McTominay (Out) | announced - signed for Napoli

[Ole's screen]

He doesn't wanna go and United don't really want to sell him for footballing reasons. The only reason we're even contemplating selling him is that he's homegrown and any sale would be very good for the books.

Kinda said that's its come to this honestly. I don't like the idea that the club consider players they develop and bring though as money to be cashed in, especially when the player has been contributing a fair amount.

 

[Rolaholic]

He doesn't wanna go and United don't really want to sell him for footballing reasons. The only reason we're even contemplating selling him is that he's homegrown and any sale would be very good for the books.

I think he'd go play for Conte if Napoli had the funds, just don't think he's particularly interested in playing for another PL club besides United

 

[TheMod]

100% he moves to Napoli, that's the only club he wants and United are confident of agreeing a fee with them.

I reckon he informed Fulham he doesn't want to join them and that's why they are signing Berge. They would have paid up had McTominay agreed to join them

Everyone needs to stay calm as this will go through and he will exit the club

 

[The Irish Connection]

More I think about it the more I think we should be trying to keep goal scorers in the squad not sell them. Mctominay scores goals and is a threat as an impact sub.
Keeping him as a squad player and also getting Ugarte would be the best outcome.

 

[The Cat]

More I think about it the more I think we should be trying to keep goal scorers in the squad not sell them. Mctominay scores goals and is a threat as an impact sub.
Keeping him as a squad player and also getting Ugarte would be the best outcome.

I would agree with this. Squad member fine. Add a starter on top even better.

 

[Kent13]

Keeping McTominay with the football he plays and a contract year would be fecking heresy.

 

[The Irish Connection]

I would agree with this. Squad member fine. Add a starter on top even better.

Exactly.

 

[RDCR07]

100% he moves to Napoli, that's the only club he wants and United are confident of agreeing a fee with them.

I reckon he informed Fulham he doesn't want to join them and that's why they are signing Berge. They would have paid up had McTominay agreed to join them

Everyone needs to stay calm as this will go through and he will exit the club

He might want them but if they don’t offer the right amount then we keep him. We don’t absolutely need to sell him.

 

[Oranges038]

He doesn't wanna go and United don't really want to sell him for footballing reasons. The only reason we're even contemplating selling him is that he's homegrown and any sale would be very good for the books.

Kinda said that's its come to this honestly. I don't like the idea that the club consider players they develop and bring though as money to be cashed in, especially when the player has been contributing a fair amount.

It's got nothing to do with that though, has it?

He's had 7 years now as a regular? He's done his bit for the club. This isn't like Chelsea just selling anyone off for spare cash. The reality is, he's just not good enough for where Utd want to be, never has been in my opnion, so he just has to go. It's really is that simple.

 

[gaffs]

I think he'd go play for Conte if Napoli had the funds, just don't think he's particularly interested in playing for another PL club besides United

The reports suggest he wants to stay in the PL.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/2994...rate-stay-england-man-utd-transfer-exclusive/

The Sun, so could be BS.

He is on 60k a week. This is his last chance for a big contract, so will be holding out for something closer to 100.

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

He doesn't wanna go and United don't really want to sell him for footballing reasons. The only reason we're even contemplating selling him is that he's homegrown and any sale would be very good for the books.

Kinda said that's its come to this honestly. I don't like the idea that the club consider players they develop and bring though as money to be cashed in, especially when the player has been contributing a fair amount.

I mean United DOES want to sell him, Ten Hag personally doesn't mainly because he likes having the utility off the bench. But he's not good enough, it's really that simple. I promise if McTominay was good enough we wouldn't even entertain offers regardless of whether he's homegrown or not

 

[Kostov]

What’s naive about it? If McTominay is starting games on a regular basis for us then we’ve got problems.

Our midfield options are poor, particularly in deeper areas. So much so that our season rests on a 19 year old being available every week. So you won’t find me disagreeing with you about its state.

But McTominay is part of that problem. He’s been a big part of it, infact. We can’t force him to leave this summer, and we can’t force Fulham to pay £30 million either; however if we renew his contract with a view to playing regular football here then we clearly haven’t moved on as a team.

We can renew his contract with a view for him to play sporadic number of games. Otherwise we are talking about the same thing here.

 

[Kostov]

McTomminey isn’t a squad player here, he’s a regular starting midfielder. Always has been. Therein lies the problem.

Agreed. But what do we solve if we lose him and keep less useful midfielders?

 

[bb8]

He doesn't wanna go and United don't really want to sell him for footballing reasons. The only reason we're even contemplating selling him is that he's homegrown and any sale would be very good for the books.

Kinda said that's its come to this honestly. I don't like the idea that the club consider players they develop and bring though as money to be cashed in, especially when the player has been contributing a fair amount.

"The only reason we're even contemplating selling him is that he's homegrown and any sale would be very good for the books."

Not true. People who say this don't really understand how PSR/FFP works. A homegrown player being "pure profit" is only true one a one-year horizon. Over a few year time period, it makes zero difference if a player is homegrown or not. Take McT vs Sancho, if they were sold for equal amounts:

McT 24/25: £3.1M salary, zero amortization fee.
McT 25/26 (assuming option exercised): £3.1M salary
McT if sold: zero salary, £25M fee
Net difference: improves our profitability by £31.2M over two years compared to keeping him. Frees up the full amount this year

Sancho 24/25: £13M salary, £14.4M amortization (72M fee divided by five year contract)
Sancho 25/26: £13M salary, £14.4M amortization
Sancho if sold: zero salary, £25M fee. Amortization gets pulled forward, meaning we take a £28.8M amortization hit this year, which reduces our spending power. Importantly though, the amortization fee is a sunk cost, so we still get all the cash and get off Sancho's wages
Net difference: improves our profitability by 13 + 13 + 25 = £51M

Selling Sancho would be vastly more profitable for PSR/FFP purposes over the long-term than McT, even if they had the same price. McT would just give us more spending power in the first year. Basically, anyone claiming "Need to sell homegrown players because its pure profit" you can stop listening to as they probably don't understand the rules, unless they're just talking about the short-term impact. That short-term mindset is a Chelsea-like mentality though, and not how we should want United to be run.

 

[babablue]

"The only reason we're even contemplating selling him is that he's homegrown and any sale would be very good for the books."

Not true. People who say this don't really understand how PSR/FFP works. A homegrown player being "pure profit" is only true one a one-year horizon. Over a few year time period, it makes zero difference if a player is homegrown or not. Take McT vs Sancho, if they were sold for equal amounts:

McT 24/25: £3.1M salary, zero amortization fee.
McT 25/26 (assuming option exercised): £3.1M salary
McT if sold: zero salary, £25M fee
Net difference: improves our profitability by £31.2M over two years compared to keeping him. Frees up the full amount this year

Sancho 24/25: £13M salary, £14.4M amortization (72M fee divided by five year contract)
Sancho 25/26: £13M salary, £14.4M amortization
Sancho if sold: zero salary, £25M fee. Amortization gets pulled forward, meaning we take a £28.8M amortization hit this year, which reduces our spending power. Importantly though, the amortization fee is a sunk cost, so we still get all the cash and get off Sancho's wages
Net difference: improves our profitability by 13 + 13 + 25 = £51M

Selling Sancho would be vastly more profitable for PSR/FFP purposes over the long-term than McT, even if they had the same price. McT would just give us more spending power in the first year. Basically, anyone claiming "Need to sell homegrown players because its pure profit" you can stop listening to as they probably don't understand the rules, unless they're just talking about the short-term impact. That short-term mindset is a Chelsea-like mentality though, and not how we should want United to be run.

Repeat your example for two players earning the same wages.

 

[yeaherino]

McTominay reminds me of a less cultured version of Fellaini (and that is saying something after Fellaini pulling the bishop move v Bayern in the Champions League) which would mean he is not a great footballer, but his energy and size is quite useful. The brats that we have had at the club are a far bigger cancer than having someone like McTominay on the club, McTominay gives it his all, others don't even show up. Pogba, Martial, Lukaku, Greenwood (different issues), and on and on we've have had an all star team of just absolute scumbags and that's a bigger problem than having a sub par home grown player in my opinion.

 

[KD6-3.7]

It is so frustrating we just didn’t accept Fulham’s original bid. Yes McTominay has popped up with some winning goals for us but he also largely ghosts in most games he plays because as a midfielder he isn’t really that good.

 

[bb8]

Repeat your example for two players earning the same wages.

In that case, the two sales (for an equal price) would have exactly equal effects on PSR / FFP profitability. McT's would free up more money in year 1, while Sancho's would free up more in year 2. But the total impact is the same.

Once you realize the amortization fee is a sunk cost that we are going to incur whether we sell the player or not, the "homegrown players are pure profit" line is complete nonsense. Sancho's transfer fee we paid to BVB will be amortized absolutely no matter what we do. So all that matters is the cash we get in this next transfer and the saved wages. A £25M Sancho sale is worth exactly as much as a £25M McT sale if their wages were the same. Since Sancho's wages are higher, in reality it's actually much more beneficial to us to sell Sancho.

 

[reelworld]

as long as he's only used for last resort option (big target upfront when chasing a goal), and not starting, I'll be fine. But he probably leave by the end of the season though

 

[croadyman]

If he stays this season then won't get much for him in the summer but that's our own fault

 

[Xeque_279]

So is he staying or leaving? Already went through so many emotional farewell posts

He can still be a deadly option coming off the bench. For Zirkzee's goal, he was right behind and would've been his shot had Zirkzee not been there. Has come in clutch so many times for us.

But Ideally we should be moving away from needing McT saving us in the last 10 mins of games. He can't even be considered a midfielder, doing his best work playing as a Second Striker almost. Anything above 25m and he should go. Aim to get another midfielder with Mainoo's skillset.

 

[Highfather_24]

Lots of misconceptions in this thread.



An option year is ALWAYS more valuable to the club than a guaranteed year. It gives the club the right to an extra contract year when it's worth it to them, but the right to decline when it's not. We would never prefer to have someone for 2 guaranteed years than 1 + 1 option. Imagine if he gets some massive injury this year, for example.

We haven't exercised it because there's zero reason to do so before the deadline. That way, if McT has an injury that keeps him out all next year or just massively declines we can just refuse to exercise it.

Our bargaining position will be worse next summer, as right now we effectively control McT for 2 more years. I don't see that as a massive issue though; he's worth something to us being on the roster this year. If we get one more year out of him and then sell him for £15M next summer, that's not so much worse than selling for £20M but losing control right now.


Totally wrong. McT's wage is super reasonable; only £60k a week. Skipp earned £40k at Spurs. Goretzka earns £300k a week. This is all available in a quick internet search....

McT's "problem" is he's not a great player. He's solid, which is why he got a £20M offer from Fulham, but he's not a starter on a top Prem team. Solid squad players are worth £15-25M these days (see AWB or Mazraoui for recent examples).

Thats all well and good, but we will have to pay him off if we activate the extension. Like AWB. Meaning we go from 20-25M profit to less than 10M. Is McT worth 15-18M a year?

 

[Cantona’s Kung Fu Kick]

McTomminey (sic) hasn’t always been and isn’t always a regular starter here. That is BS.

Beggars and managers believe it, and he has managed it. It must be a really subjective tragedy affliction affecting people with their expectations less tuned in to reality than beggars and managers.

He’s pretty much has season after season, try looking it up before spouting your BS. Yeah and every single manager who has played him, during some of the worst football the club has churned out has been sacked for failure. That turned out well. Strange also why when he’s up for sale that he’s of such ‘quality’ that there’s only really the likes of Fulham interested in him. Bizarre that

 

[Cantona’s Kung Fu Kick]

Agreed. But what do we solve if we lose him and keep less useful midfielders?

Indeed but midfield is literally the engine of team. We badly need an upgrade on this guy if we are to improve and get back to where we should be, ie top 4 and challenging for the tittle every year. Should be a priority.

 

[Varun1]

Remember its a maximum foreign quota of 17.

It's not a minimum homegrown quota, you can technically have zero homegrown I guess, but obviously you wouldn't fill your full 25 places.

Under 21s dont have to be registered also. Amad counts as homegrown, Garnacho will too once he's old enough to be registered.

The last I checked we have 16 foreign players but lindelof will leave, Pellistri will leave and hopefully Eriksen leaves and brings it down to 13. So we've got plenty of room to play with for the rest of the window as long as we get rid of the unwanted.

Thanks mate, I wasn't aware of the bolded part!

 

[devilish]

I told you guys, once Napoli came sniffing around we were in trouble. These Italian clubs have all the charm in the world but no money to back it up. I can see McT leaving on a free next summer to Napoli or we end up handling him a new contract on silly money so we can play hoof the ball at him every now and then.

 

[babablue]

In that case, the two sales (for an equal price) would have exactly equal effects on PSR / FFP profitability. McT's would free up more money in year 1, while Sancho's would free up more in year 2. But the total impact is the same.

Once you realize the amortization fee is a sunk cost that we are going to incur whether we sell the player or not, the "homegrown players are pure profit" line is complete nonsense. Sancho's transfer fee we paid to BVB will be amortized absolutely no matter what we do. So all that matters is the cash we get in this next transfer and the saved wages. A £25M Sancho sale is worth exactly as much as a £25M McT sale if their wages were the same. Since Sancho's wages are higher, in reality it's actually much more beneficial to us to sell Sancho.

I asked you to repeat the example, to point out that the difference in your numbers is because McT earns 10 million less a year. My understanding of when people say that academy players are pure profit, is that all other things are equal, including wages. You've used an example of a high earner, but that is not always the case.

The other thing you're missing is that the 28M for Sancho is not a sunk cost. The 42m portion is the sunk cost. So the 28M has to be deducted from any sale price, which would not be the case for an academy player.

 

[Red Rash]

Nothing against McTominay but we should sell. He will get us some goals which is useful but as a midfielder he is lacking most of the attributes to be able to play that role to a high level.

Would much prefer us to have some extra funds to make a signing or two more rather than keep a player who could bring us 30 million despite being so limited as player.

 

[Adisa]

He is eternal.

 

[Insanity]

Another season of Scottie McHottie....sign me up!

 

[Idxomer]

More I think about it the more I think we should be trying to keep goal scorers in the squad not sell them. Mctominay scores goals and is a threat as an impact sub.
Keeping him as a squad player and also getting Ugarte would be the best outcome.

21/22 57 goals (Ronaldo scored 18 of them)
22/23 58 goals with Rashford scoring 17 of them (Ronaldo doesn't score and leaves)
23/24 57 goals (Rashford scores only 7 goals)

If McTominay leaves or doesn't play for whatever reason, United will also score around the same number of goals. The goals will increase only with a significant performance improvement. If that happens, we can safely assume McTominay won't be part of it.

 

[bb8]

I asked you to repeat the example, to point out that the difference in your numbers is because McT earns 10 million less a year. My understanding of when people say that academy players are pure profit, is that all other things are equal, including wages. You've used an example of a high earner, but that is not always the case.

The other thing you're missing is that the 28M for Sancho is not a sunk cost. The 42m portion is the sunk cost. So the 28M has to be deducted from any sale price, which would not be the case for an academy player.

Nope, sorry. You're wrong on both counts.

Item #1. There would be no net difference to profitability from selling McT and Sancho, even if they were on the same wages. I thought it was clear enough just going over things high level, but if the math helps I can show that too.

McT 24/25: £3.1M salary, zero amortization fee.
McT 25/26 (assuming option exercised): £3.1M salary
McT if sold: zero salary, £25M fee
Net difference: improves our profitability by £31.2M over two years compared to keeping him. Frees up the full amount this year

Hypothetical player with McT's wages but £70M transfer fee - 24/25: £3.1M salary, £14.4M amortization (72M fee divided by five year contract)
25/26: £3.1M salary, £14.4M amortization
If sold: zero salary, £25M fee. Amortization gets pulled forward, meaning we take a £28.8M amortization hit this year, which reduces our spending power. Importantly though, the amortization fee is a sunk cost, so we still get all the cash
Net difference: improves our profitability by 3.1 + 3.1 + 25 = £31.2M

The money would be the same for both players. The previous transfer fee paid is irrelevant, and the concept of "academy players are pure profit" is bogus except on short-time horizons. Long-term it makes no difference.

Item #2. Yes, the £28M in remaining amortization for Sancho's transfer fee from BVB is a sunk cost. It will be on our books no matter what we do with Sancho: play him, extend his contract, loan him, sell him, etc. That's amortization remaining from the transfer 3 years ago and there is nothing we can do about it.

 

[Red00012]

He doesn't wanna go and United don't really want to sell him for footballing reasons. The only reason we're even contemplating selling him is that he's homegrown and any sale would be very good for the books.

Kinda said that's its come to this honestly. I don't like the idea that the club consider players they develop and bring though as money to be cashed in, especially when the player has been contributing a fair amount.

Napoli won’t pay what we want for him though

 

[devilish]

He doesn't wanna go and United don't really want to sell him for footballing reasons. The only reason we're even contemplating selling him is that he's homegrown and any sale would be very good for the books.

Kinda said that's its come to this honestly. I don't like the idea that the club consider players they develop and bring though as money to be cashed in, especially when the player has been contributing a fair amount.

If United don't really want to sell him then he wouldn't be on the market. Its as simple as that. You don't hear stories around Mainoo or Onana, the reason being that they are not for sale.

 

[pav1790]

It's got nothing to do with that though, has it?

He's had 7 years now as a regular? He's done his bit for the club. This isn't like Chelsea just selling anyone off for spare cash. The reality is, he's just not good enough for where Utd want to be, never has been in my opnion, so he just has to go. It's really is that simple.

But he is good enough for where we currently are. And he has contributed to it. Without replacement, he ought to be retained in my opinion.

 

[King7Eric]

If United don't really want to sell him then he wouldn't be on the market. Its as simple as that. You don't hear stories around Mainoo or Onana, the reason being that they are not for sale.

There's a difference between being up for sale and being open to sell though. In the former, the club actively wants to get rid of the player for one reason or another ( see Ugarte). In the latter, the club would consider an offer what they perceive as being too good to turn down for a player. For instance they think the 30 million they might get for the player outweigh the benefits of keeping him. But they might also consider that at 20 million, the benefits of keeping him outweigh the fee being offered. With McTominay, it's a case of the latter. If someone offers 30 million he'll go, otherwise he'll stay and make 40 plus appearances easily.

With Mainoo or say Bellingham or Vinicius at Real, the benefits of keeping the player outweigh any potential fee they might receive for them. Real could get 200 million for Bellingham, but they wouldn't find a player who would be better than him so no point selling him.

 

[Oranges038]

But he is good enough for where we currently are. And he has contributed to it. Without replacement, he ought to be retained in my opinion.

He really isn't.

This is like Wan Bissaka, he's got 1 good attribute that he displays every now and again and that makes people think he's worthy of being kept.

 

[Pughnichi]

He doesn't wanna go and United don't really want to sell him for footballing reasons. The only reason we're even contemplating selling him is that he's homegrown and any sale would be very good for the books.

Kinda said that's its come to this honestly. I don't like the idea that the club consider players they develop and bring though as money to be cashed in, especially when the player has been contributing a fair amount.

Nah. It’s nothing to do with homegrown and pure profit. he just isn’t good enough

If he was at a higher level, regardless of homegrown, the club wouldn’t be considering a sale

 

[CM]

Ten Hag has made it quite clear in the last couple of weeks that McTominay is a player he rates and wants to keep. It's daft but it is what it is and that's kind of what we signed up for by keeping him on for another year. I don't really see McTominay agitating to leave with that being the case.

Our profiles in midfield are a bit higgledy-piggledy but that's nothing new, particularly under this manager. We just have to hope McTominay is primarily used as a box crasher rather than one of the two deep sitting midfielders if he does end up staying.

The only way I can see that situation changing is if Osimhen leaves Napoli for decent money and Antonio Conte promises McTominay a prominent role in his squad. That could be enough to sway McTominay and Conte might be able to bully his board into throwing enough money at us if he threatens another wobbly.

 

[Pughnichi]

But he is good enough for where we currently are. And he has contributed to it. Without replacement, he ought to be retained in my opinion.

I agree. Absolutely good enough for where we currently are. But we’re currently a team that has finished 8th, 3rd and 6th in the last few season, with McT playing significant minutes.

I don’t want us to be finishing so far off the top and out of champions league places.

For where we want to be, it’s clear as day he isn’t good enough. He needs to go