I don’t think we over rate our players all, everyone knows at this stage who is good enough and who isn’t. I think because we’ve had to sell the majority of our players for peanuts over the years due to them being on huge wages that when we start looking for more realistic fees for them like in the case of McTominay it looks like we’re asking for unrealistic sums of money. £25-30m for him in todays market is about right imo, Fulham didn’t want to pay that and went elsewhere, just as we didn’t rate Berge at £30m so are looking elsewhere, it happens. I’d much rather we set out a figure and come down on it slightly than start low and leave ourselves nowhere to go in negotiations.
Transfer Tweets - Manchester United - 2024/25
- Thread starter mazhar13
- Start date
I don’t think we over rate our players all, everyone knows at this stage who is good enough and who isn’t. I think because we’ve had to sell the majority of our players for peanuts over the years due to them being on huge wages that when we start looking for more realistic fees for them like in the case of McTominay it looks like we’re asking for unrealistic sums of money. £25-30m for him in todays market is about right imo, Fulham didn’t want to pay that and went elsewhere, just as we didn’t rate Berge at £30m so are looking elsewhere, it happens. I’d much rather we set out a figure and come down on it slightly than start low and leave ourselves nowhere to go in negotiations.
Who are you thinking?
Come on 7 is a bit harsh, you can’t do 11 years worth of damage in one summer
I never understood the decision to sell Kovar, he was a perfect no.2. Heck he might have been better than Onana.
Please keep it focused on the actual news. Longer discussions and clever quips can go into subject-specific threads.
The fact that Pellistri agreed to join the Greek league means there wasn't any interest from any team at any top league.
Yes he's an Uruguayan international but his numbers are incredibly poor, 2G/3A in over 3 and a half seasons. He couldn't even break through weak teams like Granada and Alaves in Spain.
The sell on clause won't do much difference either as I don't think he'll manage to do anything impactful in Greece, and even if he does it's still Greece.
Sure we might been able to get more for him but I don't think much more. He never had the talent nor skills to make an impact, plus he only had one year left on his contract and we weren't going to renew him, so good riddance.
He was so good with his feet, really commanding of his box, good shot stopper and had an air of calmness about him. I couldn't understand it at the time and I still don't given that we took his fee and spent it on that useless turkish guy.
We are not getting 10 million for Hannibal. Many of us live in a dream world when it comes to selling our players. Wake up: nobody wants them so the fee is low!
The principle won’t help our balance sheet
Said it before and I’ll say it again - I can’t fathom how this works when he’s out of contract and on a free at the end of the season.
Agreed, an absolute clown.
I see Sky Sports in general and I count it as waffle.
By default, a loan + obligation for a player whose contract ends next year requires a contract extension/renewal, so expect a contract extension if he leaves the club on loan with a purchase obligation.
The club have already said we’ll only sell him if he asks to leave and for a figure they deem acceptable, none of which have happened so far. We aren’t actively pushing him out the door and by the looks of things Scott seems pretty content here as well. There’s no point banging on about how we should just accept this or that, it isn’t going to happen. There’s still time left in the window yet for clubs to approach us, plus we’re actively looking to shift on the likes of Sancho, Hannibal, and Lindelof with a deal for Pellistri looking done. It’s not a case of, if we don’t sell McTominay we can’t make any more signings. If we can get at least a couple of the names mentioned off the books then I think we’ll be fine to bring an Ugarte in.
I think Pellistri would have done well at somewhere like Brighton. He has some good attributes but any young player needs regular games and a clear role. Regardless of stats (because that's a poor metric for a young player) he showed glimpses of talent. His brief cameos often seemed more likely to produce a chance than Antony or Sancho's minutes did.
Regardless though we often opine on selling any young player who has some talent. Iqbal, Hansen-Aaroen, Alvaro Fernandez have all had tears cried over them in the threads yet the ones breaking through Mainoo and Garnacho are younger and better.
I don't think this is true. The transfer would just need to be completed before the player's contract runs out. Most traditional contracts expire on 30th June, well into the transfer window, so this isn't a problem.
Then, the player just signs a pre contract agreement that effectively takes him off the market and oblgates him to sign for the buyer on a given date.
The only reason for an obligation to buy loan, is for financial reasons so the sale is not registered until the following season/tax year, which could be a deal breaker for the buyer.
He had been loaned out three times and was reaching the age where he probably wanted stability and to play regularly. The fact he was the starting goalie in a Bundesliga-winning team suggests he was ready. We put in a sell-on clause and buyback though. Football Manager has the buyback clause as €20m but none of the articles last year have an actual figure.
Why would the player agree to this? He is free to talk to other clubs after january 1st. So the obligation to buy would mean nothing if he doesn’t agree and says he will go to another club.
If they want the sale/fee registered in the following year they could also make a deal over this with United.
Loan a player with obligation to buy seems very strange when the player is out of contract the next year.
Yeah, I was mainly thinking of the transfer windows outside of England. I forgot that the English ones tend to start earlier, so this Burnley deal shouldn't require a contract extension in that case.
That can work perfectly fine. If United require that Burnley pay .. say £5 million, either now as a transfer fee or in 12 months as the cost of the loan-fee - and then Burnley sign him for free at the end of the loan
The player would've already agreed to the appropriate terms of the new contract as part of the purchase obligation agreement, so they'd typically have given their full blessing to this deal.
Clearly no club is desperate to sign him nor are we so desperate to get rid of him for any fee. I think there will be a compromise somewhere and he will leave. A player of his quality in the squad ordinarily may be useful but given his history with ETH and his wages, it's best we let him go, even if it's a loan deal. I actually don't think he will cause a problem in the squad but he clearly won't be trusted as a starter, so offers little value
I agree that he isn't staying here as a back-up. That would only cause problems and we will find ourselves in the same situation as we did last season. Also, I don't think anyone will stump up the cash to buy him on the wages he is on here. He'll leave at the end of the season on a loan with an option to buy which the loan club won't take up. Best case scenario is the club he signs for takes care of his wages and gives us a small loan fee.
Although, those options are dwindling too. I read today that Juventus are already looking to sign Sterling on a loan from Chelsea.
Tier 2:
But for him it’s a free transfer. And with a free transfer a player gets a higher sign fee. I understand what you say but I doubt it works like you say. But we will see.
Criminal that we aren’t going for a left back.
Money
Let's see how Onana does this season then, for €20m I would take him back.
If it were a gentleman's agreement, then sure, Hannibal can talk to other clubs, but I've seen deals where the player has both agreed to a loan and formally put pen to paper on the new contract that'll apply after the loan spell. Mind you, those happened in deals where the player's contract wasn't about to expire. In this case, as long as Hannibal and his camp aren't too naive, they won't be locking themselves up to Burnley only if they want to keep their options open.
By that logic, why would a player sign for any club in the last year of their contract, as opposed to just letting it run down and move on a free?
Why wouldn't Hannibal do this deal? He secures a move he wants, and a contract he's happy with. For all intents and purposes, he'd be a Burnley player, not a United player looking to explore his options at the end of the season.
And being a free agent isn't as beneficial as some would believe. You can be a very good footballer, available on a free, with no attractive offers on the table.
Who's paying Raboit's wages this season? De Gea's, Depay's, Martial's, etc etc
Must be damn fast. Dude is already in September!
Partly that and partly because we're still infatuated with Shaw and can't let go despite him never being fit.
That’s what more players do these days. Real Madrid had made a policy on that.
And did 40 keepy Uppy's before the game. Honestly who cares ! Sports Journalism at its finest
All he's shown at senior level is the ability to run around and kick people, so that's about half his game to be fair.
And complain to the referee when they kick him.....which in fairness they did a lot