Jadon Sancho | £72.9M fee agreed

Status
Not open for further replies.
What's nonsense? That Van de Beek played no role last year? That Amad and Pellistri played no role last year? That signing Sancho last year likely would've been enough of a difference to make it past the group stage of the CL last year and put less reliance on Rashford and not overplay him? The 30m we will have saved for a year of waiting is hardly worth it when you take those points into account. Especially when you consider that Van de Beek did feck all and we'll likely just sell him one of the next few summers at a loss when he wants regular football and won't ever get it here.
What's nonsense? That Van de Beek played no role last year? That Amad and Pellistri played no role last year? That signing Sancho last year likely would've been enough of a difference to make it past the group stage of the CL last year and put less reliance on Rashford and not overplay him? The 30m we will have saved for a year of waiting is hardly worth it when you take those points into account. Especially when you consider that Van de Beek did feck all and we'll likely just sell him one of the next few summers at a loss when he wants regular football and won't ever get it here.
The year was not a waste for Amad and Pellistri as it is another stage in their development and I will judge VDB after he is given a decent run.
If you think Sancho was the difference between us not going further in the Chmps League you must be amazed that Chelsea did not win the Premiership with the acquisitions of Havertz, Werner, Zycech given the form they showed in their respective leagues the previous seasons.
 
:lol: don't tempt fate.

I for one think he will be a great success, but I just can't see the logic behind the argument we should have just coughed up the money.

No, you have to make a stand at some stage.
All the cretinous "it's not my money" posts ignore that we don't have unlimited money.

However, booting 40m into Van de Beek was utter lunacy. It only made sense if he could play where Pogba is supposed to play, and we sold him.
But we can barely get Pogba to function in the centre with Bruno, let alone VDB!
 
No, you have to make a stand at some stage.
All the cretinous "it's not my money" posts ignore that we don't have unlimited money.

However, booting 40m into Van de Beek was utter lunacy. It only made sense if he could play where Pogba is supposed to play, and we sold him.
But we can barely get Pogba to function in the centre with Bruno, let alone VDB!
I think doing it without an obvious plan for how VdB would fit in, shows the lack of structure we had at the time. I'd like to think we won't have the "it's him or nothing" scenarios again. I think there is a good player in VDB though, just no idea how we fit him in
 
The year was not a waste for Amad and Pellistri as it is another stage in their development and I will judge VDB after he is given a decent run.
If you think Sancho was the difference between us not going further in the Chmps League you must be amazed that Chelsea did not win the Premiership with the acquisitions of Havertz, Werner, Zycech given the form they showed in their respective leagues the previous seasons.
Of course there's a fair chance that Sancho could have been the difference in us getting out of the group stage of the CL. All it would have taken is one more goal scored against either Basaksehir or Leipzig, or alternatively one less goal conceded due to us having more control of the matches. There's no guarantee of course and maybe the exact same thing would have happened, but in theory at least Sancho would have made us a significantly better team (since at the time Greenwood was in poor form giving us no threat at all off the right) which would have helped us get through.
 
I created the previous thread on the player that grew exponentially over the years. And the same people who are now saying we should've signed him earlier, (by paying the exorbitant sum Dortmund reportedly wanted) were saying we didn't have a chance to sign him and were wasting our time. I was probably among a small minority who called this transfer to us and was told by some that I was deluded to think Sancho would choose us. It's hilarious to now see the changing narrative.

The club did right not to pay the ridiculous price Dortmund wanted a year earlier. It high time we stopped setting a precedent for other clubs to dictate terms to us.
 
The club did right not to pay the ridiculous price Dortmund wanted a year earlier. It high time we stopped setting a precedent for other clubs to dictate terms to us.
This, exactly this! If it means short-term pain for long-term gain, then so be it.
 
I created the previous thread on the player that grew exponentially over the years. And the same people who are now saying we should've signed him earlier, (by paying the exorbitant sum Dortmund reportedly wanted) were saying we didn't have a chance to sign him and were wasting our time. I was probably among a small minority who called this transfer to us and was told by some that I was deluded to think Sancho would choose us. It's hilarious to now see the changing narrative.

The club did right not to pay the ridiculous price Dortmund wanted a year earlier. It high time we stopped setting a precedent for other clubs to dictate terms to us.
We also got a huge talent on our hand in Amad from it as well, so win-win
 
Of course there's a fair chance that Sancho could have been the difference in us getting out of the group stage of the CL. All it would have taken is one more goal scored against either Basaksehir or Leipzig, or alternatively one less goal conceded due to us having more control of the matches. There's no guarantee of course and maybe the exact same thing would have happened, but in theory at least Sancho would have made us a significantly better team (since at the time Greenwood was in poor form giving us no threat at all off the right) which would have helped us get through.
And he could have played against Leipzig instead of Rashford and then Rashford would not have scored a treble!!
Feck me......I think this must be a fortune tellers forum
 
Not following the news or on here much recently but what's going on with this? It was apparently nearly done about 3 weeks ago!
3 weeks ago, there was just optimism from both sides, but this wasn't necessarily nearly done. Now, though, it actually is nearly done with a few minor details still needing to be worked out.
 
And he could have played against Leipzig instead of Rashford and then Rashford would not have scored a treble!!
Feck me......I think this must be a fortune tellers forum
If Sancho wouldn't have improved us in those games then theres no point in signing him. Why sign anybody if the mighty Turkish champions are on it.
 
This zero contribution argument is weird. Amad scored a very important goal against Milan and has had a year adapting to the club. By all accounts he's got very bright future here and I'm for one very glad we got him. Also he was supposedly a target for Dortmund as a Sancho replacement. The other two, if we only signed people 1 season at a time it makes sense, but we don't.

Add on top of all of this we're still going to get Sancho a year later. There's literally no guarantee on Sancho's effectiveness and there still isn't. Now we will have 4 players on our books rather than just blowing our entire budget on 1.

I hope you’re not suggesting by the reference to the one goal that Diallo made a massive contribution to United this season.

Yes, we’ll get Sancho a year later at about a saving of 20m. We’re still going to spend a total of $145m — ballpark estimate for the four players over the two years — three of whom will likely not figure prominently for United this season, when we could have had Sancho for 100m last season and this season.

Put it this way: if Sancho is the next great RW for United, why did spend a massive sum on two other RW players?

I’m all for stocking the bench full of talent, but it’s not clear what the genius is in stocking two RW at cost of 30+m in addition to Sancho and spending 35m on VdB, a player Ole clearly never rated.
 
This, exactly this! If it means short-term pain for long-term gain, then so be it.

I think that there was some backlash on here by frustrated fans who wanted the deal sealed last summer, but in hindsight maybe it wasn't a bad decision to stand out ground because - as you said - it's better over the long run, rather than concretise the idea that we're a doormat team that will pay any asking price.
 
I hope you’re not suggesting by the reference to the one goal that Diallo made a massive contribution to United this season.

Yes, we’ll get Sancho a year later at about a saving of 20m. We’re still going to spend a total of $145m — ballpark estimate for the four players over the two years — three of whom will likely not figure prominently for United this season, when we could have had Sancho for 100m last season and this season.

Put it this way: if Sancho is the next great RW for United, why did spend a massive sum on two other RW players?

I’m all for stocking the bench full of talent, but it’s not clear what the genius is in stocking two RW at cost of 30+m in addition to Sancho and spending 35m on VdB, a player Ole clearly never rated.
No, clearly I didn't, you said they had none. I said an example where they did.

20m is a lot of money, even for a team like us and I see how you can say that with Pellestri, but not even sure how you can say that with any confidence about the other 2.

Im not saying it's genius, it's prudent. It's hedging your bets. Of course you can go and put your entire savings on the short priced favourite, but when operating a business and building squads for the future, it's better to go each way on a couple of outsiders and wait for the odds to get better on the favourite.

This is all before taking into account the uncertainty of a covid environment we were in at the time.
 
Ronaldo case is different, right from his first game he looked class. Even before he stepped up to different class in 2006-07, it was always hard to sign a better winger than Ronaldo in that 2004-06 time, he was very good player and regular for Portugal NT too. Same with Rooney, even though he was 18 when we signed him, it was hard to sign a better striker than Rooney in that period. Both were already very good players and we had to pay huge money to sign better players than them.

Amad case is different, he is very much unknown entity at top level, we can't create a road map for next 3 years with unknown entities, especially when making top 4 is such a struggle these days. I believe he will be top player but that's my opinion and I have nothing to lose with that opinion, the people who have so much to lose might not take the risk on such a young player.

Regarding Rashford, we signed Mkhi, Sanchez as wingers, we signed Lukaku when Zlatan was injured. It blocked both Rashford and Martial's development but we did it as at that time it was important to sign a 9 and also player who were ready (or proven) to play week in week out (without benefit of hindsight btw).

IMO we deviated from what made us so good in the last few years, we never relied on young players alone, we always had the mix of young players, peak players and very experienced players. When we had Ronaldo and Rooney as teenagers (Rooney as a teenager was already a sensation anyways) we also had players like RVN, Giggs, Scholes who all were good attackers. Before that when players like Scholes, Beckham broke through, we had players like Cantona, Keane, Dane and few other great players.

Sancho doesn't fit in the peak players or in the experienced players category but he is already one of the top wingers in Europe. We need to improve our wing position and we are about to do that. Amad will get his chances and if he shows he is capable of stepping up then we will have good numbers to rotate. City have players like Sterling, Foden, KdB, B.Silva, Mahrez and they all play good enough number of games. People said same thing about Foden, how he isn't getting chances or how his development is stalled but now he looks ready. Competition for places or playing alongside very good players helped him to develop too and also training with good players.

Also not sure about Cavani and Greenwood. I don't think Ole thinks Greenwood is ready for CF position, he played almost 95% of his games as RW, so Cavani deal shouldn't change anything. Also at this point, we don't even know whether Greenwood will end up as CF or RW.

The way I see, Rashford, Sancho, Greenwood, Amad is good enough numbers for wing position, we have Sancho, Rashford who plays in both wing position, Greenwood can play as RW and CF, Amad looked very much like a RW but going by his playing style, wouldn't be surprised if he ends up as AM or plays well as AM. He looks like proper playmaker. We are a big club and should always try to have the best possible squad + young players with great potential. We have lost our way going extremes in last few years.

Finally we are building a good squad and if players progress as we expect then there will be good competition for places. There will obviously a time where players won't be happy with playing time or don't want to be rotated, but we can always make decisions at that time.

Sorry, just read this.

I’d say Amad is in the same bracket simply because we paid over £20m for him with no experience. That isn’t even close to being normal. In fact, I’d say it is testimony of us ranking him in a similar category as any of the players mentioned.

Ultimately, I’m not against us having another winger. As I’ve been reminded a lot, City have a number of players. The difference is that those players are all established. Greenwood, Sancho and Amad will not simply be competing to play, they will be competing for the right to even develop. All players are in the developmental stage and need games to grow, City can only have one Foden IMO, 3 Foden’s in competition doesn’t make sense. So in a sense, if we were about to sign Son, for example, I think it would be different.

I don’t think you buy a player for £20-40m who has just turned 17 and played half an hour’s football without a clear plan to develop them or clear belief that you are talking of a player you back to become world class. Diallo is not the same as Chong.
 




He's going colossal for us.
 
Last edited:
Let's put this in perspective here....we are going to get Sancho for basically the same price that PSG are paying for Achraf Hakimi
 




He's going colossal for us.


We simply have to get Haaland to come here too when he goes up for sale. They’ll rip it up. I think Sancho being here and their productivity together at Dortmund and their clear friendship could be a factor, as much as Ole being here. Genuinely think we’ve a good shot with him if the Spanish clubs hesitate.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, just read this.

I’d say Amad is in the same bracket simply because we paid over £20m for him with no experience. That isn’t even close to being normal. In fact, I’d say it is testimony of us ranking him in a similar category as any of the players mentioned.

Ultimately, I’m not against us having another winger. As I’ve been reminded a lot, City have a number of players. The difference is that those players are all established. Greenwood, Sancho and Amad will not simply be competing to play, they will be competing for the right to even develop. All players are in the developmental stage and need games to grow, City can only have one Foden IMO, 3 Foden’s in competition doesn’t make sense. So in a sense, if we were about to sign Son, for example, I think it would be different.

I don’t think you buy a player for £20-40m who has just turned 17 and played half an hour’s football without a clear plan to develop them or clear belief that you are talking of a player you back to become world class. Diallo is not the same as Chong.

Believe we paid 19m up front for Amad. The rest are in performance related addons.
 
The year was not a waste for Amad and Pellistri as it is another stage in their development and I will judge VDB after he is given a decent run.
If you think Sancho was the difference between us not going further in the Chmps League you must be amazed that Chelsea did not win the Premiership with the acquisitions of Havertz, Werner, Zycech given the form they showed in their respective leagues the previous seasons.
Chelsea did win the Champions League with them though. And made the FA Cup final and finished top 4 in the end. And it's just getting out of the group, not a tough ask and we fecked it up. And anyway, Sancho has always been a better player than Havertz, Werner or Ziyech.

Pellistri is a very "meh" signing. Many will say don't rule out a player so early, but I see no reason to think he'll ever become part of the first team. Amad is a young player who is still far away from being ready for a serious role, and Van de Beek for me I just don't see becoming a starter ever for us. There's not enough to his game, he's not the right sort of midfielder. Sancho was always the #1 choice, and IMO it was just a wasted year. It is what it is, better late then never but I don't see how waiting a year and having a bit of a failure of a season is "worth it" since we "saved" 30m, without knowing any details about his contract last summer compared to this summer. Especially as we still spend big on Amad, big on Van de Beek who flopped hard, and 10m on Pellistri who is unlikely to ever really do much in the first team.
 
Let's put this in perspective here....we are going to get Sancho for basically the same price that PSG are paying for Achraf Hakimi
Hakimi is an excellent wing back though. One of the best in the world with what he does. Also a huge difference in contract situation.
It's a fair price considering he has 2 years left, I wouldn't say it's a bargain but also not overpriced considering the talent he is.
 
The year was not a waste for Amad and Pellistri as it is another stage in their development and I will judge VDB after he is given a decent run.
If you think Sancho was the difference between us not going further in the Chmps League you must be amazed that Chelsea did not win the Premiership with the acquisitions of Havertz, Werner, Zycech given the form they showed in their respective leagues the previous seasons.

Shouldve spent 80M on Grealish than spunking 50M on VDB & Pellestri imho. Atleast with Grealish, we dont need to worry about losing Pogba anymore.
 
We simply have to get Haaland to come here too when he goes up for sale. They’ll rip it up. I think Sancho being here and their productivity together at Dortmund and their clear friendship could be a factor, as much as Ole being here. Genuinely think we’ve a good shot with him if the Spanish clubs hesitate.
I get all the reasons we have a good chance but it still won’t be easy.

It won’t just be the Spanish clubs that’ll be in for him. PSG, Chelsea & City if they don’t sign Kane, will also be in for him.

For us, it all depends on how our season goes. If we give a close fight for the title or better yet, win it, and if we go far in the CL and domestic cups then Haaland might say okay this is a great project to be a part of. A young team gearing up for the long term future with a manager he knows and player(s) he can call friends too. But if we still seem like a work in progress, and not entirely the finished article yet, he may find it tough to choose us over others.

Furthermore, the release clause won’t matter much as there will probably be a bidding war and we’ll have to offer a great financial package to not only beat the competition but also satisfy Raiola, and Haaland himself too. If the oil clubs or Chelsea come and offer him abnormally high wages, we’ll have to match them too. As rich as we may be, it will be a challenge to pay such exorbitant sums if we have other serious concerns too and will need to sign more players.

He knows he’s a generational talent and will try to make the most of his career, wages & success wise.
 
Why are some people pretending that we waited a year to sign Sancho simply to save some money? Dortmund wanted the majority of the fee guaranteed and up front, with Covid-19 and the financial situations it was a no-go, it was impossible to predict how soon we'd have vaccines and when people would be let back into the stadiums. We didn't sign him because we weren't willing to take the risk involved with such a high fee at the time
 
Chelsea did win the Champions League with them though. And made the FA Cup final and finished top 4 in the end. And it's just getting out of the group, not a tough ask and we fecked it up. And anyway, Sancho has always been a better player than Havertz, Werner or Ziyech.

Pellistri is a very "meh" signing. Many will say don't rule out a player so early, but I see no reason to think he'll ever become part of the first team. Amad is a young player who is still far away from being ready for a serious role, and Van de Beek for me I just don't see becoming a starter ever for us. There's not enough to his game, he's not the right sort of midfielder. Sancho was always the #1 choice, and IMO it was just a wasted year. It is what it is, better late then never but I don't see how waiting a year and having a bit of a failure of a season is "worth it" since we "saved" 30m, without knowing any details about his contract last summer compared to this summer. Especially as we still spend big on Amad, big on Van de Beek who flopped hard, and 10m on Pellistri who is unlikely to ever really do much in the first team.

This post makes me even more curious on How u obtain that tagline of yours.
 
I get all the reasons we have a good chance but it still won’t be easy.

It won’t just be the Spanish clubs that’ll be in for him. PSG, Chelsea & City if they don’t sign Kane, will also be in for him.

For us, it all depends on how our season goes. If we give a close fight for the title or better yet, win it, and if we go far in the CL and domestic cups then Haaland might say okay this is a great project to be a part of. A young team gearing up for the long term future with a manager he knows and player(s) he can call friends too. But if we still seem like a work in progress, and not entirely the finished article yet, he may find it tough to choose us over others.

Furthermore, the release clause won’t matter much as there will probably be a bidding war and we’ll have to offer a great financial package to not only beat the competition but also satisfy Raiola, and Haaland himself too. If the oil clubs or Chelsea come and offer him abnormally high wages, we’ll have to match them too. As rich as we may be, it will be a challenge to pay such exorbitant sums if we have other serious concerns too and will need to sign more players.

He knows he’s a generational talent and will try to make the most of his career, wages & success wise.

fecking bidding wars :lol:

The transfer fee is set, the only question is who will be able to offer the most lucrative project + wages.

Given the involvement of Raiola, it's also going to be a question of what route they're looking at. Is he going to be looking for a club where he can stay, potentially for the majority of his career, or are they thinking of changing country after 3-4 seasons. It could easily be a matter of England -> Spain -> Italy, maximum transfer fees and % of that to both Haalands father and Raiola, there's the obvious benefits for the player as well. Doubt he's much of a generational talent, doesn't have to be to, but he has a combination of mental strength, the desire to be the best, and talent that makes him stand out.
 
Shouldve spent 80M on Grealish than spunking 50M on VDB & Pellestri imho. Atleast with Grealish, we dont need to worry about losing Pogba anymore.
You know what they say about hindsight right? Kinda understand those decisions due to more volatile market at that time. Not that i think they are good signings, mind. Understandable but could have done better.
 
Not following the news or on here much recently but what's going on with this? It was apparently nearly done about 3 weeks ago!

Waiting until the end of the month to close the deal. Pretty normal as I don't think any of the big clubs do anything in June. Plus players away on duty or on holidays.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.