Jadon Sancho| Staying at Dortmund for now

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've just emerged from my cryogenic capsule, eyes blinking in the harsh sunlight. Has anything noteworthy happened or should I get back in and reset the timer for September you damn dirty apes?
 
pascell said:
Something isn't sitting right with me with all these tweets.
Click to expand...
Pure PR. We've been negotiating with them for weeks and apparently have given no indication as to what we are willing to pay. And one journalist contradicting himself within a week. Clearly, there's a lot of PR play and posturing happening from all sides getting the media to parrot their views to win the narrative.
 
7even said:
Something happened when The Glazers and Woodward decided to sack Mourinho.

It’s a false narrative and a myth that the owners doesn’t invest as much as they can in the club the last two seasons. From that point the owners has done absolutely nothing wrong and the clubs annual reports and our latest Q3 report is a testament of that. The numbers doesn’t lies and if we closely scrutinize every number in the reports I could easily argue that the club have overspent our recourses the last 24 months, not the opposite.

1. It cost the club a fortune to fire Mourinho, sell Lukaku and get rid of Sanchez. We talk about at least £100m+. All this was done by recommendation probably from our manager and other trusted advisers. You should applaud such a bold move because it takes balls to make such a u-turn and then fully trust a unproven Norwegian manager and ex player to such and extent. Both Woodward and the owners literally put their neck in the Guillotine if Solskjaer had failed in his project.

2. The reason we overpaid for Maguire was because he was vital to Ole’s rebuilding project. Our weakness in the air and on set pieces gave us no options. Our new strategy includes that we first and foremost should buy English proven talents. Maguire and AWB was the best two defenders available at that time.

3. It was purely because of financial reason we bought Bruno in January 2020 instead of the summer 2019. Our cash reserves needed recovery and we needed another six more months to balance our books. Our Q3 report shows this in black and white. Sorry but you should applaud Woodward because he does a hell of a job at the moment with restricted resources. If you don’t see that then I’m sorry because numbers don’t lie. Journalists and Twitter accounts on the other hand....

4. Right now at this time we can’t pay £110m for Sancho in one installment. It’s impossible and the investment bank that handles us our revolving credit of £140m would‘t allow us to use so much of our own cash in such a short time. I’m sorry but there is no way we would use 90m and on top of that then use part of our credit in a Pandemic where we don’t know the outcome the second wave and its restrictions. At then moment we risk to lose more then £100m in revenues between Mars to October 2020.

5. Why do you condemn Woodward when he tries to do the best possible deal for us? Isn’t it obvious that Borussia Dortmund playing games with us and the media? They are in their right to ask whatever they want for Sancho but we have zero obligations to accept their valuation after such a financial turbulence last six months. You should back our stance to not fall in that trap and instead of mocking Woodward with insults you should back him if you care for the club.

I want Sancho as much as anybody else but I can’t overlook what I reading in our latest financial report. The numbers are crystal clear. We invest almost every penny in new players. We use our cash flow as much as we can.

We do everything possible to catch up with Liverpool and City. What more do you expect? Do you want the club to fire the tea lady and other local employees to buy a teenager or don’t you see what’s going on. I’m proud of how we handle this Pandemic and you should just look at Arsenal or Liverpool and see how other greedy owners act. Be careful what you ask for.
Click to expand...

This.
 
Rooney in Paris said:
Thank you for replacing the player with a painting. It's literally the same thing but somehow so much clearer.
Click to expand...
I just tried to put the situation in a simplest view possible. For Ed, Zorc, Perez, Glazers etc a player is just an asset. Nothing more I think. Try to think as them.

For Ed, well he'd be very happy if he can buy Sancho with a couple millions less. And if the negotiation drags on, it means more online traffic for him. People, even not United and Dortmund fans can't stop talking about this. All good.

Imo we'll get Sancho, just not anytime soon.
 
I remember some years ago our own Ed Woodward had addressed the investors about the impact of “social media footprint” of our transfer. Basically: the more social media interactions/engagements made, the better for the brands of the club and the player himself. Maybe that’s why our marquee transfers with marketable faces always drag on (Pogba, Alexis, Bruno...). Maximizing the media coverage and anything.

Personally I think it is done already, and the social media only interested in something for a short time, so I think it will be wrapped up soon in 7-10 days with both clubs come out with some kinds of win.
 
7even said:
Something happened when The Glazers and Woodward decided to sack Mourinho.

It’s a false narrative and a myth that the owners doesn’t invest as much as they can in the club the last two seasons. From that point the owners has done absolutely nothing wrong and the clubs annual reports and our latest Q3 report is a testament of that. The numbers doesn’t lies and if we closely scrutinize every number in the reports I could easily argue that the club have overspent our recourses the last 24 months, not the opposite.

1. It cost the club a fortune to fire Mourinho, sell Lukaku and get rid of Sanchez. We talk about at least £100m+. All this was done by recommendation probably from our manager and other trusted advisers. You should applaud such a bold move because it takes balls to make such a u-turn and then fully trust a unproven Norwegian manager and ex player to such and extent. Both Woodward and the owners literally put their neck in the Guillotine if Solskjaer had failed in his project.

2. The reason we overpaid for Maguire was because he was vital to Ole’s rebuilding project. Our weakness in the air and on set pieces gave us no options. Our new strategy includes that we first and foremost should buy English proven talents. Maguire and AWB was the best two defenders available at that time.

3. It was purely because of financial reason we bought Bruno in January 2020 instead of the summer 2019. Our cash reserves needed recovery and we needed another six more months to balance our books. Our Q3 report shows this in black and white. Sorry but you should applaud Woodward because he does a hell of a job at the moment with restricted resources. If you don’t see that then I’m sorry because numbers don’t lie. Journalists and Twitter accounts on the other hand....

4. Right now at this time we can’t pay £110m for Sancho in one installment. It’s impossible and the investment bank that handles us our revolving credit of £140m would‘t allow us to use so much of our own cash in such a short time. I’m sorry but there is no way we would use 90m and on top of that then use part of our credit in a Pandemic where we don’t know the outcome the second wave and its restrictions. At then moment we risk to lose more then £100m in revenues between Mars to October 2020.

5. Why do you condemn Woodward when he tries to do the best possible deal for us? Isn’t it obvious that Borussia Dortmund playing games with us and the media? They are in their right to ask whatever they want for Sancho but we have zero obligations to accept their valuation after such a financial turbulence last six months. You should back our stance to not fall in that trap and instead of mocking Woodward with insults you should back him if you care for the club.

I want Sancho as much as anybody else but I can’t overlook what I reading in our latest financial report. The numbers are crystal clear. We invest almost every penny in new players. We use our cash flow as much as we can.

We do everything possible to catch up with Liverpool and City. What more do you expect? Do you want the club to fire the tea lady and other local employees to buy a teenager or don’t you see what’s going on. I’m proud of how we handle this Pandemic and you should just look at Arsenal or Liverpool and see how other greedy owners act. Be careful what you ask for.
Click to expand...
A very good post. Agree all of it.

I said earlier 108m guaranteed cash be it upfront or in installments is too much, that too in current financial turmoil. Usually 150m+ deals could have that much guarantee plus adds on. I will be very happy if we get sancho but I can understand the club's position if we can't. I am fully supporting the management in this case.
 
Strelok said:
And if the negotiation drags on, it means more online traffic for him.
Click to expand...
A star man united player generates way more traffic and financial revenue than a player club is interested in. Sooner the player comes onboard is always better financially.
 
Tony247 said:
A star man united player generates way more traffic and financial revenue than a player club is interested in. Sooner the player comes onboard is always better financially.
Click to expand...
Not in a transfer window mate. If Sancho deal is done, surely people and the press will move onto the next saga.
 
Stretender said:
Can't the Mods just lock this thread for now until something officially happens about Sancho transfer . It's bad for our health to keep refreshing this page hoping to see anything significant, only to read messages about posters arguing about who is right between Dortmund with their spin Doctors and Ed Woodward and Manchester United. We want to hear concrete news about Sancho not who is winning PR war between some Dortmund spin Doctors and the most professional, greatest football club in the world in Manchester United. Transfer deadline is 5 October, this thread can be opened then. Thank you Mods.
Click to expand...

Yeah I actually think that is a very good idea indeed because feck all is happening right now
 
7even said:
Something happened when The Glazers and Woodward decided to sack Mourinho.

It’s a false narrative and a myth that the owners doesn’t invest as much as they can in the club the last two seasons. From that point the owners has done absolutely nothing wrong and the clubs annual reports and our latest Q3 report is a testament of that. The numbers doesn’t lies and if we closely scrutinize every number in the reports I could easily argue that the club have overspent our recourses the last 24 months, not the opposite.

1. It cost the club a fortune to fire Mourinho, sell Lukaku and get rid of Sanchez. We talk about at least £100m+. All this was done by recommendation probably from our manager and other trusted advisers. You should applaud such a bold move because it takes balls to make such a u-turn and then fully trust a unproven Norwegian manager and ex player to such and extent. Both Woodward and the owners literally put their neck in the Guillotine if Solskjaer had failed in his project.

2. The reason we overpaid for Maguire was because he was vital to Ole’s rebuilding project. Our weakness in the air and on set pieces gave us no options. Our new strategy includes that we first and foremost should buy English proven talents. Maguire and AWB was the best two defenders available at that time.

3. It was purely because of financial reason we bought Bruno in January 2020 instead of the summer 2019. Our cash reserves needed recovery and we needed another six more months to balance our books. Our Q3 report shows this in black and white. Sorry but you should applaud Woodward because he does a hell of a job at the moment with restricted resources. If you don’t see that then I’m sorry because numbers don’t lie. Journalists and Twitter accounts on the other hand....

4. Right now at this time we can’t pay £110m for Sancho in one installment. It’s impossible and the investment bank that handles us our revolving credit of £140m would‘t allow us to use so much of our own cash in such a short time. I’m sorry but there is no way we would use 90m and on top of that then use part of our credit in a Pandemic where we don’t know the outcome the second wave and its restrictions. At then moment we risk to lose more then £100m in revenues between Mars to October 2020.

5. Why do you condemn Woodward when he tries to do the best possible deal for us? Isn’t it obvious that Borussia Dortmund playing games with us and the media? They are in their right to ask whatever they want for Sancho but we have zero obligations to accept their valuation after such a financial turbulence last six months. You should back our stance to not fall in that trap and instead of mocking Woodward with insults you should back him if you care for the club.

I want Sancho as much as anybody else but I can’t overlook what I reading in our latest financial report. The numbers are crystal clear. We invest almost every penny in new players. We use our cash flow as much as we can.

We do everything possible to catch up with Liverpool and City. What more do you expect? Do you want the club to fire the tea lady and other local employees to buy a teenager or don’t you see what’s going on. I’m proud of how we handle this Pandemic and you should just look at Arsenal or Liverpool and see how other greedy owners act. Be careful what you ask for.
Click to expand...

What a load of bs, I hope woodword spends as much time on how to get the club running as he seems to on getting pr guys to protect him.

1. I would love to know how you got the 100mn figure? Mourinho cost us 20mn. Looking at transfermarkt Lukaku cost us 76mn we sold him for 66mn. If we paid 50% of Sanchez's wages and gave him 10mn to sign with inter it would cost us 20mn. Also you conveniently ignore the fact that lukaku's replacement is a loan and on way lesser wages. So any loss we made would be less than what we received for Lukaku

2. We overpaid for those players not because ole wanted them but became all clubs know how Woodward operates. Maguire wouldn't have been the only player on cb list and I doubt ole would have said no if we got someone non english for much less. Show me 1 transfer where we haven't overpaid under woodward, there used to be a utd tax during fergie's era but we still managed to find good players without having to overpay for all. Now we have a Woodward tax because anyone who deals with him knows all you have to do is stay strong and he will cave and pay the price you want because that's what he does.

3. Those financial reasons are Woodward's creation, a good ceo would hire someone competent to deal with transfers after failing at that job for more than half a decade, woodword hasn't. Jones and rojo were not wanted by any manager since lvg yet they got extensions and now we can't give them away, he keeps overpaying average players, may be if he stops, we won't have such financial issues. The only reason we had to pay Mourinho 20mn is because the genius that is our ceo decided to renew his contract 1.5 years before it was up and season wasn't even over, it took a grand total of 3 months for most to start seeing that it might have been a bad idea.

4. Where exactly are you getting this we have to pay all the money in 1 installment news, I don't know much about transfers but I doubt anyone except psg in neymar deal paid all money in single installment. Most journos are reporting that Dortmund want 108mn guaranteed not in 1 installment.

5. People aren't mocking him just for not paying, they are mocking him because every deal with woodward involved is protracted negotiating with us eventually paying what the seller asks for. If you want to put your foot down, may be just back out and say no deal instead of briefing the media that you haven't given up, when you know what Dortmund want and aren't budging on it.
 
Last edited:
I love the idea of Woodward and Zorc being in negotiations all week, with Woodward refusing to say what we're willing to offer.

Can just imagine Woodward sat there like a child just repeating too expensive everytime Zorc says anything.
 
pascell said:
Click to expand...


Read that whole article, doesn't paint good picture. IIRC Kajumba is close with Sancho camp so maybe this article is sourced from Sancho's camp. He mentioned that initially we offered paycut on existing contract which is obvious bs but IMO the only reason it's mentioned like how we offered pay cut and then matched his existing contract is because of our brainless briefing where we said Sancho's wages are huge problem and have to break wage strucutre.

Kajumba's article even talked about 'Sancho's wages won't break wage structure'.

Looks like we have pissed off Sancho's camp with brainless briefing.
 
I feel our briefing is misleading, and Fabrizio is correct when he mentioned that we have agreed salary package with the player.

Daily mail piece seems like Agent talk to hurry up United
 
7even said:
Something happened when The Glazers and Woodward decided to sack Mourinho.
...
1. It cost the club a fortune to fire Mourinho, sell Lukaku and get rid of Sanchez. We talk about at least £100m+. All this was done by recommendation probably from our manager and other trusted advisers. You should applaud such a bold move because it takes balls to make such a u-turn and then fully trust a unproven Norwegian manager and ex player to such and extent. Both Woodward and the owners literally put their neck in the Guillotine if Solskjaer had failed in his project.

...
Click to expand...

Why does it cost us 100m to sell Lukaku and get rid of Sanchez? Doesn't it suppose to be an income?
 
I really wanted this to happen but I think it's over now. They don't need to sell this window, we don't have money / don't wan't to pay so much. Sancho won't make a transfer request. We are really damaging our club's reputation atm with this circus. We should move on quickly, look at Chelsea, they've already signed Ziyech and Werner and there are numerous reports about them looking for new defenders, midfielders etc. We seem to be connected only with Sancho... There are lots of areas to strengthen this summer - CB, DM... other options for RW... maybe full-back. This summer is very important and we could ruin it completely if Sancho's deal drags till the end and then fails.
 
7even said:
Something happened when The Glazers and Woodward decided to sack Mourinho.

It’s a false narrative and a myth that the owners doesn’t invest as much as they can in the club the last two seasons. From that point the owners has done absolutely nothing wrong and the clubs annual reports and our latest Q3 report is a testament of that. The numbers doesn’t lies and if we closely scrutinize every number in the reports I could easily argue that the club have overspent our recourses the last 24 months, not the opposite.

1. It cost the club a fortune to fire Mourinho, sell Lukaku and get rid of Sanchez. We talk about at least £100m+. All this was done by recommendation probably from our manager and other trusted advisers. You should applaud such a bold move because it takes balls to make such a u-turn and then fully trust a unproven Norwegian manager and ex player to such and extent. Both Woodward and the owners literally put their neck in the Guillotine if Solskjaer had failed in his project.

2. The reason we overpaid for Maguire was because he was vital to Ole’s rebuilding project. Our weakness in the air and on set pieces gave us no options. Our new strategy includes that we first and foremost should buy English proven talents. Maguire and AWB was the best two defenders available at that time.

3. It was purely because of financial reason we bought Bruno in January 2020 instead of the summer 2019. Our cash reserves needed recovery and we needed another six more months to balance our books. Our Q3 report shows this in black and white. Sorry but you should applaud Woodward because he does a hell of a job at the moment with restricted resources. If you don’t see that then I’m sorry because numbers don’t lie. Journalists and Twitter accounts on the other hand....

4. Right now at this time we can’t pay £110m for Sancho in one installment. It’s impossible and the investment bank that handles us our revolving credit of £140m would‘t allow us to use so much of our own cash in such a short time. I’m sorry but there is no way we would use 90m and on top of that then use part of our credit in a Pandemic where we don’t know the outcome the second wave and its restrictions. At then moment we risk to lose more then £100m in revenues between Mars to October 2020.

5. Why do you condemn Woodward when he tries to do the best possible deal for us? Isn’t it obvious that Borussia Dortmund playing games with us and the media? They are in their right to ask whatever they want for Sancho but we have zero obligations to accept their valuation after such a financial turbulence last six months. You should back our stance to not fall in that trap and instead of mocking Woodward with insults you should back him if you care for the club.

I want Sancho as much as anybody else but I can’t overlook what I reading in our latest financial report. The numbers are crystal clear. We invest almost every penny in new players. We use our cash flow as much as we can.

We do everything possible to catch up with Liverpool and City. What more do you expect? Do you want the club to fire the tea lady and other local employees to buy a teenager or don’t you see what’s going on. I’m proud of how we handle this Pandemic and you should just look at Arsenal or Liverpool and see how other greedy owners act. Be careful what you ask for.
Click to expand...
Fantastic post. Well explained and hard to argue with.

Spending 120M cash in this environment seems like a stretch, even with installments.
 
Isotope said:
Why does it cost us 100m to sell Lukaku and get rid of Sanchez? Doesn't it suppose to be an income?
Click to expand...

Depends how you look at it. Lukaku was sold for a slightly lower price than bought for, so I believe we lost 10m value there, maybe more. Lukaku was on £250k a week here, £13m a year, whereas in Inter if reports are to be belived €6m a year rising to 7m and 8.5m over the years. While it was never reported I'm sure we had to pay him a lump sum to make up the difference in his remaining 3 years of contract. Possibly as much as £20m if we got no "discount".
Paying off Mou was another £20m I believe?
That's at least £50m in total there. Then there's all the salary of Sanchez that we subsidized during his loan and then the final payoff for his remaining contract.

While we also saved some future money getting them off the books when their service wasn't required anymore, plus a decent chunk of Lukaku's value back in a fee, it's not hard to say how they can have cost us around £100m in the short run getting rid when we did.
 
Matriac said:
Depends how you look at it. Lukaku was sold for a slightly lower price than bought for, so I believe we lost 10m value there, maybe more. Lukaku was on £250k a week here, £13m a year, whereas in Inter if reports are to be belived €6m a year rising to 7m and 8.5m over the years. While it was never reported I'm sure we had to pay him a lump sum to make up the difference in his remaining 3 years of contract. Possibly as much as £20m if we got no "discount".
Paying off Mou was another £20m I believe?
That's at least £50m in total there. Then there's all the salary of Sanchez that we subsidized during his loan and then the final payoff for his remaining contract.

While we also saved some future money getting them off the books when their service wasn't required anymore, plus a decent chunk of Lukaku's value back in a fee, it's not hard to say how they can have cost us around £100m in the short run getting rid when we did.
Click to expand...
This will be a stupid question but doesnt a buyer club make up a difference in a remaining salaries, not a seller one? For the Lukaku deal.
 
Matriac said:
Depends how you look at it. Lukaku was sold for a slightly lower price than bought for, so I believe we lost 10m value there, maybe more. Lukaku was on £250k a week here, £13m a year, whereas in Inter if reports are to be belived €6m a year rising to 7m and 8.5m over the years. While it was never reported I'm sure we had to pay him a lump sum to make up the difference in his remaining 3 years of contract. Possibly as much as £20m if we got no "discount".
Paying off Mou was another £20m I believe?
That's at least £50m in total there. Then there's all the salary of Sanchez that we subsidized during his loan and then the final payoff for his remaining contract.

While we also saved some future money getting them off the books when their service wasn't required anymore, plus a decent chunk of Lukaku's value back in a fee, it's not hard to say how they can have cost us around £100m in the short run getting rid when we did.
Click to expand...

Lukaku 250 k per week is gross wage, Inter pays him 9 million including bonus and that's his net wage. He gets as much if not more at Inter.
 
Matriac said:
Depends how you look at it. Lukaku was sold for a slightly lower price than bought for, so I believe we lost 10m value there, maybe more. Lukaku was on £250k a week here, £13m a year, whereas in Inter if reports are to be belived €6m a year rising to 7m and 8.5m over the years. While it was never reported I'm sure we had to pay him a lump sum to make up the difference in his remaining 3 years of contract. Possibly as much as £20m if we got no "discount".
Paying off Mou was another £20m I believe?
That's at least £50m in total there. Then there's all the salary of Sanchez that we subsidized during his loan and then the final payoff for his remaining contract.

While we also saved some future money getting them off the books when their service wasn't required anymore, plus a decent chunk of Lukaku's value back in a fee, it's not hard to say how they can have cost us around £100m in the short run getting rid when we did.
Click to expand...

Subsidizing Sanchez during loan is not a loss. It should be income, because we don't pay him full wage. I don't know how much we subsidize his wage, but he's taking a pay cut with Inter because tax in Italy is lower. So I don't think we pay much there.

I've never heard we're subsidizing Lukaku's remaining salary, because again, Italy's tax is lower than in UK. It says here 21.5% tax for foreign footballer in Italy, and 45% in UK. https://en.as.com/en/2019/06/27/football/1561665200_458007.html
 
Isotope said:
Subsidizing Sanchez during loan is not a loss. It should be income, because we don't pay him full wage. I don't know how much we subsidize his wage, but he's taking a pay cut with Inter because tax in Italy is lower. So I don't think we pay much there.

I've never heard we're subsidizing Lukaku's remaining salary, because again, Italy's tax is lower than in UK. It says here 21.5% tax for foreign footballer in Italy, and 45% in UK. https://en.as.com/en/2019/06/27/football/1561665200_458007.html
Click to expand...

We are not subsidizing Lukaku wages. He gets shit loads of money at Inter. It's just that people confuse gross and net wages.
 
Last edited:
Ole should start looking beyond the UK and Norway. Other nations produce good talent as well, often for cheaper.
 
glazed said:
Woodward hates signing a 28 year old for a big fee. No resale value. He puts money before success.
Click to expand...

He's right on that one.

Forget the resale value for a moment, at 28 the only way a player can go is down. The EPL is highly physical & competitive. How long will it take before the player in question start becoming a burden?
 
roonster09 said:
Lukaku 250 k per week is gross wage, Inter pays him 9 million including bonus and that's his net wage. He gets as much if not more at Inter.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know our 250k pound a week was gross, I tried to look for the best source for Lukaku wages now and it looked like it was also reported gross, but I wasn't sure. Lower taxes helps a lot for sure.

Anyway I was just trying to point out how you can take various sums and tally them up to be a cost for budgeting while we also save some money. The £100m someone suggested above was prob taken out of thin air, but it did cost us quite a bit to get rid of just those 3.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.