You can if one is a loan with obligation to buy next year. We are offloading some smaller fee players too.
McTominay (Out) | announced - signed for Napoli
- Thread starter Ace of Spades
- Start date
- Status
In a world where Sander Berge is going for £25 mil, Rowe-Smith for £35 mil, Carvalho £25 mil, Skipp £20 mil etc etc The idea that Mctominay isn’t worth more then £15 million is obviously ridiculous.
When was the last time he actually bullied someone? He is a tall dude, really strong but he isn't really making use of it. There were instances where Bernardo Silva got the better of him due to being more intense. He will usually have an advantage against players one to two levels below him but as soon as somebody comes up who can match him, he isn't standing out at all.
But only for teams who can afford it in terms of team balance. You need the right setup to enable him to do the only thing he is good at, arriving in the box. But I wouldn't stretch that as well - coming on for the last minutes to get a goal is a completely different animal to starting matches and have opposition teams be prepared for what you are trying to do.
Somebody else summarized it pretty well - he is only an option for very specific situation where as a team, you wouldn't want to be in. Way better to have a different player who you can bring on to give you more control of the game, not a player who is trying to nick it.
Berge is 26 this year. Smith-Rowe 24, Carvalho 22 and Skipp 24. If any of them work out they have a big resale value. Mctominay is 28 this year so it is very unlikely the buyer could profit from his signing. That heavily impacts the amount we can raise and that's why I would bite the arm of any offer in the region of 20 million.
I do mostly agree with this. Though he plays the role differently - far less of a physical and aerial dominance, and more about being good at finding space around the box to chip in with goals. But, yeah, both best at playing unusual versions of a #10 / #9.
I'm fond of McTominay, as he's an Academy product that I always feel is a good professional and has a useful asset (the 'Fellaini role'). But it's a difficult role to fit into a side unless, like Moyes with Fellaini (and Cahill), you build a team around that tactic.
I do think it's far more important that we bring in other types of CM's - especially a DM - who'll give us better balance. McTominay's unusual role is a useful asset as a squad player, but it's not a crucial one and if we can afford to keep him while adding the others then great; if selling McTominay helps get the others, then that's got to be prioritised instead.
That’s fine, but he’s under contract. We might like any offer, but if he’s not happy with the proposal then he has the right to say no. Can’t force him to go if he’s not happy with any offers. Catch 22 again for us.
Berge turns 27 in Feb 2025 and McTom turns 28 in Dec 2024...hardly a good enough reason to explain the near 10m difference in transfer fee between the two, plus ignoring McTom has played at a much higher level.
Can’t see why we’d sell McTominay even if Ugarte does come in. With Eriksen being nothing more than a bit part player/cheerleader this season, we need 4 full time CM’s to rotate particularly given our injury record. Scott is MUFC through & through and is definitely good enough to be that midfielder; ws shouldn’t also forget his knack of scoring important goals at crucial times.
And as for the fee banded about of around £15 million, that’s lunacy for a proven British premier league midfielder in his prime with goals in his locker. Even by our woeful standards of selling players for crap fees.
And as for the fee banded about of around £15 million, that’s lunacy for a proven British premier league midfielder in his prime with goals in his locker. Even by our woeful standards of selling players for crap fees.
He definitely isn’t and we’ve only got 10 years of evidence.
What the lack of interest for him has shown is that just how limited a footballer he is and how in the current version of the league there is very little demand for a player like him. His occasional goals kind of hide his overall ability in midfield
In a world where Oliver Skipp goes for over £20 million, we should get something decent for him
Would be hilariously ironic if they ended up with Amrabat instead
I don't agree with this. It's 1-1 with 15 minutes to go in a disappointing performance against Palace, I am much more keen to bring on Scott to try and nick it than Eriksen or whoever to try and give us more control.
I think we should sell him because the money on offer is decent but I find the idea has no viable use case to be pretty wild.
I wholly agree to be fair. The poster I responded to thinks a few/some lowly PL clubs can afford to build around McTominay, and I simply don't see it as it would be futile
You've pretty much outlined reasons why such a ploy wouldn't be sustainable. Most PL clubs value some semblance of control in possession, and McTominay offers very little in that sense. His goalscoring ability alone wouldn't warrant him playing such a big role at any PL club in my humble opinion
Last edited:
Issue is, McTominay should hardly be called a CM because the abilities needed there are so subpar. He doesn't have a good 1st touch, he isn't a good dribbler , his positioning isn't great, he isn't a crazy workhorse like Fred, he is hiding from the ball and his passes are usually average. All that is going for him is being tall and cheap. And that he has a knack of ending up in good positions in the box occasionally.
There is just no point in having an option that most of us never would want to use because we don't want to end up in situations where he could be useful. If the 1st eleven would be buzzing, well oiled machine - I'd say alright, there is no major upside of adding some cash. But thats not where we are. Our midfield isn't in good shape at all. And thats for quite some time. And he has been a mainstay in it.
Fixed for you.
And wouldn't it be even better, to be able to bring somebody on with 35-25 minutes to go, who helps with making our attack more potent by adding control, flair or ability? McTom isn't giving you anything - some of you harp about some of his goals of last season, where did they come from? From a journey to an 8th place. Lets just not use that season to make any conclusion who might be useful in the future.
Don't know, feels like a very shortsighted approach - I couldn't care less whether we draw or win against Fulham, we have to improve the team. And if somebody, who even for us is something like a last resort, creates any interest in the market then awesome, get the cash, bring in somebody with the potential to be a starter in the future. Everything else is a waste of time. I said it in here already - I'd get the "kitchen sink" approach when we would be competing for anything and need every edge we could get. But thats not where we are.
I think the argument here is that we are competing for top four. It is not at all hard to imagine an end of season scenario where we narrowly miss out and a goal here or there, via said sink, would've changed that.
Yes fully agree. It is a bit as if you want to keep an CB because he is great at passing even though he is really awful at defending. Or a striker who can't score for his life but is so so so busy doing his defensive share. The first question for every player should be "can he fullfill the role we expect him to have" and that means a defender has to defend, a striker has to score. If a player offers more than that - AWESOME. But lets not start to value the bonus material over the actual movie. United has been plagued by such twists to a degree in the recent years and people look at City and see their players being able in so many different roles. That is where we have to go but we have to keep in mind that even in Peps team, the players are looked for their primary role.
And as you laid it out - McTominay unfortunately doesn't offer much in that respect. So while teams could be setup in a way that frees him up to only do what he is good at - such teams might as well look for an even better player to build around.
Ok, makes sense. Just for the record - I consider that a valid standpoint, even though I don't share it. So for understandings sake: would you take a top 4 position that came down to very narrow result that had some connection with McTominay over a 5th or 6th place where the money has been used to bring in a player who will be a starter during the season but also for far more years?
I guess, thats where some of us differ so much. I am ready for the pain of bad results, not ideal league finishes as long as it means, we improve the team and the squad so we can finally challenge at the top again. If that means a few bad years, I happily pay that price. And I'd rather see minutes going to Collyer than them going to McTom.
No, a guaranteed starter for years on end would easily be tempting enough to miss out on one season in the CL.
Yep, very true. Just saying we as fans should not think so short-sightedly. A team exec/coach has to worry if the team is bad one year they'll be fired. We are able to think on longer time horizons.
You don't amortize it. Like you said, the remaining amortization gets combined with the transfer sale price. It can lead to the first year actually being a net loss on the sale, which is where the "homegrown players are so great for PSR, they're pure profit!" line came about.
My whole point is the remaining amortization is a sunk cost, it will be incurred by the team no matter what. Look at the two Sancho scenarios:
Keep:
- 24/25 season: £14.4M amortization fee
- 25/26 season: £14.4M amortization fee
- Net cost: £28.8M
- 24/25 season: £28.8M pulled forward amortization - £25M sale = £3.8M cost
- 25/26 season: zero
- Net cost: £3.8M
A sunk cost is an expense that cannot be recovered. We are incurring the £28.8M remaining of amortization on Sancho's fee no matter where we keep/sell/loan him. No one is arguing that the expense hasn't hit the books yet. The point is it will hit the books no matter what we do. So what matters for sale's value to the club is the cash Sancho could net us. From that perspective he's worth exactly as much as a homegrown player. The "homegrown players are worth more in a sale" fallacy would be like a manufacturing business lamenting the depreciation of one of their factories, thinking that because they'd "sell it at a loss" it never makes sense to sell.
Berrada once said that a player that doesn't perform for 1-2 years should be sold. I fully agree with that. McT is 27 years old. He's only really useful in the rare occasions when the club is desperate for a goal and therefore tactics had been binned in favor of hoof ball. That doesn't justify having a player like that around especially now that we had added inches to the team (Zirkzee is taller then McT, he's got a better eye for goal and provides more to the game then McT does)
The club is too cash strapped to go through the sentimentality route. We can't start the season without a LB
I never said that he's as good in the role as Fellaini is. Seriously McT had his uses in the past seasons. He was a tall guy with a half decent eye for goal who added much needed inches when defending corners while causing havoc upfront when we're in desperate need. We kind of sorted those issues by adding more inches at the back (Mazraoui and De Ligt) and bringing Zirkzee upfront (6ft4). There's nothing McT can do that Zirkzee shouldn't be able to do better.
Its time for him to leave and the money being invested elsewhere particularly in the LB role
Genuinely love having him as a bench player. Hate him as a starter.
Also we could probably do a loan with obligation for some of our targets, as it's not uncommon anymore.
I'd move on from both Sancho and McTominay. End of the day, they're not gonna be part of what will hopefully be our revival*. Mctominay is useful for 10 minutes at the end of a game we're chasing. I guess I could see moving him in January after we get another 8 weeks or so of him in that role until Hojlund is hopefully up to speed and him or Zirkzee can be somewhat similar options (not stylistically but you know some height and goal threat off the bench).
I don't think that's worth 20M though, never mind 25 or so if someone gets desperate on deadline day.
*though Sancho has talent and is only 24, so I guess it's conceivable with a new manager he could, though I was less impressed than others with him in the Dortmund CL games, he just refuses to try to penetrate and isn't a good long shooter or crosser, I'd guess he could be quite good in a 3-4-2-1 in the same sort of role Eze plays, but presumably Glasner isn't our next manager).
O'Shea and Fletcher are not great players. Interesting. I think you'll have a tough time convincing a lot of people that they were crap players.
Sell Mount keep McT. As an impact sub McT has far more value. JZ looks a good alternative as a 10 and I think Mainoo can play that role.
Mount cost 50 million and is on a reported 250k a week. Who in their right mind would buy him from us?
McTominay has some value and should be sold to help build a team that can compete at the top of the league.
He's worth more than £15m (as evidenced in the two Fulham bids) but it's clearly not all that much above £20m. If that was the case, someone would have stumped up the cash. He's not on insane wages, so clearly clubs don't value him all that highly.
It's going to take McTominay starting a few games to show once again that he is a limited footballer that we need to move on. Yeah he scored a few goals last season, but when we needed him to do a job in midfield he was caught jogging about and refusing to be an option on the ball.
It looks like Napoli can't make any moves until they offload Osimhen.
If it's to be believed, €30 million will be enough for Utd, so £25 million. Perhaps it will end up between what you say and that, possibly with add-ons.
Would be hilariously ironic if they ended up with Amrabat instead
Don't really understand how Napoli can get any of this done without selling Oshimen, who they don't have a buyer for. Maybe we should arrange a loan with obligation deal for Scott, especially if we're going through the sane process with Ugarte.
Wont be surprised if this ends up happening, would not be a bad idea at all.
25mil pound minimum. Otherwise happy to keep him. Useful squad player.
£20m now or let the useful squad player leave on a free at the end of the season after collecting another £3m+?
We have option to extend?
All well and good, but United is a football club. Player sales are meant to finance new signings, and in the case of Sancho, that scenario creates a 3M loss in terms of spending power - i.e. the club can spend 3M less than on a replacement than they're spending on Sancho. Whereas an academy product is pure profit because the sale increases the club's spending power on a replacement by the full amount of the transfer fee
His value will drop further as he is unlikely to have another 10 goal season. Would just mean we are punting the Bosman transfer a year further down.
If you want to be fighting for champions league spots, he's not a useful squad player. Zirkzee a much more talented footballer is there to replace him and Scott is not good enough to be in center midfield, he was lucky he had fred beside him for a number of years. I'm not even talking about winning premier leagues or champions leagues, i'm talking about getting fourth.
He's a limited footballer who should be moved on if it means getting Ugarte deal over the line. Goes missing and plays the handy sideway pass or backpass every time.
- Status