent club: you get more leverage and a higher release clause, I get a nice pay bump.

 

[roonster09]

Who cares? Is he worth paying 30 million for us? Without any doubt.

If we waited till summer who knows what his decision would be.

 

[Scholsey2004]

It's good for Arsenal too. He's not been great for them this season and was going to leave at some point anyway. They got a replacement in too, so one less player to worry about signing.

Well, its better than Sanchez leaving for nothing but reducing the scale of arsenals failure doesnt erase it. The equation is they swapped a 60m player for a 30m player because they took their eye off the ball in terms of their players contracts.

 

[Macern]

But do they want him? And does Sanchez want them? The answer is clearly "no," or they would have bid.

That’s not what you were saying, though. You said only United and City could affort him which is incorrect.

Jesus Christ of course the length of contract impacts how much he'll sell for. Why are some of you even bothering arguing with this guy.

Why do clubs extend contracts just to sell players a few months later? They get more money.

I’m not really sure. I think it’s time to go to bed.

 

[Scholsey2004]

How would Arsenal fans feel if he bagged the winner at WHL against Spurs next week?

EDIT: Or wherever they play nowadays.

EDIT EDIT: Feck, it's Wembley, isn't it. Had a major brainfart there.

Are they not in the new stadium then? Ah, I see not. Wonder when they will move into their new toilet seat stadium? Hope it has a giant flush mechanism to flush the players out after each game.

 

[eat_grass]

The leverage thing is pure bs you are using to try and sound smart.

LOL. "Leverage" is a term people use to sound smart? Holy hell.

No one in their right mind would pay 60mn for a player who they can get for free in 6 months

Sanchez isn't going for free in the summer. Arsenal would out of their minds to let his contract expire. He's leaving in this transfer window, and since they've got almost no leverage left, he's going for a cut-rate price.

I'm sorry but the rest of your run-on sentences are too hard to decipher.

 

[Micky Targaryen]

Happy Sanchez Sunday lads!

 

[Sereques]

When we signed Lukaku, Ed came with the "smokescreen" tactic using Morata. When we sign Sanchez, he comes with the swap tactic.

What will Ed do in our next transfer ?

Next summer, redcafe will be calling for his head again because he didn't sign their favorite player before May 20th and our season is shambles.

 

[NinjaZombie]

There is a good chance that Miki will play better there. I will be happy for him if he does.

He'll look good there, I'm sure of it. Less pressure, less attention on his disappearing acts. Wenger will take the brunt of the criticism when they all have a bad game.

 

[eat_grass]

That’s not what you were saying, though. You said only United and City could affort him which is incorrect.

Yes, of course the team has to want him and he has to want to go there for the club to even be a consideration. And of those in consideration that can afford and are willing to pay are United and Man City.

 

[Macern]

LOL. "Leverage" is a term people use to sound smart? Holy hell.



Sanchez isn't going for free in the summer. Arsenal would out of their minds to let his contract expire. He's leaving in this transfer window, and since they've got almost no leverage left, he's going for a cut-rate price.

I'm sorry but the rest of your run-on sentences are too hard to decipher.

What exactly do you mean by leverage? I’m half way through a bachelor in finance, and leverage to me means the extent of which a company uses debt for financing. What do you mean by leverage and why do you use that word? It’s weird.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

The length of the contract is merely the impetus for Arsenal to sell. Since that lessens Arsenal's leverage (they now must sell), the price drops. In what fairytale land is that not obvious, lol? United aren't picking up Arsenal's contract -- they're scrapping it and giving Sanchez a brand new one with new terms, including length.

Ok, that's what everyone in this thread is saying and I reckon everyone's in agreement with you - it's just that at some point the conversation's become confused. Sanchez' intrinsic value as a footballer and his value to Arsenal as an asset are two different, if related, things. You're focusing on the former, everyone else on the latter.

Sanchez' intrinsic value is irrelevant to Arsenal because he absolutely will not stay and his contract is about to expire. The only thing that matters to Arsenal is if Mkhi's value as a footballer for the next x years is equivalent to Sanchez' current asset value.

You are right to say that their value as footballers are better defined by the wages offered, signing on fee, etc.

 

[P-Nut]

LOL. "Leverage" is a term people use to sound smart? Holy hell.



Sanchez isn't going for free in the summer. Arsenal would out of their minds to let his contract expire. He's leaving in this transfer window, and since they've got almost no leverage left, he's going for a cut-rate price.

I'm sorry but the rest of your run-on sentences are too hard to decipher.

Someone's market value is the maximum clubs are willing to pay for them. Clubs are willing to pay more for people with longer contracts as they know they'd have to wait longer to get the player they want otherwise.

Saying arsenal have lost leverage is the same as his market value dropping.

Oh god even I'm doing it now. Time for the ignore button.

 

[eat_grass]

Ok, that's what everyone in this thread is saying and I reckon everyone's in agreement with you - it's just that at some point the conversation's become confused. Sanchez' intrinsic value as a footballer and his value to Arsenal as an asset are two different things. You're focusing on the former, everyone else on the latter.

Sanchez' intrinsic value is irrelevant to Arsenal because he absolutely will not stay and his contract is about to expire. The only thing that matters to Arsenal is if Mkhi's value as a footballer for the next x years is equivalent to Sanchez' current asset value.

Thank you. That clarifies things nicely.

I was starting to lose my head trying to figure out why people were being so obtuse.

 

[langster]

Alexis Sanchez, he's our hero,
Gonna take City down to zero,
He's our powers magnified,
And he's fighting on our club's side

We're the Alexiteers,
You can be one too!
'Cause saving our club is the thing to do
Oil and Jihad is not the way,

Hear what Alexis Sanchez has to say

"THE CLUB IS YOURS!!"

What the sweet feck is this shit? I have no words, but wish you didn't. Jeez that's awful.

 

[BigCaine]

Sanchez isn't going for free in the summer. Arsenal would out of their minds to let his contract expire. He's leaving in this transfer window, and since they've got almost no leverage left, he's going for a cut-rate price.

So now teams can sell players even if they may not want to leave can they, also if he wasn't kicking up a fuss to leave Wenger and Arsenal would have rather kept him until summer, 30mn loss in transfer fee is lot less compared to the loss that would occur if they fail to get CL again, Sanchez can win them the EL thus saving them much more than the transfer fee.

I'm sorry but the rest of your run-on sentences are too hard to decipher.

For that you need to actually be smart rather than using words just to look like one.

 

[Macern]

Someone's market value is the maximum clubs are willing to pay for them. Clubs are willing to pay more for people with longer contracts as they know they'd have to wait longer to get the player they want otherwise.

Saying arsenal have lost leverage is the same as his market value dropping.

Oh god even I'm doing it now. Time for the ignore button.

I ignored him too. Can’t believe I wasted my time with that instead of trying to get some sleep

 

[eat_grass]

What exactly do you mean by leverage? I’m half way through a bachelor in finance, and leverage to me means the extent of which a company uses debt for financing. What do you mean by leverage and why do you use that word? It’s weird.

In negotiation, leverage is the power that one side of a negotiation has to influence the other side to move closer to their negotiating position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leverage_(negotiation)

Arsenal want to maximize the amount of money they get for Sanchez -- to force potential buyers to pay the maximum they're willing to pay for him.

If Sanchez had 2 years left on his contract, their options would be sell at close to or exceeding Sanchez's true value, or keep him. With 6 months left on his contract, their options are sell at whatever the highest bidder offers, or lose him for free in the summer. Bidding clubs know that Arsenal have now lost almost all leverage.

 

[The Man Himself]

Just announce it ffs!

 

[P-Nut]

I ignored him too. Can’t believe I wasted my time with that instead of trying to get some sleep

Only problem being it means I've got less posts in this thread now and will take longer to hit the 600 mark than everyone else

 

[eat_grass]

So now teams can sell players even if they may not want to leave can they, also if he wasn't kicking up a fuss to leave Wenger and Arsenal would have rather kept him until summer, 30mn loss in transfer fee is lot less compared to the loss that would occur if they fail to get CL again, Sanchez can win them the EL thus saving them much more than the transfer fee.

Again with your run-on sentences, I just can't ... won't bother.

Sanchez wants to leave and Arsenal need to sell. How that escapes you is beyond me.

 

[midnightmare]

What the sweet feck is this shit? I have no words, but wish you didn't. Jeez that's awful.

I think he’s put it to the tune of the Captain Planet theme. Fecking terrible show that I wish I could wipe from my mind.

 

[eat_grass]

Someone's market value is the maximum clubs are willing to pay for them. Clubs are willing to pay more for people with longer contracts as they know they'd have to wait longer to get the player they want otherwise.

How does that contradict anything I've said? Arsenal must sell or lose Sanchez for nothing, so their price demands must drop accordingly. Shouldn't be too hard for you to grasp that concept, but I won't hold my breath.