Maybe. Can you imagine the starting striker for United making less than 150k per week after being bought for 70m? These players want to move for money too mate. I don’t think their agents are going to settle for anything less than 150k per week.
Hojlund/Kolo-Muani
- Thread starter croadyman
- Start date
You are probably right, but for that kid to get an opportunity to get the exposure he will from United, that is money too...and if he performs he'll get mega money in 2-3 years.
Not sure what's going on here with currencies but nobody is talking about 70k pounds for Hojland.
Regardless, I think you're wrong. Garnacho is a great comparison figure here. 19 y/o, top caliber prospect, similar amount of minutes last season, just signed 50k per week on a brand new contract.
Hojland is on 10k/week right now, so 50k would be a massive pay raise for him, but since he's a forward I'd expect he'd end up around 80-100k.
Look, my point with this was to show that the higher the cost for Hojlund, the more others like Harry Kane and Muani look attractive. I wouldn’t say my numbers are spot on, but they are definitely ballpark. If you think Hojlund is going to accept 70k per week, I would say he should fire his agent. Antony got a bump from 30k euro to 200k pounds with the move. Maybe he accepts 150k, who knows? My point is that the math isn’t that far off. What are the chances that Hojlund flops vs. Kane? Then you have a situation where again you have a player on high wages that is difficult to loan out.Those numbers are so off though... Atalanta is starting at a 70m EURO asking price, which is £60m. United probably will limit it at £50m which is a 10m drop. Probably a deal that would be bonus based to hit the upper end of the price anyway. Hojlund is on about £10k per week currently. There's not a chance he's going up to 175kHe's 20, it's easier to negotiating a lower starting point like 70k as his next contract will be the big one anyway when he's going to be more developed.
Kane would instantly demand to be the top wage earner (so 400k per week) and we wouldn't be able to get him for less than £120m. So that's more than twice what we'll likely spend on Hojlund, with Kanes being much less based on incentives than Hojlund being more of a future growth fee.
Yes, any fee comparison focusing on only 23/24 season and nothing else will be heavily in favor of Kane. He's literally 10 years older than Hojlund. The issue is that with Kane, his cliff could literally happen at any point. Past 30, you just don't know when a player will decline and when the decline comes, it happens rapidly. Hojlund just turned 20, we would be paying for what he can become while being confident we can handle the transition period.
Which brings me to an even more important aspect - what is our immediate target. 23/24. Realistically, are we title challengers? Nah. Not at all for me. There's a chance to fluke it like Arsenal tried to do, but we aren't there yet. We've got more developing to do as a team, there are a lot of changes on and off the pitch taking place that you just don't see a team that isn't fully settled who actually gets over the line. Kane doesn't get us over the line, while not getting Kane doesn't drop us out of a CL qualifying position. Our squad building should be looking at 24/25 as the start of the title push years. If Kane is available on a free, by all means get him. But if Hojlund hits and develops like the club would hope, then we'd be in a position to challenge repeatedly every year, rather than waiting for him to be 120m+ like Osimhen is.
If we were settled on and off the pitch more, have had a title challenge season under our belts, weren't about to have a big system change but just needed that final piece, then yeah, go and spend 100m on the top striker you are missing. We aren't there though.
As far as Kane goes, I think we look at this as a 3 year arc, 30-33. Three years of contention? What’s that worth from a revenue standpoint? 150m extra between CL qualification and deep runs vs. a “maybe” in Hojlund? How many young, expensive strikers have flopped when moving to more challenging leagues? Jovic, Felix, Werner, Havertz, etc.
I see the merits in acquiring any of the three actually. But the higher the cost climbs for unproven talents like Hojlund and to some extent Muani, the more Kane looks to be a smarter move financially. I will disagree with you on one thing though. I believe Kane makes us a contender instantly. His finishing, passing, holdup play, aerial prowess, runs in the box… Assuming he’s healthy, adding 30 goals and 10 assists from the striker position has a huge impact on league and CL competitions. We finished 14 pts behind City. Are we saying that a healthy Harry Kane isn’t worth at least 10-12 points? I can’t believe that. If Kane was healthy and we didn’t at least push City, it wouldn’t have been because of him, it would be another calamity like Rashford loss of form or a serious Casemiro injury.
I’m not sure of Garnacho’s situation (did he have 2 years left?) , but these decisions are completely affected by context. Garnacho wasn’t a 70m euro/60m pound buy where terms needed to be agreed to on a new contract. Antony jumped from 30k euro to 200k pounds with his move…
Fair enough but if you average both their goal tallies from last season it's still pretty good
Yea, I guess we've discussed two data points that just suggest very different outcomes. To answer your question, Garnacho had 1 year left with an option for +1 more.
My counter to your argument would that that Antony arrived 2 years older than Hojland would, had just come off two very good seasons as a starter with Ajax (including CL performances), and worked directly under ETH (so United's confidence was higher = willing to offer more). As for your other point, I'm not totally sure how to think about salary negotiations in situations where the new contract is with the same club vs a new club. It would be interesting to know the statistics around that, but I don't have them. I buy your argument, but I still have a hard time knowing which example (Garnacho or Antony) is more relevant here.
One more case that came to mind is Martial. It's a pretty dated comparison at this point because fees and salaries have evolved, but Martial was a world record transfer for a teen at 19 y/o in 2015 and, as I recall, we put him on 100k p/w. Martial had very similar scoring and stats profile in the season before arriving as Hojland would. Average salaries have increased 35% in that time. So perhaps this is another data point that points more toward your line of thinking. I'm revising my estimate to 135k
i would rather Vlahovic than Muani
I prefer Hojlund since he's more of a real #9 compared to Muani, although Muani wouldn't necessarily be a bad fit if it allows Rashford and Bruno to get into better scoring positions. With Hojlund we are taking a massive gamble but I just have to trust ETH to mold and guide him into being the 'final product'. He's earned that.
Lots of good points, but surprised no mention of Haaland as a Hojlund comparable? Not in the same class obviously, but surely a natural comp stylistically?
Sure stylistically they are. Just Haaland is bigger and was always a freakish goalscorer even as a teenager.
If you watch his runs off the ball and moving into channels you can't unsee the Cavani comparisons.
Question for those who are saying ‘Muani is like a wide forward’ and Hojlund is the profile we need, would you take Isak? They are very similar in profile.
My suspicion is that everyone has been influenced by Haaland. Hojlund is very unlikely to get Haaland numbers anyway, and Haaland himself is only tolerated by Guardiola BECAUSE he gets those numbers, I wouldn’t say he is his ideal profile. A year ago, Muani would have been plenty CF enough for most teams.
My suspicion is that everyone has been influenced by Haaland. Hojlund is very unlikely to get Haaland numbers anyway, and Haaland himself is only tolerated by Guardiola BECAUSE he gets those numbers, I wouldn’t say he is his ideal profile. A year ago, Muani would have been plenty CF enough for most teams.
I think a lot of it is ETH's history of using a target forward (specifically Haller) and watching videos you can see the potential fit long term even though he's nowhere near the finished article yet.
Hojlund because he looks more central
To my mind all Haaland's Bundesliga goals are actually minus goals...
So he's only got like, 5 career league goals to date.... hardly that impressive
Yeah would completely agree with this IF as I fear Bayern take Kane off the market
He is another who divides opinion on here
100%
I'd much rather Isak than Hojlund or Muani. Isak's technique is on another level.
If Newcastle hadn't already bought him, my order of preference would have been:
Isak
Hojlund
Muani
Muani is clearly more cultured all the ball. I like ball players
Isn't Hojlund's physicality exaggerated?
The thing is, I see Muani as very similar. Isak had a sketchy goalscoring record in Spain too. He is rapid, occupies defenders and pulls wide and can even play wide. The point that I’m making is the fact that RKM isn’t a target man as such isn’t necessarily a problem, and wouldn’t have been seen as one before Haaland came to England. Before Haaland, the best two teams used very different types of 9s here.
RKM is certainly more striker than Rashford is for me, I see no issue with his profile. Hojlund is not using his traditional qualities to score 50 goals so I don’t see why it is so important.
Muani’s YouTube highlight reel of receiving the ball with his back to defenders is incredible. Of course, they don’t show where he did not turn or play a pass successfully. But it’s miles better than Hojlund. Because of the close control, you see the Bundesliga CB’s actually playing off Muani because he can turn so quickly and either go at the defender or find a forward pass into space. I’m a fan. I do need to see him play for an entire match.
That's Maguire territoryTo my mind all Haaland's Bundesliga goals are actually minus goals...
So he's only got like, 5 career league goals to date.... hardly that impressive