Read what I replied to.
Do you think Chelsea "always" sell the players they don't want for good money?
Christopher Nkunku
- Thread starter Berbaclass
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to celebrate rare back-to-back victories for Manchester United! They analyse the late win in the Europa League vs. Rangers and then try and find things to analyse in a pretty dour game vs. Fulham. They also chat about the latest Marcus Rashford news, and look at the latest transfer news.
Do you think Chelsea "always" sell the players they don't want for good money?
Probably. He and Rashford grew up in Wythenshawe. How about we swap Rashford and Garnacho for him? This way you'll still have that connection with Wythenshawe...and the new Pablo Aimar.
Wonder if we choose the loan option, Chelsea will hit us with a clause similar to the Sancho deal, but if we survive relegation.
there’s no way this happens
"always" may have been a hyperbole. They probably didnt mean it literally, but as a United fan, having Mount's recent shit fresh on mind, and now being fed even worse Nkunku crap, we can all relate to their sentiment
Chelsea is much better at selling for good price than we are, though. And it is a good thing for you, you should be happy, not defensive. We are embarassment
We’re in no position to spend large sums on anyone. If Chelsea are amenable to a loan till the end of the season, I wouldn’t be opposed. Otherwise we shouldn’t be considering him if their asking price is anywhere near 70m.
We’re shopping in the 20m-30m market.
We’re shopping in the 20m-30m market.
We missed our chance years ago when he ended up at the City academy and not Utd one
I’d take him on loan for sure. He’s a brilliant player. Can’t buy him though because it’s very fishy he hasn’t played much in the league for Chelsea
Why would their asking price even be £70m or anywhere near that? They bought him for £52m on the back of a couple of excellent seasons at Leipzig, and he’s been largely a failure there plagued by injuries and mostly out of form. He was also 25 when they bought him and will turn 28 this year. Why are they even looking to make a sizeable profit here, I don’t really know.
Because it’s January and it’s United, not just a PL team but a huge PL team. I also don’t think it’s a serious fee. More of a starting point, if United are interested in negotiating. We started the Mount talks at £70m too.
Surely your model means you need to flog people like him while you can still recoup a decent chunk of his fee? He could get injured again and end up costing you a fortune, a loan to a team that will play him every game in a good league and put him in the shop window seems like a pretty good scenario? You've about 50 forwards you can play in the dog and duck league.
If you want 50 mil for a player, you leak that the asking price is 70. That way the buyer can kid their fans into thinking they got a bargain when they eventually pay 50.
Yeah no one is paying that for him.
I just can't see this type of transfer happen - loan or permanent, seems a waste of a discussion until concrete info from better journos
So you wouldn't even take loan, agree it's an absolute no go for any kind of transfer fee
A loan makes a lot of sense. I really think he'd fit Amorim's system as that left sided 10.
Yeah that's very dodgy to say the least
Quoted for posterity.
Like I said earlier is that even an option, you would think if it was then more reliable journos than Sheth from Sky mention it
If he’s gonna get injured, there’s a chance of that happening on loan too. Thats not something I’m concerned about. I can see the benefit of loaning him out to put him in the shop window, but I’m not sure those potential benefits outweighs the risk of losing Jackson’s main back up while we’re fighting to secure CL football. The conference league knock out stages starts again soon, he’ll get his regular minutes there. I’m open to selling him, if a decent fee is offered, but a loan deal doesn’t move me at all.
But you should probably be happy to get even £25m for him.
Actually there aren’t new owners. The Glazers still own 51% of this club. If you think the way things are running are similar to the past, there’s good reason for that. Joel Glazer is still making decisions. They just have a front man to give them plausible deniability, in “lifetime fan” Sir Jim Ratcliffe.
Surprised they are calling it quits on him. Super player when fit. Must be because they're begging everything on Palmer and they both play the same position.
there’s no thrill in kidnapping someone like palmer, you’d only need to leave a trail of sweet wrappers leading to the back of the van and he’d climb right in by himself.
Is he not playing in the league because they’ll have to pay more money after x amount of appearances?
I doubt that’s the reason. You wouldn’t sign a player you fully believe in making a difference, then worry about that sort of shite, it’s illogical.
I genuinely don't understand the focus on Nkunku. If we are after a #10 why not loan João Felix?
He's not playing in the league because of Cole Palmer.
You're right that £70m is probably them starting outrageously high so they can meet us in the middle. But as a starting point, it makes it pretty obvious they wouldn't be interested in ~£30m. I think a deal similar to the Sancho deal makes sense, loan with an obligation to buy for 20-30m. If they want more, they can keep him
The question is how bad is he?
He's not bad. He's very, very good.
Just not as good as Cole Palmer and earns a feckload, that's why he might go out on loan.
This man is 27. He didn’t score a single goal for the French youth squads, and has 1 goal in 14 games for the senior team. He had two good seasons with Leipzig, and since his move to Chelsea has had a serious injury and noticeably lost some pace, and being utilized by them pretty much exclusively in the conference league. He is not that good, as his full body of work so far would suggest. Musiala is 6 years younger and has almost 3x the amount of caps for Germany, if Nkunku were that good he would have played a lot more for France. We really need to stop being interested in players whose only good performances come in the German league.
France famously having had no good players in his position over the past few years.
That's not even it, though it's true and he has played in 14 games but most of them are as a relatively late sub. Before joining Leipzig, he largely played as a CM or in roles that weren't supposed to see him score a lot.
Transfermarkt have a neat little bit where they have divided his career games up by position. CM had the highest number of games.
He’s 27 not a PL regular and has a huge injury record plus he’s on big money £200k per week, why do Bayern Need him?
They don’t they got Musialla, Olise, Kane, Kingsley Coman and Muller who can all play as the 10 and Kane plays as the nine every game. They have so many attacking options, he’ll get less game time at Bayern than he will at Chelsea!
Pure Nonsense?
The person you are replying to was not talking about Nkunku.
Unless they’ve already decided to sell long ago, then it might make sense.