Well, we didn't and obviously won't trigger that option so he will enter the last year of his contract. Although, I agree 20 million isn't much in today's market.
Keeping the value is the kind of idiocy that led Woodward to keep extending the Martial contract for 9 seasons. It’s a dumb way to look at an obviously underwater asset.Actually, we can trigger the option to extend at anytime until next season, so whilst he will enter his final year, if we wanted to protect his fee we would extend it.
The issue is the club dont care, leave for free, 1m, or 20m, they just want to get rid of him because he is that bad on and off the field.
he's dead weight. Trigger the option isn't gonna make teams think you suddenly value the playerTechnically, yes he is but United have an option to extend a further year, so it is 2 years. 20m is low actually
Keeping the value is the kind of idiocy that led Woodward to keep extending the Martial contract for 9 seasons. It’s a dumb way to look at an obviously underwater asset.
he's dead weight. Trigger the option isn't gonna make teams think you suddenly value the player
he's dead weight. Trigger the option isn't gonna make teams think you suddenly value the player
Then why do you keep mentioning him being on the last year of his contract if you don't think it's relevant?
It is relevant, because teams can effectively wait just one year and pick him up for free. That devalues him.Then why do you keep mentioning him being on the last year of his contract if you don't think it's relevant?
How United and ETH handled the situation also doesn't help in offloading, it was a very protracted public thing when really we could've quietly moved him on while he had appeal.
Agreed here. Not counting the decision makers who didn't do their due diligence, and offering stupid contracts, this is 99.9% the fault of Sancho.I disagree with this.
We have seen numerous managers say in press conferences that players have to show it in training.
So lets see what part you dont think helped from ETH and United...
ETH appointed - 2 months later Sancho decides he needs a break, the manager in his first season gives a player 3 months off.. then is reintroduced, with a massive hug and huge cheer from OT crowd and goes onto having a poor season.
Next season starts and the player is not doing it in training, turning up late, poor attitiude, gaming till late hours so is not sharp in training. He did not want to press in training, so the manager dropped him.
The manager said post Arsenal was because of his training - could you explain what was wrong with this?
Sancho, the immature player he is goes onto notes and types up a story of how he is a scapegoat and judged differently, posts it on twitter and pins it.
A manager asks for an apology... doesn't get one and the club together with the manager decide, manager > player.
Gets loaned out to Dortmund.. has 1 good game and poor season, Dortmund decide he is too rubbish to buy.
How is that ETH and Manutd's fault? this is solely down to the player being immature.
Agreed here. Not counting the decision makers who didn't do their due diligence, and offering stupid contracts, this is 99.9% the fault of Sancho.
Because you have no leverage AND because Chelsea don't actually have any legally binding guarantee to sign him. Of fecking course the clause is low. They're shooting themselves in the foot just with this deal, you think United should have somehow got them to shoot their dicks off too while they were at it?
And again, because it seems this still somehow isn't getting through: Chelsea was the only option on the table. It was either take this deal, or keep the player. For some reason you believe it's incompetence that your negotiators were unable to steal the clothes off chelsea's back, despite the fact that *yours* was the party with no leverage and more to lose
From what I gather it's Chelsea paying most of his wages, not United.From what I can gather we agreed an 'obligation to buy' for 25m where we paid most of Sancho's salary (150k a week to be exact) and we agreed to a break clause of 5m.
60-70m for a player in the last year of his deal you actively trying to sell is generous, but let's say Sancho did indeed play so well that you might get those kind of offers. Sancho doesn't have a deal with Chelsea. If, say, a PSG became interested in Sancho to point of paying a 60-70m transfer fee for him, they likely would also offer him comparable wages. Wages Chelsea, from what we know, couldn't match without breaking their salary structure. And even if they could and did, Sancho could also just decide he prefers playing for another team anywaysWhen you take everything into account its a worse deal than a straight loan with a 5m loan fee. Let me explain why. With a straight loan we still had full control over Sancho's future. If he rediscovered his Dortmund's form while playing there then we could have easily sold him for 60m-70m either to Chelsea or to another club.
No, you didn't. Not really. Sancho controls Sancho's future, and that was always the case anywaysWith this shit deal we basically abdicated any sort of control over Sancho's future.
Or, if he does well he signs for PSG and Chelsea sack the idiots who agreed to this dealIf he does well then Chelsea buys him for 25m and we look silly.
Or he does really well but Chelsea can't agree a contract, so they pay you 5m and you now have a sellable asset, while having saved significant money on his cost for this seasonIf he does badly then they pay a 5m fee (which is around the same amount of salary we paid Sancho in terms of salary while playing for Chelsea) and we look silly.
Almost certainly you are not doing this deal without it. Unless Chelsea really were interested in just loaning him for a year, in which case you would have gotten the same deal - something covering his full salary for the seasonThe ridiculously low break clause had been the center of most criticism for very good reason.
because they want Sancho gone and having knee jerk reactions - much like yours - over the fact he might come backBut why do many think that the loan fee is indeed ridiculous?
Which is ridiculous. What does that have to do with Chelsea not being brain dead?Well we paid a 10.5m loan fee for the magnificent Odion Ighalo.
No. Milan paid 10m in total(fee+wages) for half a season of Joao Felix, which is still a lot, and they did it as a favour to Jorge Mendes essentially. Your deal for Amrabat, again, see above. Just because your guys do dumb shit doesn't mean everyone else will - though Chelsea certainly are tryingWe paid 8.5m for Amrabat and its around what Milan paid for the serial reject Joao Felix for HALF A SEASON.
Yeah sure ok. Again, I'm not arguing for the competence of your guys here. I'm saying this one specific deal is actually pretty good for you, considering the situation you were in at the time.Regarding us being 'desperate' to sell I suggest that you have a look at how much money we get from transfers. :Spoiler alert: we always seem to be desperate :/Spoiler alert:. United has a reputation for selling for cheap and to buy for premium. That precede even the Glazers for all its worth. The difference between the then and the now is that
I'm saying if anything, in this deal it's United who took Chelsea for a ride, not the other way aroundb- We can't afford to be taken for a ride anymore.
I doubt you know how an obligation or an option to buy clause work. There is no way such clauses are inserted in one's contract unless the player agrees to a contract before hand.From what I gather it's Chelsea paying most of his wages, not United.
60-70m for a player in the last year of his deal you actively trying to sell is generous, but let's say Sancho did indeed play so well that you might get those kind of offers. Sancho doesn't have a deal with Chelsea. If, say, a PSG became interested in Sancho to point of paying a 60-70m transfer fee for him, they likely would also offer him comparable wages. Wages Chelsea, from what we know, couldn't match without breaking their salary structure. And even if they could and did, Sancho could also just decide he prefers playing for another team anyways
Chelsea *do not* control Sancho's future through this deal
No, you didn't. Not really. Sancho controls Sancho's future, and that was always the case anyways
Or, if he does well he signs for PSG and Chelsea sack the idiots who agreed to this deal
Or he does really well but Chelsea can't agree a contract, so they pay you 5m and you now have a sellable asset, while having saved significant money on his cost for this season
Almost certainly you are not doing this deal without it. Unless Chelsea really were interested in just loaning him for a year, in which case you would have gotten the same deal - something covering his full salary for the season
because they want Sancho gone and having knee jerk reactions - much like yours - over the fact he might come back
Which is ridiculous. What does that have to do with Chelsea not being brain dead?
No. Milan paid 10m in total(fee+wages) for half a season of Joao Felix, which is still a lot, and they did it as a favour to Jorge Mendes essentially. Your deal for Amrabat, again, see above. Just because your guys do dumb shit doesn't mean everyone else will - though Chelsea certainly are trying
Yeah sure ok. Again, I'm not arguing for the competence of your guys here. I'm saying this one specific deal is actually pretty good for you, considering the situation you were in at the time.
If you'd given away Garnacho for 15m then sure, that would have been monstrous incompetence. This isn't that
I'm saying if anything, in this deal it's United who took Chelsea for a ride, not the other way around
But this seems to be the case here. And it makes sense. Essentially the deal gave Chelsea the whole season to make a deal with Sancho and buy him then, or to pay a loan fee and send him back. Obviously it's not a true obligation in this case, but the deal in general makes sense.I doubt you know how an obligation or an option to buy clause work. There is no way such clauses are inserted in one's contract unless the player agrees to a contract before hand.
Yes I know that, which is why I keep bringing this up, because it's absolutely insaneI doubt you know how an obligation or an option to buy clause work. There is no way such clauses are inserted in one's contract unless the player agrees to a contract before hand.
Which brings us back to square one. This was one hell of a shit dealBut this seems to be the case here. And it makes sense. Essentially the deal gave Chelsea the whole season to make a deal with Sancho and buy him then, or to pay a loan fee and send him back. Obviously it's not a true obligation in this case, but the deal in general makes sense.
Yes I know that, which is why I keep bringing this up, because it's absolutely insane
This was reported by the athletic. The same people reporting on the 5m break clause
But they haven't yet. Until the contract is signed Chelsea can't fecking do anythingI believe that despite this being the case the Athletic also reported that neither Chelsea nor Sancho expect to have any difficulty in agreeing terms.
Depends on how big a pay cut he'd have to take. Also have to consider whether he likes things at Chelsea, what ambitions he has, etc.It is unusual but as I have mentioned before, it is in his best interests to go ahead and agree a deal on a lower salary to get the security of a new long term contract at possibly the only big club that has any interest in him.
We probably are not going to be in the CL next season so his salary with us is reduced by 25% anyway. I am sure we will have to make some sort of bonus or loyalty payment in lieu of the difference for next year and as far as the following years are concerned, good luck to him if he thinks anyone else will pay him what Chelsea are averaging on their contracts. It is in his interests to get a deal done and the indications are that he himself is well aware of that fact. I don't imagine Chelsea are losing much sleep worrying that Barcelona or PSG are going to come storming in with a better offer and turn his head, we might be wishing that but reality says it is not happening.But they haven't yet. Until the contract is signed Chelsea can't fecking do anything
Depends on how big a pay cut he'd have to take. Also have to consider whether he likes things at Chelsea, what ambitions he has, etc.
Indeed, they just have employment contracts unlike the vast majority of the workforce. That’s what I get for posting at 3am after a long day of work. Brain dead. The players at Man United are absolutely employees.
Still better than no deal, which was the alternative.Which brings us back to square one. This was one hell of a shit deal
Please be true.
Perhaps, but it's good news if it means he wants to go to Dortmund and actually play football, rather than being content to sit around here and play Playstation for the rest of his contract.I don't really think this is good news if true, unless there is mutual interest that leads to Chelsea completing the deal instead of terminating it. It's Sancho saying I only want to go one club, and that club has zero intention of ever paying a transfer fee or more than a slice of his wages.
Which brings us back to square one. This was one hell of a shit deal
Still better than no deal, which was the alternative.
I disagree with this.
We have seen numerous managers say in press conferences that players have to show it in training.
So lets see what part you dont think helped from ETH and United...
ETH appointed - 2 months later Sancho decides he needs a break, the manager in his first season gives a player 3 months off.. then is reintroduced, with a massive hug and huge cheer from OT crowd and goes onto having a poor season.
Next season starts and the player is not doing it in training, turning up late, poor attitiude, gaming till late hours so is not sharp in training. He did not want to press in training, so the manager dropped him.
The manager said post Arsenal was because of his training - could you explain what was wrong with this?
Sancho, the immature player he is goes onto notes and types up a story of how he is a scapegoat and judged differently, posts it on twitter and pins it.
A manager asks for an apology... doesn't get one and the club together with the manager decide, manager > player.
Gets loaned out to Dortmund.. has 1 good game and poor season, Dortmund decide he is too rubbish to buy.
How is that ETH and Manutd's fault? this is solely down to the player being immature.
If Sancho's training/attitude was such a problem one week after the 2023 summer window shut we can assume it wasn't a sudden development. So he could and probably should have been sold/loaned before the window shut.
Player issues like this at Manchester United where the media like to make a huge drama out of them are best kept private. What Ten Hag said wasn't too bad but it didn't need to be said in a press conference. Especially when you consider at the time Ten Hag would have known the Antony news from Brazil was coming out a week or so later and he wouldn't be playing for a while. But even with things playing out as they did do the whole public drama with demanding apologies, freezing out, banished from the first team etc. was unecessary and was probably down to nothing more than Ten Hag's ego and his need as Varane out it to always be in conflict with one player to show he's boss.
Now none of that excuses Sanchos behaviour or his Tweet which he deleted. But I feel Ten Hag could have handled it better or at the very least more privately. The club should have stepped in as well and nipped it in the bud at some point and sorted it out.
I’m hoping this is true too. Chelsea also know the amortisation we have left (this stuff is easily available)… I’m hoping they’re dropping the penalty fee info to improve their bargaining chipsI think what Chelsea have done here is looked at the £20m fee and asked what is a player worth who has 1 year left on his contract, has burnt his bridges, and will cost his club £30m in wages and amortisation if he stays. They have correctly figured out they hold all the leverage. This screams of basically Sancho still going to Chelsea but for £10m and not £20m. After all, it's not like he's getting zero minutes for them, and they probably will back their chances of flipping him for a profit given he's only 25.
Or they've figured out they can just sign a better player rather than waste £20m on a fringe player who would be amongst their highest earnersI think what Chelsea have done here is looked at the £20m fee and asked what is a player worth who has 1 year left on his contract, has burnt his bridges, and will cost his club £30m in wages and amortisation if he stays. They have correctly figured out they hold all the leverage. This screams of basically Sancho still going to Chelsea but for £10m and not £20m. After all, it's not like he's getting zero minutes for them, and they probably will back their chances of flipping him for a profit given he's only 25.
