Jadon Sancho| Staying at Dortmund for now

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ekeke said:
Dembele was good enough in France for Dortmund to buy him. He was then good enough in Germany for Barcelona to buy him.

So no I don't think £135 million was spent thinking he can improve by £100 million

I think Barcelona bought him and added a smaller percentage of that fee extra to account for the fact they hope he can improve over the next few years.
Click to expand...
This reasoning makes no sense. So if Dembele joined Dortmund a little earlier, and performed in the exact same way, he would be worth less? Do you really think Barca took his Rennes form into consideration? What percentage of the fee does that amount to?
Saying all that, its still a 35m difference between the two! You keep saying small pecentage as if he didn't become the third most expensive player of all time. 40m more than Pogba
 
MadMike said:
Lad, what are you on about?

First off, Mbappe cost 165m not 200m. Secondly you’re comparing players of entirely different levels.

Mbappe had been smashing all the French teenage records set by none other than Hazard (teenager at Lille) and was known as by far the biggest talent ever seen at that age. At 18 he was one of the best players for Monaco as they won a league title and went to a CL final. He was a starter for a France squad brimming with talent. He’d been showing not only exceptional talent but also consistency on the highest stage.

If Mbappe is worth 160m, Sancho is not worth half that.
Click to expand...
What point are you arguing? 90 percent of his post is about him being 18, teenage this and that. Thats my point. He wasn't a 166m player based on performances alone but based on his age and what he can become.
I don't know what you're arguing against. What did Hazard go for again?
 
cyberman said:
This reasoning makes no sense. So if Dembele joined Dortmund a little earlier, and performed in the exact same way, he would be worth less? Do you really think Barca took his Rennes form into consideration? What percentage of the fee does that amount to?
Saying all that, its still a 35m difference between the two! You keep saying small pecentage as if he didn't become the third most expensive player of all time. 40m more than Pogba
Click to expand...

I dont understand how this is too complicated for you.

He was one of the top players in one of the top leagues with many years ahead of him, even if he continued at the exact same level and never improved. So he was already worth a large amount of money.

On top of that they paid a smaller amount that they think reflects how much he can improve over 3 or 4 seasons. Thats what they paid for potential. Not £100 million on a gamble, they paid the majority of it for a known quantity that has proven to them that he's worth buying for the first team. Its not like they bought him then sent him off to another club on loan because they thought he was a £30 million player and their attackers are worth a lot more than that, they're among the best in the world. So they paid for him to come and add something to the forward line they already had, that season.
 
Ekeke said:
I dont understand how this is too complicated for you.

He was one of the top players in one of the top leagues with many years ahead of him, even if he continued at the exact same level and never improved. So he was already worth a large amount of money.

On top of that they paid a smaller amount that they think reflects how much he can improve over 3 or 4 seasons. Thats what they paid for potential. Not £100 million on a gamble, they paid the majority of it for a known quantity that has proven to them that he's worth buying for the first team. Its not like they bought him then sent him off to another club on loan because they thought he was a £30 million player and their attackers are worth a lot more than that, they're among the best in the world. So they paid for him to come and add something to the forward line they already had, that season.
Click to expand...
Youre literally just making this up though.
How much potential did they think Coutinho had when they paid over the odds for him? What equation did they use then? You have to remember its the same briliant minds who bought both.
Sancho is one of the top players in one of the top leagues in the world..literally the same position in the same team and still..35m cheaper! He's not even going for the same price as Dembele here.
 
cyberman said:
Youre literally just making this up though.
How much potential did they think Coutinho had when they paid over the odds for him? What equation did they use then? You have to remember its the same briliant minds who bought both.
Sancho is one of the top players in one of the top leagues in the world..literally the same position in the same team and still..35m cheaper! He's not even going for the same price as Dembele here.
Click to expand...

How am I making this up? Its always been this way. Clubs play the most for what a player is worth and a smaller amount on top for what they think they can be worth in some time.

Thats why we paid £16.5 million for Phil Jones, who Sir Alex thought had the potential to become our best ever player. Not £116.5 million
 
cyberman said:
What point are you arguing? 90 percent of his post is about him being 18, teenage this and that. Thats my point. He wasn't a 166m player based on performances alone but based on his age and what he can become.
I don't know what you're arguing against. What did Hazard go for again?
Click to expand...

I’m arguing two points. One that Mbappe was already far more proven at that age and not just a talent. And two, that even talents have levels. And Sancho never showed talent anywhere near that of Mbappe. Arguing otherwise is making a huge disservice to Mbappe. Finally arguing that “you pay that (100m) for talent” is if we’re being a honest, a bullshit statement if you don’t quantify the level of the talent involved.

Hazard transferred at 21yo after 5 seasons at Lille and 150 games, winning the title on his last season, scoring 20 league goals and being voted player of the season. When Sancho does that, we can talk about it. For now he’s got talent but not really proven much. He’s not even got a full season under his belt.
 
Ekeke said:
No, Dembele was bought for what he was doing. Mbappe was bought for what he was doing.

You don't pay £100 million for potential. You pay a little bit on top of what a player is already capable of on potential.

You don't look at Declan Rice and say hmm he's probably worth a good £30 million right now. But he might improve a lot, so thats £130 million I'll bid for him.

No. You pay a small amount extra.
Click to expand...

What exactly was Dembele doing that made him worth £135m at the time? He was all potential, that’s an absolutely ridiculous claim. He wasn’t some 20-25 goal winger or something.

You’re a lover of all things numbers, I’m sure any equation you run will not come close to justifying a £135m fee for Dembele.

Mbappé was more consistent given, although there was still a massive amount of potential. He was being spoken about as the ‘heir to Messi/Ronaldo’, or ‘potential FUTURE Balon D’or winner’. Not that he should have won it the following week.
 
Ekeke said:
How am I making this up? Its always been this way. Clubs play the most for what a player is worth and a smaller amount on top for what they think they can be worth in some time.

Thats why we paid £16.5 million for Phil Jones, who Sir Alex thought had the potential to become our best ever player. Not £116.5 million
Click to expand...
No. Transfer inflation fees exist, its not a myth. Thats why Dembele is the third most expensive player of all time.
You pay what he's worth, his potential, to win a bidding war and a fee that would make the selling club..well sell. Either buy him now for 100m or watch the market sky rocket yet again and pay double that in 3 years.
Would Dembele have moved for 135m 12 months prior? Of course not. Madrid were backing away from 89m Pogba at that time ffs.
You would have a point, and I can only repeat this, if Dembele wasn't the third most expensive signing in history. You're putting too much trust in their assessment of players quite frankly. Their transfer dealings have been criticised in the past for a reason.
 
Everyone and their mother, including Dembele’s own, knows Barcelona got mugged because they had the Neymar money and were desperate to sign someone. What are we arguing here. Who else was willing to get within 50m of that price? There was never a bidding war for him.

They paid 130m for a player they hardly played the next season cause he wasn’t really ready. Luckily for them they had a team with the strength of Messi, Suarez, Rakitic, Busquets etc. so they won the title and their epic transfer feck up got glossed over. They still had to add 150m Coutinho in Jan and they were after another winger this summer in case Demebele does not come through, hence courting Willian and ultimately buying Malcom.
 
MadMike said:
I’m arguing two points. One that Mbappe was already far more proven at that age and not just a talent. And two, that even talents have levels. And Sancho never showed talent anywhere near that of Mbappe. Arguing otherwise is making a huge disservice to Mbappe. Finally arguing that “you pay that (100m) for talent” is if we’re being a honest, a bullshit statement if you don’t quantify the level of the talent involved.

Hazard transferred at 21yo after 5 seasons at Lille and 150 games, winning the title on his last season, scoring 20 league goals and being voted player of the season. When Sancho does that, we can talk about it. For now he’s got talent but not really proven much. He’s not even got a full season under his belt.
Click to expand...
I never said he was as good as Mbappe? I'm still lost.
If Mbappe was worth as much because of all these records then why didn't Hazard go for a slightly lesser amount? Didn't he full fill that checklist from your last post?
It's almost as if Mbappe had more potential than Hazard and it was reflected in the fee!
 
cyberman said:
No. Transfer inflation fees exist, its not a myth. Thats why Dembele is the third most expensive player of all time.
You pay what he's worth, his potential, to win a bidding war and a fee that would make the selling club..well sell. Either buy him now for 100m or watch the market sky rocket yet again and pay double that in 3 years.
Would Dembele have moved for 135m 12 months prior? Of course not. Madrid were backing away from 89m Pogba at that time ffs.
You would have a point, and I can only repeat this, if Dembele wasn't the third most expensive signing in history. You're putting too much trust in their assessment of players quite frankly. Their transfer dealings have been criticised in the past for a reason.
Click to expand...

So you think £16 million in 2011 is now £100 million. If thats the case why were there lots of players who cost more than £16 million in 2011 and few players who cost more than £100 million today?

Because your numbers are well off.
 
cyberman said:
I never said he was as good as Mbappe? I'm still lost.
If Mbappe was worth as much because of all these records then why didn't Hazard go for a slightly lesser amount? Didn't he full fill that checklist from your last post?
It's almost as if Mbappe had more potential than Hazard and it was reflected in the fee!
Click to expand...

Yeah you do seem lost.

Progression of statements made (not all by you)
- “You don’t pay 100m for talent”
- “You do in 2019”

Technically what the first statement is saying is that you don’t pay 100m for talent alone. Implied, that you need to see that talent applied with some consistency before you splash cash.

But still both statements are wrong. Talent is very generic. Any player in our u23 setup has some talent or he wouldn’t be there. Is anyone of them worth 100m? Arguably no. Did Mbappe show such talent and consistency to be worth >100m at 18yo? Yes.

Has Sancho shown enough talent and consistency for a price tag anywhere near 100m? No. That’s essentially what it boils down to.
 
To judge an 18 year old so harshly after a knockout Champions League game is ridiculous.
 
We should be thankful he didn't put in a world class performance, more chance we'll get him.
 
Chelsea paid 60 million for Pulisic. Sancho looks far far better than him. Kepa went for 70 million granted he was more proven but he's a keeper. Then you have to consider the market we are in and our need for a right winger. So I can definitely see why 90-100 million is being touted.

Also, is he never supposed to have a bad game or something? Rooney, Ronaldo, Dembele, Mbappe all did as well.
 
Last edited:
amolbhatia50k said:
Chelsea paid 60 million for Pulisic. Sancho looks far far better than him. Kepa went for 70 million granted he was more proven but he's a keeper. Then you have to consider the market we are in and our need for a right winger. So I can definitely see why 90-100 million is being touted.

Also, is he never supposed to have a bad game or something? Rooney, Ronaldo, Dembele, Mbappe all did as well.
Click to expand...

For the money we are talking he wont take us to levels we need to be going instantly. His coach has just come out and said he still has a lot to learn. I have my doubts he is ready for a big money transfer yet either physically or mentally specially for Epl. To wait a year is wise I feel.
 
Last edited:
Patrick08 said:
For the money we are talking he wont take us to levels we need to be going instantly. His coach has just come out and said he still has a lot to learn. I have my doubts he is ready for a big money transfer yet either physically or mentally specially for Epl. To wait a year is a wise I feel.
Click to expand...

He is protecting his young star and obviously toned down the hype to make him stay at Dortmund.

Good man management there.
 
meamth said:
He is protecting his young star and obviously toned down the hype to make him stay at Dortmund.

Good man management there.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it’s also probably true. Given that this is only his first senior season ever.
 
Patrick08 said:
For the money we are talking he wont take us to levels we need to be going instantly. His coach has just come out and said he still has a lot to learn. I have my doubts he is ready for a big money transfer yet either physically or mentally specially for Epl. To wait a year is a wise I feel.
Click to expand...
And who takes you to that level instantly? I'd rather sign a better talent even it'll take him a few years to get to his best level. It's hardly as though he's going to bumbling about till then.
 
MadMike said:
Yeah, but it’s also probably true. Given that this is only his first senior season ever.
Click to expand...

Second. He played last season.

Please also dont compare him to Pulisic like you did previous page. Pulisic hasn't come close to the numbers Sancho has produced so far this season. Big difference in quality, hence why Pulisic got benched in favour of Sancho. He's the better player.
 
cyberman said:
Some incredible knee jerk reactions on here.
Click to expand...

I’ve maintained my position on him throughout this thread. The boy has incredible pace and shows moments of great skill. But he’s so raw right now. Should develop his game right now for at least another year at Dortmund. PL should be the last place he should consider for next season.
 
RedSky said:
Second. He played last season.

Please also dont compare him to Pulisic like you did previous page. Pulisic hasn't come close to the numbers Sancho has produced so far this season. Big difference in quality, hence why Pulisic got benched in favour of Sancho. He's the better player.
Click to expand...

Last season he played only for the reserve team in the regional league.

Pulisic also got benched because he wasn’t renewing his contract and wanted to leave (signed with Chelsea since). The decision to bench him wasn’t only down to performances. Sancho does look the better player, I didn’t compare the two I compared the people’s reactions here.
 
Anybody that thinks our owners will invest in an attacking player are dreaming. Not with Greenwood, Chong, martial, Rashford and lukaku all available and Dalot looking like he can deliver a lethal cross from the right.
 
Mr PG said:
Anybody that thinks our owners will invest in an attacking player are dreaming. Not with Greenwood, Chong, martial, Rashford and lukaku all available and Dalot looking like he can deliver a lethal cross from the right.
Click to expand...
That's the spirit. Why getting in muppet mode with Sancho when Chong/Gomes could be worth 100 millions after tonight against PSG? :devil:
 
Mr PG said:
Anybody that thinks our owners will invest in an attacking player are dreaming. Not with Greenwood, Chong, martial, Rashford and lukaku all available and Dalot looking like he can deliver a lethal cross from the right.
Click to expand...

We literally invested a shit ton into our LW when we had Martial and Rashford already last year. The idea that the Glazers won't invest is just completely moronic. Especially when Sancho is English as well. Could be a marketing wet dream too.
 
Mr PG said:
Anybody that thinks our owners will invest in an attacking player are dreaming. Not with Greenwood, Chong, martial, Rashford and lukaku all available and Dalot looking like he can deliver a lethal cross from the right.
Click to expand...

Our attacking options are probably fourth best in the league at best let alone all of Europe.

That is not good enough.
 
cyberman said:
Youre literally just making this up though.
How much potential did they think Coutinho had when they paid over the odds for him? What equation did they use then? You have to remember its the same briliant minds who bought both.
Sancho is one of the top players in one of the top leagues in the world..literally the same position in the same team and still..35m cheaper! He's not even going for the same price as Dembele here.
Click to expand...
The Neymar money has faded so I'm pretty sure the market will get back to being reasonable. 100 million for a player who's inferior to Reus isn't wise.
 
This forum is so kneejerk with its opinions it’s crazy, and suddenly everyone has become the wealth management advisor who doesn’t want to spend.

It’s not like Sancho has a 70m pricetag in your local shop and people are going in saying “oh no I’d rather pay 100m for him”. But if it comes to it the 30m extra would be better than the risk of missing out on a potential worldie. We’re not exactly paupers and we’ve spent less than what we really should have in the past few years.

I’d rather spend 100m on Sancho than 60m on Nicolas Pepe or 50m on Chiesa. Don’t delude yourselves, the guy came with the “potentially world-class talent” reputation when he was still in his early teens, not because of this season.
 
100m just sounds like the opening gambit to me. He’s probably worth what we paid for Martial.
 
NYAS said:
This forum is so kneejerk with its opinions it’s crazy, and suddenly everyone has become the wealth management advisor who doesn’t want to spend.

It’s not like Sancho has a 70m pricetag in your local shop and people are going in saying “oh no I’d rather pay 100m for him”. But if it comes to it the 30m extra would be better than the risk of missing out on a potential worldie. We’re not exactly paupers and we’ve spent less than what we really should have in the past few years.

I’d rather spend 100m on Sancho than 60m on Nicolas Pepe or 50m on Chiesa. Don’t delude yourselves, the guy came with the “potentially world-class talent” reputation when he was still in his early teens, not because of this season.
Click to expand...

It's not that simple. If you spend 100m on a player who doesn't instantly make a significant difference but could make such a difference in 2-3 seasons if everything goes to plan, then you can't sign enough top players for other positions and compete for the title already next season.

Sancho's a special talent but that may not be enough if he lacks the right mentality. And this is something which we don't quite know, do we? Ravel Morrison was supposed to be a world-beater in the making, wasn't he? To pay 100m for a player with 15 good games in his career is quite risky, let's not pretend that it isn't. He isn't a young Messi.
 
It will take like 200m to get him this summer. Why would Dortmund sell Sancho at a "reasonable" price when he still has years on his contract?
 
Without doing much I thought you could still see has a lot of class with some of his touches
 
Ekeke said:
Dembele was good enough in France for Dortmund to buy him. He was then good enough in Germany for Barcelona to buy him.

So no I don't think £135 million was spent thinking he can improve by £100 million

I think Barcelona bought him and added a smaller percentage of that fee extra to account for the fact they hope he can improve over the next few years.
Click to expand...
They didn't even sign him for £135m. It was an initial £96m fee.
 
Amadaeus said:
Sancho is a good player, but I believe his price may be a bit inflated at £100m. He looked nowhere near that amount for a team that needed a goal today.
Click to expand...
I've been one of those saying he's not as good as some think he is. But as with Dembele ( who wasn't worth €140m), you're paying for the potential. In a few years, £100m could be forgotten. Bear in mind that he's 18. If we can sign him for that amount, we absolutely should.
However, I think he'll choose to stay.
 
In this current climate, we would have paid £70m for Martial. First of, I don't think he'd cost £100m but the eventual fee should reach that.
It also depends on how good you think he can become. It rather us spend this money on 18/19 year Olds than spend it on older players who would command ridiculous wages.
 
Adisa said:
In this current climate, we would have paid £70m for Martial. First of, I don't think he'd cost £100m but the eventual fee should reach that.
It also depends on how good you think he can become. It rather us spend this money on 18/19 year Olds than spend it on older players who would command ridiculous wages.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree but it's not straightforward. If you want success here and now, you can't rely too much on youngsters who may or may not become top top players. Given our problems with Sanchez, paying 100m for Sancho seems much much better though.
 
PlayerOne said:
He wasn't good in the first leg too, but like others have said, he's still a kid and it's harsh to judgment on these games.

It does reinforce my point from earlier though, the fee required to get him puts a lot of pressure on a player who's still learning. I have my doubts.
Click to expand...

He was great in the first half until they targeted him. That alone says a lot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.