McTominay (Out) | announced - signed for Napoli

Status
Not open for further replies.
giorno said:
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
Click to expand...

It wouldn't create a loss because the numbers are wrong, but even if they weren't it would be a short term loss offset by getting rid off a future much higher loss.

Selling Sancho for 25m will let United spend (25m + wages saved) extra on other players, and selling McTominay for 25m will achieve the same. It's just that with McTominay the 25m will be realized all right away, while for Sancho it will be spread over the remaining duration of his contract.

Seeing as United probably don't have an issue with FFP this accounting year, selling Sancho is probably better than McTominay for that purpose (not factoring in that Sancho is on much higher wages, which sways it even harder in that direction).
 
NotThatSoph said:
It wouldn't create a loss because the numbers are wrong, but even if they weren't it would be a short term loss offset by getting rid off a future much higher loss.

Selling Sancho for 25m will let United spend (25m + wages saved) extra on other players, and selling McTominay for 25m will achieve the same. It's just that with McTominay the 25m will be realized all right away, while for Sancho it will be spread over the remaining duration of his contract.

Seeing as United probably don't have an issue with FFP this accounting year, selling Sancho is probably better than McTominay for that purpose (not factoring in that Sancho is on much higher wages, which sways it even harder in that direction).
Click to expand...
The difference is how much money you get to spend immediately on a replacement. A replacement that would presumably be a better player, contribute to better results and thus an increase in future revenue

Let's say Sancho costs 15M in transfer fee(amortization) and 10M in wages. So for 24/25, United will spend 25M on Sancho. Since he has 2 years left on his contract, United are also on the hook for 25M in 25/26. The residual cost of his transfer fee - what United still has to pay, on the books - is 30M. Now if the club sells him for 25M, the residual cost comes off so 25-30= -5M. With 10M wages saved, that gives the club -5+10= 5M to spend in the 24/25 season to replace him without increasing expences

Let's say McT costs 5M in wages, and being an academy product his transfer cost is 0. So if McT is sold for 25M then 25-0+5= 30M which United can spend in the 24/25 season to replace him without increasing expences
 
giorno said:
The difference is how much money you get to spend immediately on a replacement. A replacement that would presumably be a better player, contribute to better results and thus an increase in future revenue

Let's say Sancho costs 15M in transfer fee(amortization) and 10M in wages. So for 24/25, United will spend 25M on Sancho. Since he has 2 years left on his contract, United are also on the hook for 25M in 25/26. The residual cost of his transfer fee - what United still has to pay, on the books - is 30M. Now if the club sells him for 25M, the residual cost comes off so 25-30= -5M. With 10M wages saved, that gives the club -5+10= 5M to spend in the 24/25 season to replace him without increasing expences

Let's say McT costs 5M in wages, and being an academy product his transfer cost is 0. So if McT is sold for 25M then 25-0+5= 30M which United can spend in the 24/25 season to replace him without increasing expences
Click to expand...

Again, this only matters if United are constrained by FFP this exact season, it will even out. United are not constrained by FFP this season, so it doesn't matter. Meanwhile, selling Sancho will be better for next season's numbers, which might matter, or might not.
 
honirelandboy said:
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.
Click to expand...
His goals from midfield is important. He also provide different dimensions to our play. He creates chaos to opponent half when we are chasing goals. He can also defend when we want to defend a lead with his physicality. His midfield play is generally fine. He has good fitness records. Also, PL proven. Basically, a useful squad player.

15-20 mil? No way.
25-30 mil? Maybe.
 
Yakuza_devils said:
His goals from midfield is important. He also provide different dimensions to our play. He creates chaos to opponent half when we are chasing goals. He can also defend when we want to defend a lead with his physicality. His midfield play is generally fine. He has good fitness records. Also, PL proven. Basically, a useful squad player.

15-20 mil? No way.
25-30 mil? Maybe.
Click to expand...
How is his midfield play fine? Goes hiding, positioning is awful and plays backwards and side wards passes constantly.
He got 7 goals in the premier league last season and we finished eight! That should tell you something! He adds absolutely nothing to the team. Be a okay player for someone like West Ham or Brighton. If you want to be challenging for champions spots he's not good enough.

United this season should be able to change their dynamic this season and lamping Scott on up front for the last 20 minutes should not be a solution.
 
honirelandboy said:
How is his midfield play fine? Goes hiding, positioning is awful and plays backwards and side wards passes constantly.
He got 7 goals in the premier league last season and we finished eight! That should tell you something! He adds absolutely nothing to the team. Be a okay player for someone like West Ham or Brighton. If you want to be challenging for champions spots he's not good enough.

United this season should be able to change their dynamic this season and lamping Scott on up front for the last 20 minutes should not be a solution.
Click to expand...
Last year our entire midfield was non-existent. This season will be different. Casemiro now is back to his best again.
 
stevoc said:
He's perfect for a lot of teams. Give him 40 games a year, let him roam about and make runs and he'll get you 10-20 goals every season no problem.
Click to expand...

This portrays him as some sort of Lampard type midfielder. He just isn’t at that level at all. I like him but I’m not even convinced he would start regularly for Fulham looking at their options. Will be interested to see how he gets on at Napoli if that move does materialise.
 
stevoc said:
He's perfect for a lot of teams. Give him 40 games a year, let him roam about and make runs and he'll get you 10-20 goals every season no problem.
Click to expand...

244117
2572310

That's the number of goals he has scored in the PL and in all competitions respectively in the last 6 seasons. I think we can easily that say that he won't get you 10-20 goals every season no problem.
 
Insanity said:
244117
2572310

That's the number of goals he has scored in the PL and in all competitions respectively in the last 6 seasons. I think we can easily that say that he won't get you 10-20 goals every season no problem.
Click to expand...
Maybe in the German league he’d get over 10 goals a season as their style of play is very open over there so he’d have more room for his runs.
 
Doracle said:
This portrays him as some sort of Lampard type midfielder. He just isn’t at that level at all. I like him but I’m not even convinced he would start regularly for Fulham looking at their options. Will be interested to see how he gets on at Napoli if that move does materialise.
Click to expand...

He is of that profile though just at a lower level than Lampard.

What do you think his best position is then if not as a goalscoring midfielder?
 
DJ_21 said:
Maybe in the German league he’d get over 10 goals a season as their style of play is very open over there so he’d have more room for his runs.
Click to expand...
They also press very well which would mean that McTom won't be able to keep hold of the ball as he is terrible under pressure.
 
Insanity said:
244117
2572310

That's the number of goals he has scored in the PL and in all competitions respectively in the last 6 seasons. I think we can easily that say that he won't get you 10-20 goals every season no problem.
Click to expand...

So you're looking at seasons where he didn't play every game or even consistently. And in many of those seasons where he played deeper in a midfield two and concluding that he definitely would score 10+ goals a season playing every game as an attacking midfielder?

Interesting. I'm not his biggest fan but I think he'd score that no problem for a lot of PL teams.
 
stevoc said:
So you're looking at seasons where he didn't play every game or even consistently. And in many of those seasons where he played deeper in a midfield two and concluding that he definitely would score 10+ goals a season playing every game as an attacking midfielder?

Interesting. I'm not his biggest fan but I think he'd score that no problem for a lot of PL teams.
Click to expand...
Teams would be lining up with a blank chequebook if they thought he could get 10-20 goals for them every season.

He has shown very little in his career for anyone to extrapolate him into a 10-20 goal attacking midfielder. Also, most of his goal last season came after he was a late sub and in games we were chasing & were desperately throwing the kitchen stink. Not many teams start a brute at #10 these days. Most want to play good football and have players who are much more comfortable on the ball than McTominay.
 
Insanity said:
Teams would be lining up with a blank chequebook if they thought he could get 10-20 goals for them every season.
Click to expand...
There's a significant difference between 10 and 20 goals btw. 10 goals a season you'd have the mid-to-lower levels of the PL vying for his signing, though not at massive prices.

20 goals a season, he starts every game for United and nevermind price
 
Insanity said:
244117
2572310

That's the number of goals he has scored in the PL and in all competitions respectively in the last 6 seasons. I think we can easily that say that he won't get you 10-20 goals every season no problem.
Click to expand...
Are you absolutely certain you haven't just posted your account number and sort code by mistake?
 
didz said:
Are you absolutely certain you haven't just posted your account number and sort code by mistake?
Click to expand...

I was wondering that myself and trying to figure out where those numbers came from! Im just waiting for his PIN number next.
 
Yakuza_devils said:
Last year our entire midfield was non-existent. This season will be different. Casemiro now is back to his best again.
Click to expand...
McTominay has always been very poor at contributing to the basics of what a midfield is supposed to do.

Last season we effectively played with one central midfielder with two #10's. That's why (or at least one of the main reasons why) we were so open in midfield last season, and why Casemiro was so bad as he was relied on to do far too much all by himself. It's also the reason why McTominay scored a decent amount of goals, because he was being played as a #10.

If we want more control in midfield this season, one of those #10's drops back to play more in midfield. If that's Scott, he then won't score many goals so his sudden goal threat of last season dries up. If we keep Scott high, Bruno will be the one to drop deep which obviously causes it's own issues.
 
MadDogg said:
McTominay has always been very poor at contributing to the basics of what a midfield is supposed to do.

Last season we effectively played with one central midfielder with two #10's. That's why (or at least one of the main reasons why) we were so open in midfield last season, and why Casemiro was so bad as he was relied on to do far too much all by himself. It's also the reason why McTominay scored a decent amount of goals, because he was being played as a #10.

If we want more control in midfield this season, one of those #10's drops back to play more in midfield. If that's Scott, he then won't score many goals so his sudden goal threat of last season dries up. If we keep Scott high, Bruno will be the one to drop deep which obviously causes it's own issues.
Click to expand...
Agreed. His best football was actually in a double with Fred I think as they both can run all game and hassle opponents. Plus that was in a counter attacking team. He doesn’t start in any top team in Europe who want to play dominant possession football.
 
giorno said:
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
Click to expand...
Nope, and I explained it in detail in the last post if you care to read it. In 1 year terms you're right, but in 2 year terms Sancho creates exactly as much."pure profit" as a homegrown player. So unless you only care about this season and no others, you're wrong.
 
MadDogg said:
McTominay has always been very poor at contributing to the basics of what a midfield is supposed to do.

Last season we effectively played with one central midfielder with two #10's. That's why (or at least one of the main reasons why) we were so open in midfield last season, and why Casemiro was so bad as he was relied on to do far too much all by himself. It's also the reason why McTominay scored a decent amount of goals, because he was being played as a #10.

If we want more control in midfield this season, one of those #10's drops back to play more in midfield. If that's Scott, he then won't score many goals so his sudden goal threat of last season dries up. If we keep Scott high, Bruno will be the one to drop deep which obviously causes it's own issues.
Click to expand...

Obviously, McT is not a starter and is a useful squad player. When we are chasing game he could be the hybrid of 8 and 10 to create chaos on the opponent half. His finishing is good for a midfielder which was proven last season. His basic midfield play is average and good enough for a squad player.

Look, he is not the starting midfielder, we should get better midfielders as the first 11, no doubts. The point is he is a useful players and is worth more than 20 mil. We will need him along the season. We should only sell if we get reasonable offer in the 25-30 mil range.
 
DJ_21 said:
Agreed. His best football was actually in a double with Fred I think as they both can run all game and hassle opponents. Plus that was in a counter attacking team. He doesn’t start in any top team in Europe who want to play dominant possession football.
Click to expand...
I do agree that if you take out the goals, McTominay's all-round game was better when playing deeper than he is at #10.

However even then it ended up with Fred having to do far more than he should have to compensate for Scott's deficiencies. Scott, despite the narrative, has never been a particularly hard worker. He has had individual games where he's been an absolute workhorse, but over the course of a season his workrate is no better than your average central midfielder in the PL. It's just that he was being compared to Pogba and Matic (both well below average in workrate) that he became a 'hard worker' in peoples eyes, and comparable to Fred despite the Brazilian actually doing far, far more work both defensively and on the ball.
 
Hard to take any Italian club serious these days...deal would be 99% sided in their favour and it would probably look like a 1 year loan, with optional buy clause, and United paying 75% of his wages.

It should be pretty clear for everyone that United are not in any rush to sell McTom, the player is happy to stay at United, and the manager is happy to keep him.

All in all its a very boring transfer saga with no one really fussed to get it done.
 
Yakuza_devils said:
Obviously, McT is not a starter and is a useful squad player. When we are chasing game he could be the hybrid of 8 and 10 to create chaos on the opponent half. His finishing is good for a midfielder which was proven last season. His basic midfield play is average and good enough for a squad player.

Look, he is not the starting midfielder, we should get better midfielders as the first 11, no doubts. The point is he is a useful players and is worth more than 20 mil. We will need him along the season. We should only sell if we get reasonable offer in the 25-30 mil range.
Click to expand...
The bolded is where we disagree. He's too limited and his average level is too low to even be a good squad midfielder, as those limitations hurt the team as a whole. Someone like Fred is about the level that we should have as a squad player, or Eriksen before that thug Andy Carroll injured him. Players who are capable of playing quite often and bring their own strengths, but ideally aren't starting most games as they aren't quite good enough. McTominay is a good couple of levels below that.

If we want to keep him purely as a late game emergency option to throw on when we need a goal, then so be it. But we need to have enough midfielders ahead of him that we don't end up having to rely on him to start or even coming off the bench often in any other scenario.
 
There's no real place for McT in any team, he's the quality of a #10 in a very very physical long-ball esque style team and that's it. Those teams don't really exist nowadays.

People are comparing him to a worse Lampard but he's actually more of a Fellaini for me.

He doesn't have the required technical skills to play cm, his only value is higher up the pitch. But again, he doesnt have the technical attributes to play '10 effectively - his value is that he could get you a goal, but your overall play will suffer massively. Hence he has two uses in football, in a long ball team played higher up the pitch. Or as an impact sub when you're searching for a goal and he's your last ditch wild card you throw on to try and get one.

There's no place for him as a starter for any team that wants to play a modern style of football.
 
Would be typical if we end up loaning him after refusing 20m.

The likely scenario is that he will leave for peanuts next year or free.
 
Insanity said:
Teams would be lining up with a blank chequebook if they thought he could get 10-20 goals for them every season.

He has shown very little in his career for anyone to extrapolate him into a 10-20 goal attacking midfielder. Also, most of his goal last season came after he was a late sub and in games we were chasing & were desperately throwing the kitchen stink. Not many teams start a brute at #10 these days. Most want to play good football and have players who are much more comfortable on the ball than McTominay.
Click to expand...

No one's paying more than £30m-40m for McTominay.

I think he could easily get 10+ goals a season if played regularly in a free role behind the striker. If you disagree fair enough.
 
baskinginthesun said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again you have put words in my mouth. Why do you do that?

I didn't say they were "crap players". I did say that Fletcher and O'Shea were not great players, I stand by that. I believe that you will have a hard time convincing anyone that they were "great".

Not being great doesn't mean you're "crap". There is a difference, although I can see that you struggle a bit with things like that.
 
I wanted him out for ages, but at this point keep him if we don't get at least 20m pounds for him. Loaning him would be utterly ridiculous. At least he is a good finisher, and we don't have players who can do that in the squad(somewhat clinical), apart from Zirkzee and Hojlund maybe.
 
stevoc said:
He is of that profile though just at a lower level than Lampard.

What do you think his best position is then if not as a goalscoring midfielder?
Click to expand...

Quite clearly a pseudo "box to box" midfielder on a shit team. He's not going to contribute anything to general play but can be useful for scrappy teams as box threat from midfield. Difficult to value that though because the rest of the time he's not scoring he's mostly a net negative. I mean the below is just pathetic. He's not even useful as a squad player for us, he's basically a good "chuck of the dice" late in chaotic games, but if we want to elevate as a team/club then our #1 option for getting another goal later in games shouldn't be "let's turn this into chaos and see if Scott can bag one".

7fec13eaf16bb427fdbfc45c7c1b272e.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.