Most reports are that we sold Fred for €9.74m and Amrabat's loan fee was €10m. Obviously Fred does have add-ons which we will hopefully receive, but their base cost seems to have Amrabat more expensive. There are some sources that say Amrabat was only €9m though, but either way it was obviously a bad decision.
No, most reports are that fred was 15m and amrabat was 10m. Euro this is. But this is my problem with these false representations:
Thats a 5m difference. Then there is the matter of 3.75m euro difference in wages for the year. So that makes it around 8.5m.
Then forget about amrabat - Fred is 30 and was never getting a resale value again. The only club who stumped up for him was fenerbahce, which tells you all you need to know. In terms of financial fair play balancing, the guts of 9m isnt a small fee and might be what made a different deal possible. Maybe atalanta held out for an extra 9 for hojlund. We don't know what 9m in saving allowed elsewhere in terms of wages/book balancing.
Very simply put, this just isnt a like for like simple comparison. We've done enough shit business to not need to resort to false arguments as if everything is like for like. Multiple other factors were part of selling fred, and yeah amrabat probably was a misjudged replacement on loan, but we might not have even considred it had
Mainoo not been injured. If Mainoo and
Mount were fit all season would we have played amrabat? Unlikely we would have used him. It also looked possible that
Mctominay could leave late in the deadline.
So yes, it's nice to sit here and laugh at just how inexplicably stupid we are that the average online fan can see how paying more for amarabat on loan than fred was sold for- but its a)not true, and b) more complicated than that.