Thiago,
Kroos,
Fabregas,
Tielemans
Also, the transfers that we haven't got and we were linked to because of our incapable negotiating strategy
Sancho
Grealish
Koulibaly
Strootman
Is Jadon Sancho really worth the 100 plus million fee?
- Thread starter Nickelodeon
- Start date
- Status
Thiago,
Kroos,
Fabregas,
Tielemans
Also, the transfers that we haven't got and we were linked to because of our incapable negotiating strategy
Sancho
Grealish
Koulibaly
Strootman
You and I both know that's not what was meant by "botched". Stop moving the goalposts.
While we're not perfect in the market, we've been much better in recent years, and haven't been being held to ransom. Don't let that stop you or @romufc spouting shit though.
I'm not. I wanted to move away from an argument and back get back to a discussion.
So none of these, then.
Have we? you named 3 transfers that we won over City, Maguire, Sanchez and Fred.
Are you saying we were not held to ransom on those? Fred £50m? Sanchez with his wages and £80m Maguire? Seriously?
Even £50m for AWB was way over the top for a right back who cant pass.
I will say in the last 18 months we have been better
Thiago, Moyes vetoed.
Kroos, LvG vetoed.
Fabregas, again Moyes.
Tielemans link me to one reputable source linking us to him. We were never truly interested.
Also, the transfers that we haven't got and we were linked to because of our incapable negotiating strategy
Sancho history appears to be showing we were correct to wait. Making quite the saving this year.
Grealish show me credible links.
Koulibaly link....
Strootman
Still waiting on a definite list of botched transfers because this sure as shit ain't one.
Well then the same can be said about Fred, Maguire, Sanchez - City pulled out as soon as they realised they are being made mugs of.
I didn't realise we signed Sancho.
Hindsight is 20:20. Go look through the respective threads and you won't see many bemoaning our botched transfers then.
I do agree we overpaid a few times but you're stretching the definition of botched if you're trying to claim those transfers as proof.
You're the one who said we're botching the Sancho signing though. Do keep up.
So are we botching it or were the board correct not to be held to ransom last summer?
As I said in my previous post and have said it last summer about Sancho.
1. We have been better in the last 18 months.
2. We were right not to over pay for Sancho.
That does not mean we will sign him this summer.
Ok, so was exactly is being, or will be botched then?
You're the one who made that statement and you've struggled to explain why, or even provide any adequate proof of us botching a transfer when another club is involved.
The other poster gave you THREE in the last 18 months but you don't want to believe it.
Haaland, Bellingham and Regulion.
Anyway, we won't agree on it so there is no point derailing this thread any longer. We will just wait and see how the transfer window pans out.
P.S You don't get Ed and Ole flying out to meet Haaland only to say no interest
You do not get SAF to give Bellingham a tour to say we were not interested.
But we didn't botch any of them.
I acknowledged Halaand, although I think you're stretching to say it was botched. We didn't want to be held to ransom over the release clause.
Fergie met and spoke to many players, doesn't mean anything. If you're naive enough to think we botched the Bellingham deal, I don't know what to say. You'd be on here slagging off everyone involved when Hannibal, Amad et al all started demanding 50/60k pw.
I can see us being in both aforementioned players when they leave Dortmund, but we acted sensibly by walking away from both deals originally.
Regulion, I mean c'mon. It was printed at the time it was Madrid's insistence on a buy back clause that killed that deal. So how did we botch that transfer?
According to reports I thought we are only willing to offer 70m pounds last summer? He is current quoted at around 85m ponds.
We offered £91.3 million (€100 million) last summer. There’s different reports but the consensus seems to indicate that Dortmund would be willing to accept around the ~£75/80 million mark this summer.
Yes, it's true that the saga had an effect on him. But it is also true that he recovered very well from that, so Dortmund don't have to be sorry about how he performed this season. A lot of people here seem to think that Dortmund made a terrible decision not selling him last year and that's just wrong.
Sancho day?
He is a lot more worth it than Kane for £150 million is.
Not sure we botched them?! Yes there were clearly conversations to try and convince Haaland but as has been reported many times United didn’t want to include a buy out clause and couldn’t guarantee minutes. At the time Martial was doing well was he not.
Haaland and his camp made the best choice for his development and future at the time where he became the main man and was given the chance to shine.
Bellingham again chose a place where he would most likely get more playing time for his development. I don’t see how we botch these other than out right lying to players and saying things like yeah mate you’ll be first choice Which is clearly not going to happen.
I have no doubt that we’ll be in for those both when they are ready to move on and Regulion again club insisted on a buy back clause. Why would any self respecting big club accept such a thing.
If they sell him for less than what they were asking for last year then it was a bad decision. Not sure how that is even arguable.
Without him they don’t make the CL though, so in that way it made sense.
It doesn't work like that. He was one of the reason why they qualified for CL, so they did good job holding the player for one more year.
Well we can’t know that. Without him they’d have had 100 million burning a hole in their pocket and one thing they are great at is buying players. They could have fixed multiple problem areas.
Could they really? When I look at some of the last players they signed and how bad they turned out (most impressively Meunier, but someone like Can also is more of a liability than an asset) I am personally quite sure that having Sancho was at least as valuable as whoever they would have signed with the money they got for him.
But I agree that depends a lot on how much you do trust their management to do the right decisions. If you have a lot of trust in them it could have made sense to sell Sancho, if you don't (and I don't have that much trust in them for the last years) then you think it makes more sense to keep Sancho to have guaranteed quality in the squad.
I don't see how not selling him last year was a bad decision, even if this year they probably will get less for him. At the end of the day they're a football club and need to make decisions that balance the short and long term benefits. Lots of comments here seem to imply that maximising profits from transfers is somehow the end goal, when it's obviously more of a means to an end. Financially they're not yet in the bracket of clubs that can hold on to their top players indefinitely but that's what they're working towards.
If those reports last summer are true then United offered a substantial amount at some point, maybe even as much as Dortmund seem to be willing to accept this year. But Watzke confirmed in January that, whatever sum was offered, the bulk of it wouldn't have been paid for many years. So if losing their best player doesn't actually help solve their short term financial difficulties, then it would have been a pretty bad decision to let him go if you ask me.
If those reports last summer are true then United offered a substantial amount at some point, maybe even as much as Dortmund seem to be willing to accept this year. But Watzke confirmed in January that, whatever sum was offered, the bulk of it wouldn't have been paid for many years. So if losing their best player doesn't actually help solve their short term financial difficulties, then it would have been a pretty bad decision to let him go if you ask me.
If he is one of the reasons why they qualified then his poor form in the first half of the season (which could have been from the transfer drama) is why it was even a question until the last few matches.
Both numbers are not right - even if sky reported them. First: As part of the agreement Dortmund told the agent of Sancho the expected transfer fee (trustworthy sources said 120 millions euros), there were no direct negotiations because the agent could not present a club, which will pay that amount! And for this year there is no consensus about the amount, english sources have no direct informations from dortmund. The two german sources with direct contact to Dortmund are speaking of exactly 95 millions euros as base amount plus (little) add ons. And the timeline for this year seems also clear: After the european championships Sancho has (may be) two or three weeks holidays, the end of these holidays are the latest date to fix the transfer otherwise he has to stay another year (analog last year).
Great young player but I don't think he is worth 100m, at least in this market.
He dramatically outperformed xg and xa the past two years and then this year his goals and assists came back much more in line with what you would expect from xg and xa (although still getting some assist boost due to playing alongside some great finishers). His topline goals and assists numbers from this year are a better indicator of the underlying abilities to create chances for others and get into scoring positions. In terms of npxg+xa, in his three years in Germany he has finished 30th, 11th, 12th, which is damn impressive for a player who has been in the age 19-21 age bracket but not quite as otherwordly as the topline numbers would suggest. The Bundesliga is also just a high scoring league, especially at the top of the table, with a lot of video game numbers being put up by players from the top sides.
The rest of his game, especially in helping in the build up, is pretty impressive so it is still a very impressive overall package, particularly for a 21-year-old. But I think he is more like a 50-70m player in this market.
For me, United would do better to prioritize first buying a top level CB and then evaluate later in the summer whether you can/should buy Sancho based whether the price moves, whether funds come in through sales, and what else is available on the market. I certainly would not want to commit to buying Sancho for a very big fee early in the summer and then only be able to address CB if enough funds were raised through sales.
He dramatically outperformed xg and xa the past two years and then this year his goals and assists came back much more in line with what you would expect from xg and xa (although still getting some assist boost due to playing alongside some great finishers). His topline goals and assists numbers from this year are a better indicator of the underlying abilities to create chances for others and get into scoring positions. In terms of npxg+xa, in his three years in Germany he has finished 30th, 11th, 12th, which is damn impressive for a player who has been in the age 19-21 age bracket but not quite as otherwordly as the topline numbers would suggest. The Bundesliga is also just a high scoring league, especially at the top of the table, with a lot of video game numbers being put up by players from the top sides.
The rest of his game, especially in helping in the build up, is pretty impressive so it is still a very impressive overall package, particularly for a 21-year-old. But I think he is more like a 50-70m player in this market.
For me, United would do better to prioritize first buying a top level CB and then evaluate later in the summer whether you can/should buy Sancho based whether the price moves, whether funds come in through sales, and what else is available on the market. I certainly would not want to commit to buying Sancho for a very big fee early in the summer and then only be able to address CB if enough funds were raised through sales.
None of those would move for that price this summer, clubs have less money to spend. Those are pre-corona valuations. Outside of Mbappe I doubt anyone's going to spend more than £70m on a single player given all clubs have been nursing major losses this year. So either clubs reduce their valuations or more likely players just stay where they are.
If we buy him he definitely won’t be worth it and there are several other players in Europe much better we could have got.
If we don’t buy him it’s an outrage we didn’t break the bank for him
If we don’t buy him it’s an outrage we didn’t break the bank for him
Agree on no 2. United is starting to shed its reputation of over-paying on transfer fees.
Rather have Graelish, but Sancho appears more likely.
Does anyone think if we get Sancho he would end up replacing Rashford on the left and keep Greenwood on the right
The better players will play, Rashford just doesn't do it consistently enough for me.
So wasteful
None of those were botched.
Haaland/Reguilon we wouldn't accept buy out clause, Bellingham wanted first team football so turned us down because we couldn't/wouldn't guarantee it.
Just because we were interested and then didn't get them, doesn't mean the deal was botched.
As to the question, Sancho or Grealish, Sancho all day long (unless Pogba goes, in which case Grealish can replace him).
Tonight it showed we need him. Rashford and Mason can’t do it all by themselves
We lack creativity and something different. It's quite obvious he'd make a difference, we need more options.
For us to make a significant step towards winning the league, Rashford's starting spot in the first 11 has to come under threat.
- Status