I never understand comments like this, it's not all about the transfer fee, and for a team who wants to be the best in the world, why would we sell the best defender in the world, for any price? No matter who we bring in would be of lesser quality.
Thiago Silva
- Thread starter Lynk
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
I never understand comments like this, it's not all about the transfer fee, and for a team who wants to be the best in the world, why would we sell the best defender in the world, for any price? No matter who we bring in would be of lesser quality.
Vidic is 30 and a ludicrous bid like 40 million would have to be looked at. He is undoubtedly world class but in the grand scheme of things you need to look at what will be beneficial to a club in the long run. Hypothetically if we sold Vidic for 40 million and could bring in someone like Hummels for 20 million then that would be great business. It's all hypothetical of course but no player is bigger than a team, and football clubs are businesses afterall (for the record I love Vidic
)I love Vidic, but if someone offered 40 million I'd snap their hands off.
There are other things that need to be considered. Vidic is a great defender, perhaps the best in the world but a 40mil bid for him would be an insane amount of money. Am not saying we should definitely accept but to say it shouldnt even be considered is naive.
If an offer of that sort came in, you'd be foolish not to have a think about what can be done with the 40mil and see if the team can be improved with that money.
I'l say again, never been in favor of selling your best players, but at Vidic's age and position, a 40mil offer will definitely be looked at.
Okay yes, maybe for Vidic, but for Milan, Thiago Silva has probably got another 4 years in his prime left, and he is amongst the best defenders around. It just wouldn't make that much sense. To be fair also I, for some reason, had it in my head that Thiago Silva was no more then 24 years old, which was the reason I found it weird that Milan would be selling him.
Agreed 100%
They promised Shevcheno to be Milan's next captain, then he went to Chelsea
They promised Kaka' to be Milan's next captain, then he went to Madrid
They promised Silva to be Milan's next captain, and I'm sure on the next day, he will be sign for PSG
They promised Kaka' to be Milan's next captain, then he went to Madrid
They promised Silva to be Milan's next captain, and I'm sure on the next day, he will be sign for PSG
City are the new Chelsea, PSG are the new City. Welcome to the next paradigm in football where money chucking becomes the key success factor in world domination.
CL winners for the next few years:
2012 Chelsea
2013 City
2014 PSG
2015 Anzhi whatever-they're-called
2016 Vladivostok FC after Sheik Mansour's son buys them
2017 Bognor Regis FC after the Sultan of Brunei buys them
etc
Aren't people going to call him a money-grabber? Or is that reserved only for City signings?
And this, If I was offered 100mn for XYZ, I'd snap their hands off is such a rubbish argument. You win cups by players not how much profit you make in the transfer window. Even if Vidic plays 2 blinder of seasons which enables us to add a couple more premier leagues, feck 40, even 50 mn isn't worth 'snapping' off.
You don't sell your best players. Its a simple rule.
You don't sell your best players. Its a simple rule.
Nothing like as black and white as that. Regeneration is a constant or at least it should be. Your greats grow old, some you keep till the bitter end before phasing them out, some you sell and replace with a younger model. Of course Fergie would listen to an offer like that for a 30 year old centre-half. If a top class 24 year old replacement is available for 25 million then that might make sense. Was selling Ince, Hughes and Kanchelskis the right thing to do? I love Vidic as much as the next man but he's not untouchable.
The point is, you can replace Vidic with pretty much any player, and the sentence holds true. So whats the point in using that line of argument?
Every player has his price, so what's the point in mentioning that fact?
If Thiago Silva moves, however, it better not be to City.
Oh, and I gain perverse pleasure from the Serie A losing their top players.
The few that they have, anyways.
Will let him sign for them first before branding him anything!
Pastore-Lavezzi-Thiago Silva
The arab money is attracting some of the most promising players of the SERIE A
The arab money is attracting some of the most promising players of the SERIE A
Yeah. true. However, its not stopped most branding a player the minute he is associated with City.
I personally don't know the point of my post but meh!
Only if you think you can replace him, right? That's the moot point here. You must have identified a player who can offer a similar level now or potentially for you to want to offload one of your top players. Just judging the need to sell by the amount of transfer fee is pointless.
If the players choose the money and go to City, then they are mercenaries.
What are we then if we get rid of a captain who has been instrumental in United's success?
What are we then if we get rid of a captain who has been instrumental in United's success?
Who Evra, Vidic or Rio????
Really? Population wise London is 3 times larger, even in physical size/area London seems way bigger?
Where did you get that idea? Did we have a replacement for Ronaldo in place when we sold him? Err, No, and that is despite being fully aware that he wanted for leave for 2 seasons before he eventually left.
We didn't replace Tevez when he left either. We played a full season before signing Hernandez. Did Newcastle have a replacement lined up for Andy Carroll before Liverpool inexplicably paid £35m for him?
by the way at Liverpool. Look at how that turned out, Newcastle took the money and waited until the summer to buy a replacement, they now have 2 strikers who are both better than Carroll, and for half the price they sold him for.How is that pointless again?
Nah mate when someone offers silly money you take it 99 times out of 100. I would agree you shouldn't leave yourself struggling to field players for that position just to sell, but we are not short of options for that area.
We already have Evans who did a fantastic job filling in during Vidic's absence last year. If someone is stupid enough to offer £40m for a 30 yr old CB who has just been out for a year, personally i would bite their hands off, and worry about a replacement later.
Paris has 10.5 million people in the urban area, London has 8.5 million.
Where did you get that idea? Did we have a replacement for Ronaldo in place when we sold him? Err, No, and that is despite being fully aware that he wanted for leave for 2 seasons before he eventually left.
We didn't replace Tevez when he left either. We played a full season before signing Hernandez. Did Newcastle have a replacement lined up for Andy Carroll before Liverpool inexplicably paid £35m for him?
How is that pointless again?
Nah mate when someone offers silly money you take it 99 times out of 100. I would agree you shouldn't leave yourself struggling to field players for that position just to sell, but we are not short of options for that area.
We already have Evans who did a fantastic job filling in during Vidic's absence last year. If someone is stupid enough to offer £40m for a 30 yr old CB who has just been out for a year, personally i would bite their hands off, and worry about a replacement later.
The examples that you have offered are really poor ones.
Ronaldo always wanted to leave and seemingly had an agreement with SAF to leave at the end of the season. Tevez wasn't a first teamer based on his last season with us. And Newcastle isn't in the business of winning trophies.
How do you expect to be challenging for titles if every once in a while a big offer comes in for your top players and you end up selling them?
And what you're exposing yourself to is uncertainty. Sometimes it may work, but most times, you're not going to find a replacement who'll start delivering instantly. And since Vidic is our best centre back, I'd rather have him in the squad and win a few things rather than expose myself to the uncertainty of Evans or any new signing achieving his level of performance.
Its like saying you'd accept a 50 mn offer for Rooney. Since it is alot of money. Nope. On the whole, teams that keep selling their best players rarely win anything. And we're not in dire financial straits that we need to sell to stay afloat.
Why have people bought Vidic up in this convo? He is a long way from being on top of his game again (if he ever gets there) let alone being sold for silly money. And it wouldnt happen anyway.
Agreement or not, you said you only sell if you have a replacement lined up. We sold a more important player than Vidic, and we didn't have a replacement lined up. So there is your point blown right out of the window for a start. We sold our best player, didn't replace him, and have still challenged for titles.
The uncertainty over Evans was answered when he 'delivered instantly' after Vidic got injured.
Talking of poor examples.
No it actually isn't. Rooney is 27, in his prime and has not just spent a year out injured. You don't even know whether Vidic will come back the same player. Will he still be one of our best players if he has lost a couple of yards of pace? Bottom line is despite Vidic being out for most of the season we still managed to amass an 8 point lead over City in his absence. Evans proved himself more than capable last year.
I would suggest there was far more uncertainty after Ronaldo left, than there would be if Vidic left under similar circumstances.
Rooney's 26, and no, I wouldn't accept an offer of 50 million quid, or euros, for him.
He's worth more than that, on the current market, even if we were putting him up for auction.
Everyone, simply everyone is in for Rooney. Jose Mourinho's interview during Rooneygate tells you all you need to know about how good he is, and how much he's valued as a player.
He's worth more than that, on the current market, even if we were putting him up for auction.
Everyone, simply everyone is in for Rooney. Jose Mourinho's interview during Rooneygate tells you all you need to know about how good he is, and how much he's valued as a player.
London is far better than Paris anyway.
Did you actually read the posts and the context? Because neither of us despite disagreeing, sanctioned selling Rooney for £50m. I was saying selling Vidic for £40m, is nothing like agreeing to sell Rooney for £50m.
I'd accept 40m for Vidic. For 25-30m would get you a worthy replacement.
Did you actually read the posts and the context? Because neither of us despite disagreeing, sanctioned selling Rooney for £50m. I was saying selling Vidic for £40m, is nothing like agreeing to sell Rooney for £50m.
Sorry, it was 1 am when I read that; context goes out the window at that time
Me too Chief, it would be madness not too. I can't understand why so many would seem to be against it. Especially if that money allowed us to go and buy Javi Martinez, whose purchase would offer cover for both Vidic and Carrick's positions.
Hmmmm. I dont know. 40mil for Vidic would be a fantastic deal but we'd need to get in more than just a Martinez imo. He's a fantastic player, no doubt but Vidic is the best defender in the world for me. I'd rather a Vidic at his best than a Martinez+10mil in the bank.
For how long though Varun? A year? 2 maybe, if he ever reaches a level close to what we know to be his best, again. Nah for me if he was 2 or 3 years younger, then i wouldn't be worth considering, but he isn't. He is 31 next birthday, and at his age, almost a full season out can affect a player's capabilities. Not saying it definitely will, but it can.
For me Martinez would be ideal for our midfield, either as an alternative to Carrick, or to play alongside him. Plus he is also a very effective CB option. With Evans proving himself very capable in Vidic's absence last year, and with a Martinez/Carrick combo in front of him, we would be in much better shape looking forward than we otherwise would.
You have to consider what we would be gaining in the long term, compared to the short term loss.
It all depends on whether he comes back as the Vidic of old. If he does, he'l stay quality for more than 2 season i believe. It isnt as if he's reliant on pace so i dont see why he'l suddenly decline at 32/33.
Its also about what Vidic brings to the table too. Martinez is a player with massive potential, he's actually quite solid right now, but we look a far more secure defensive unit with Vidic in there than we do without him. Specially at set pieces.
As i said, i wouldnt be averse to a 40mil deal for Vidic, its great money for a 30yr old CB. Just that i'd want more than Javi Martinez in return.
Andy Brassell @andybrassell
Silvio Berlusconi has just confirmed Milan's sale of Thiago Silva to PSG, says @le_Parisien_PSG. SB said in no position to reject €46m.
That's a lot of money
Silvio Berlusconi has just confirmed Milan's sale of Thiago Silva to PSG, says @le_Parisien_PSG. SB said in no position to reject €46m.
That's a lot of money
Le Parisien saying Berlusconi has confirmed the deal.
http://www.leparisien.fr/psg-foot-p...nsfert-de-thiago-silva-13-06-2012-2046950.php
http://www.leparisien.fr/psg-foot-p...nsfert-de-thiago-silva-13-06-2012-2046950.php
i don't think so
These are the sort of fees it takes these days
46m euros is a lot of money for a CB, I think AC Milan got the better end of the deal.
Very unusual move for a player at his age to make. Integral part of the Serie A champions moving to a side who have not won the French league for nearly 20 years.