Alexis Sanchez

Alabaster Codify7 said:
He's been terrible this season for the most part, a non-entity. Arsenal should have done what we all thought they should, and sold him in the summer.
Click to expand...

This is the reason why, more often than not, there is nothing to gain from keeping a player when his thoughts are elsewhere.
If a player doesn't want to play for you anymore, just sell him for the best possible deal that you can get.
Arsenal could have easily sold Sanchez for £50m, instead they will probably end up with nothing, and they have kept a player that's delivering way below his capabilities, when they could have used that £50m to get a good replacement that actually wanted to play for them..
 
They'll sell him to City for 30m in January. Bad mistake to not sell him for 60m in August. 30m loss for 3-4 months of subdued performances.
 
Treble said:
They'll sell him to City for 30m in January. Bad mistake to not sell him for 60m in August. 30m loss for 3-4 months of subdued performances.
Click to expand...
Even City wouldn't pay 30m to have a player for 4 months when they can sign him for free.
 
whatwha said:
Even City wouldn't pay 30m to have a player for 4 months when they can sign him for free.
Click to expand...

If they are absolutely certain that he won't change his mind come June, they will offer less than 30m. But Sanchez can choose PSG in the summer or Chelsea or United or Barcelona...Therefore, City will probably pay what Arsenal want in January.
 
hellohello said:
Not sure about that, your wage bill is not any lower than those two is it? And you can afford to pay what it would take unless it becomes a matter of outbidding whatever the cost.
Click to expand...

Not really - City have the highest wage bill in the Premier League but have transferred a lot of their salary bill (over 15%) onto other associated companies to artificially deflate their costs (presumably for FFP purposes). From Swiss Ramble:

The magnitude of City’s wages reduction has raised a few eyebrows, as it has come down from £233 million in 2013 (to £197.5m in 2016), especially given the reduction in headcount: football staff have been slashed from 222 to 150, while commercial/administration staff have fallen from 227 to 170.

This is essentially due to a group restructure whereby some staff previously paid by City were transferred to other group companies, which provide services to all the CFG football clubs. They then charge those clubs, including Manchester City, for the services provided, meaning that City’s wages are lower with a corresponding increase in other expenses.

Your overall point is correct though - United could offer up to around £300k a week which would be similar to what City would be offering.
 
Treble said:
If they are absolutely certain that he won't change his mind come June, they will offer less than 30m. But Sanchez can choose PSG in the summer or Chelsea or United or Barcelona...Therefore, City will probably pay what Arsenal want in January.
Click to expand...
Has it ever been done before that a club has paid a significant sum for a player who can sign a pre contract for a free transfer months later?
Surely easier to just offer him a 10m signing bonus and get him to put pen to paper on the pre contract.
 
finneh said:
Not really - City have the highest wage bill in the Premier League but have transferred a lot of their salary bill (over 15%) onto other associated companies to artificially deflate their costs (presumably for FFP purposes). From Swiss Ramble:

The magnitude of City’s wages reduction has raised a few eyebrows, as it has come down from £233 million in 2013 (to £197.5m in 2016), especially given the reduction in headcount: football staff have been slashed from 222 to 150, while commercial/administration staff have fallen from 227 to 170.

This is essentially due to a group restructure whereby some staff previously paid by City were transferred to other group companies, which provide services to all the CFG football clubs. They then charge those clubs, including Manchester City, for the services provided, meaning that City’s wages are lower with a corresponding increase in other expenses.

Your overall point is correct though - United could offer up to around £300k a week which would be similar to what City would be offering.
Click to expand...
United can offer more than that if we really, really want him. Zlatan was on an average of £418k per week including bonuses.
 
whatwha said:
Has it ever been done before that a club has paid a significant sum for a player who can sign a pre contract for a free transfer months later?
Surely easier to just offer him a 10m signing bonus and get him to put pen to paper on the pre contract.
Click to expand...

I think that would certainly be better for them not only for a cheaper price but in terms of integrating him into the team and establishing a first 11.

To answer your question, they did pay a ridiculous price for Nigel De Jong when his contract was expiring. Sanchez is certainly a much better player and an opportunity that cannot be missed so I think there are arguments for both approaches.
 
whatwha said:
Has it ever been done before that a club has paid a significant sum for a player who can sign a pre contract for a free transfer months later?
Surely easier to just offer him a 10m signing bonus and get him to put pen to paper on the pre contract.
Click to expand...

IIRC, this can't happen within the PL, only between PL based players and foreign clubs. PSG can sign a pre contract with Sanchez in January but not City.

Besides, City may need him because they have only Aguero and Jesus as strikers now and a long term injury to one of them could jeopardise their season. My prediction is that they will sign him already in January.
 
Treble said:
IIRC, this can't happen within the PL, only between PL based players and foreign clubs. PSG can sign a pre contract with Sanchez in January but not City.

Besides, City may need him because they have only Aguero and Jesus as strikers now and a long term injury to one of them could jeopardise their season. My prediction is that they will sign him already in January.
Click to expand...
Why can't it happen within PL?
 
hellohello said:
Not sure about that, your wage bill is not any lower than those two is it? And you can afford to pay what it would take unless it becomes a matter of outbidding whatever the cost.
Click to expand...
We were clearly interested in De Bruyne and Mendy when they were on the market but were outbid. We would never have paid 200 million for Neymar like PSG did. Mbappe was another they were able to outbid us with and we probably would only gone as high as 70 million for him and not double that like they paid.
 
Treble said:
They'll sell him to City for 30m in January. Bad mistake to not sell him for 60m in August. 30m loss for 3-4 months of subdued performances.
Click to expand...

Not really. If we sold Sanchez for 60m, we would buy Lemar for 100m last summer. Lemar will never be so expensive again and i'm not sure, if there still will be interest in Lemar.
60m - 100m = -40
30m - 70m = -40

Lemar wasn't that great this season and don't think Wenger will pay at least 70m for him. If he will cost less than 70m, we haven't "lost" money.
 
NieThePiet said:
Not really. If we sold Sanchez for 60m, we would buy Lemar for 100m last summer. Lemar will never be so expensive again and i'm not sure, if there still will be interest in Lemar.
60m - 100m = -40
30m - 70m = -40

Lemar wasn't that great this season and don't think Wenger will pay at least 70m for him. If he will cost less than 70m, we haven't "lost" money.
Click to expand...

You will have to convince him to choose Arsenal over Liverpool first if, as expected, Klopp goes back for him.
 
Treble said:
They'll sell him to City for 30m in January. Bad mistake to not sell him for 60m in August. 30m loss for 3-4 months of subdued performances.
Click to expand...

Might be worth it in terms of morale. There will be less outcry when he leaves after a half season of flat performances.

The pressure on wenger without sanchez right now would be immense.
 
B20 said:
Might be worth it in terms of morale. There will be less outcry when he leaves after a half season of flat performances.

The pressure on wenger without sanchez right now would be immense.
Click to expand...

What pressure?
He is unsackable.
He could sell his entire team and play with a bunch of U18 players, finish near the bottom, with the fans demanding he be sacked and he still won't leave.
There is absolutely no pressure on Wenger.
 
He will probably go to City and allow Pep to heavily rotate. His front 3 do so much sprinting and last year Sterling fell apart in the 2nd half of the season because Pep couldn't rotate him. I fear pep has the tools to build a very great tailor made squad that is very specific to his football.
 
If City are smart they buy come CM backup and a CB backup. They already have Bernardo Silva as backup for Sane/Sterling etc.
 
Champagne Football said:
There's no chance he's coming here as City and PSG can outbid us by 50,000 to 100,000 extra weekly for his weekly salary
Click to expand...
No on all levels.
You can afford the fee and the wages (400k per week to top earners) but slept when his decision was being made 6 months ago.
This is why United are a non-starter for him and, unless City renege on their interest in the light of their successful start to the season, he will be going there sometime in the next 2 windows.
 
Raees said:
Just shows how incompetent Wenger is tbh. It's a joke that he was kept.
Click to expand...
It was all so predictable wasn't it?
Disaffected player stays around against his will and plays 2 levels below his capability causing division in his current team. What a shock!
There was about 60m on the table for a 28/9 yo player who had quit on the club and Arsene not only failed to ship him out but also expected him to outshine Lacazette, Giroud and others who actually did want to be there.
Still, City gave done OK without him and United, Spurs, Chelsea and Liverpool have a less formidable Arsenal to contend with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.