Transfer Tweets - Manchester United - 2024/25

Sancho is not going to be used, so swapping him for Sterling might be a plus for us.

We won’t be selling Antony. Let him compete this season with Amad and see whether he discovers form. I like his defensive contribution.
 
Dazzmondo said:
Think this is a lot of money tbh unless the add ons are difficult to reach which I doubt. Hopefully he turns out to be a good signing. Wouldn't expect to see him starting for quite a while though.
Click to expand...

Less than what we paid for Fred 6 years ago. €50m isn't too bad, PSG bought him for €60m a year ago.
 
TheReligion said:
We won’t be getting Sterling

No need for the intense debate. Literally zero credibility in any report.
Click to expand...
So are you saying that the problem is they don't come from a sterling source, or that they probably do come from a Sterling source?
 
red_de_pologne said:
Less than what we paid for Fred 6 years ago. €50m isn't too bad, PSG bought him for €60m a year ago.
Click to expand...
What we paid for Fred was a ridiculous overpay which is a common theme with us post-Ferguson. That shouldn't be viewed as a guide if we're trying to be a competent negotiation team. They did better with the De Ligt and Mazraoui deals. Hoping we'll see more negotiations like that in the future.

PSG bought him for €60m and no longer want him. His stock has gone down and that should be reflected in the fee. Had it been €50m without add ons that would have been closer to his current value imo.

I'm hoping he'll have a bigger impact than I'm expecting, because if he doesn't do well this will just make negotiations harder in the future. People constantly said stuff like "it's not your money" for the last decade whenever there were complaints about fees we paid and it ended up putting us into a situation where we were tied by PSR and couldn't shift players. I just don't want the same thing to happen under the new ownership.
 
Dazzmondo said:
What we paid for Fred was a ridiculous overpay which is a common theme with us post-Ferguson. That shouldn't be viewed as a guide if we're trying to be a competent negotiation team. They did better with the De Ligt and Mazraoui deals. Hoping we'll see more negotiations like that in the future.

PSG bought him for €60m and no longer want him. His stock has gone down and that should be reflected in the fee. Had it been €50m without add ons that would have been closer to his current value imo.

I'm hoping he'll have a bigger impact than I'm expecting, because if he doesn't do well this will just make negotiations harder in the future. People constantly said stuff like "it's not your money" for the last decade whenever there were complaints about fees we paid and it ended up putting us into a situation where we were tied by PSR and couldn't shift players. I just don't want the same thing to happen under the new ownership.
Click to expand...

For add ons to be triggered he’ll have to be somewhat successful at which point you probably don’t mind paying those.

For better context though look at fees paid for Lavia, Caicedo, Matheus Nunes, Bruno Guimares. Bruno was the cheapest at £42-43m so right around the same price as we’ve paid for Ugarte.

I think people are quick to forget the hype around Ugarte last summer as well. He was last years Joao Neves for me and I was hugely disappointed he went to PSG.
 
Highfather_24 said:
Ornstein confirmed today that PSG wanted 60M fixed, we negotiated for 50M+10M. Its not a bad deal, but I dont see it as a great bargain/price as some are saying either. I dont care either way now, just glad this saga is over. Its his performances which will tell us whether we got a good deal.
Click to expand...

I don't think the price was the only thing holding up the deal. Over how many years we will pay these 50+10 is far more important, as it has to do with cash flow, which we don't seem be good at at the moment.
 
Vidooq said:
I don't think the price was the only thing holding up the deal. Over how many years we will pay these 50+10 is far more important, as it has to do with cash flow, which we don't seem be good at at the moment.
Click to expand...
This will most likely be the case going forward too as the club will need to raise money for a new stadium.
 
Dazzmondo said:
Sterling is absolutely not better than all our wingers. He's been absolutely terrible at Chelsea
Click to expand...
That’s objectively not true. He had virtually identical numbers to Rashford and Garnacho this year plus if you have a look at this comp of some of his Chelsea highlights, it’s very clear to see he is far more threatening. Yes, he hasn’t been the same as he has for City but he’s still a v good player and quite underrated. He makes stuff happen, even if sometimes he doesn’t have the finish. Often makes good decision from the wing too.




Chelsea haven’t got the best out of him because, well, Chelsea!
 
Adamsk7 said:
That’s objectively not true. He had virtually identical numbers to Rashford and Garnacho this year plus if you have a look at this comp of some of his Chelsea highlights, it’s very clear to see he is far more threatening. Yes, he hasn’t been the same as he has for City but he’s still a v good player and quite underrated. He makes stuff happen, even if sometimes he doesn’t have the finish. Often makes good decision from the wing too.




Chelsea haven’t got the best out of him because, well, Chelsea!
Click to expand...


I’m not excited by the idea of Sterling given who he has played for and the flaws in his game but he was a childhood Utd fan and he’s a more impactful player than Sancho and Antony. I’d much rather see him replacing Garnacho or Rashford when a sub is needed. Not every signing has to be a 21yr old wonderkid with the long term in mind.

Even if we picked up his wages his contract expires 2026 the same as Sancho so we maybe get a useful player at no extra cost for 2yrs. If we were taking him permanently then I would assume a lower wage with an extra year could work.
 
Adamsk7 said:
That’s objectively not true. He had virtually identical numbers to Rashford and Garnacho this year plus if you have a look at this comp of some of his Chelsea highlights, it’s very clear to see he is far more threatening. Yes, he hasn’t been the same as he has for City but he’s still a v good player and quite underrated. He makes stuff happen, even if sometimes he doesn’t have the finish. Often makes good decision from the wing too.




Chelsea haven’t got the best out of him because, well, Chelsea!
Click to expand...

He's a better player than both sure. But he has a lot of mileage, is on a feck tonne of money, is of the wrong age profile and is immature e.g. penalty debacle with Palmer. It's a from no me. I wouldn't mind Rafinha though ideally, Nico Williams.
 
FrankWhite said:
He's a better player than both sure. But he has a lot of mileage, is on a feck tonne of money, is of the wrong age profile and is immature e.g. penalty debacle with Palmer. It's a from no me. I wouldn't mind Rafinha though ideally, Nico Williams.
Click to expand...
We can agree on all that for sure!
 
Devil_forever said:
We're meant to have turned a leaf on brain dead signings like this, please United stop.
Click to expand...
You can say that United already have as the Tweet itself says that United themselves aren't keen on bringing him in. The article also says that United aren't interested in bringing Chilwell in.
 
sparx99 said:
I’m not excited by the idea of Sterling given who he has played for and the flaws in his game but he was a childhood Utd fan and he’s a more impactful player than Sancho and Antony. I’d much rather see him replacing Garnacho or Rashford when a sub is needed. Not every signing has to be a 21yr old wonderkid with the long term in mind.

Even if we picked up his wages his contract expires 2026 the same as Sancho so we maybe get a useful player at no extra cost for 2yrs. If we were taking him permanently then I would assume a lower wage with an extra year could work.
Click to expand...
As much as I am not excited about Sterling per se, him sitting on Chelsea's bench whilst Sancho doesn't even make ours makes little sense, I have never heard of a loan swap but it could work for both clubs and players, if we can get something out of Sterling and Chelsea Sancho it can only improve the chances they can be moved on permanently, however I cannot see this happening and will not be disappointed when it doesn't
 
sparx99 said:
For add ons to be triggered he’ll have to be somewhat successful at which point you probably don’t mind paying those.

For better context though look at fees paid for Lavia, Caicedo, Matheus Nunes, Bruno Guimares. Bruno was the cheapest at £42-43m so right around the same price as we’ve paid for Ugarte.

I think people are quick to forget the hype around Ugarte last summer as well. He was last years Joao Neves for me and I was hugely disappointed he went to PSG.
Click to expand...
The add ons could simply be appearances which wouldn't suggest much about his success. We've had some terrible players rack up loads of appearances.

In terms of fees, I'd say Matheus Nunes was comfortably a worse deal. City don't get enough criticism for that. One of the worst value for money signings in history (ultimately didn't matter because they still won everything though).

Caicedo and Bruno were significantly better players than Ugarte when they moved imo. Not sure what fee for Lavia was. Ugarte probably would be seen as a better player than Lavia, even though I thought Lavia was great for Southampton tbh (also significantly younger so that probably needs to be factored in).

I get that you probably mean in terms of hype instead of playstyle but Neves is a far more talented player imo. Ugarte was hyped for his ability as a destroyer, not for his ability on the ball. Neves is simply much closer to what most top teams want in a midfielder now. Neves would have offered that control. Most of the top tacklers in top teams are also capable of much more when in possession. That's what concerns me with the Ugarte signing.

A lot of it comes from me not being convinced that a counter attacking transition style is the best way forward in the long-term. Ugarte is very good at his very specific role just to clarify. I don't think he's rubbish or anything, but he's much more suited to a team challenging for top 4 imo (which is us right now but not where we hope to be).
 
Zed 101 said:
As much as I am not excited about Sterling per se, him sitting on Chelsea's bench whilst Sancho doesn't even make ours makes little sense, I have never heard of a loan swap but it could work for both clubs and players, if we can get something out of Sterling and Chelsea Sancho it can only improve the chances they can be moved on permanently, however I cannot see this happening and will not be disappointed when it doesn't
Click to expand...
Julio Baptiste and Antonio Reyes is the one that springs to mind. I feel like Newcastle and Villa might have done one in recent years too, but I can't remember who.
 
Sterling would not be a bad option as long as it's not insane wages or a too long contract. 3 years + 1 with £200.000 a week would be ok. Chances are he is so pissed at Chelsea, he would gladly accept a paycut to get football and prove them wrong. As for people complaining about signing old players on big wages - we have signed 5 players who are 18, 23, 23, 25 and 26 ... clearly we can take one player who is 29 years old. It's not like we have an aging squad
 
lysglimt said:
Sterling would not be a bad option as long as it's not insane wages or a too long contract. 3 years + 1 with £200.000 a week would be ok. Chances are he is so pissed at Chelsea, he would gladly accept a paycut to get football and prove them wrong. As for people complaining about signing old players on big wages - we have signed 5 players who are 18, 23, 23, 25 and 26 ... clearly we can take one player who is 29 years old. It's not like we have an aging squad
Click to expand...
Agreed, getting Stirling in on reasonable wages would be a no brainer for me as he'd be better than most of our options and gets rid of a player who doesn't even make the bench.
 
Adamsk7 said:
That’s objectively not true. He had virtually identical numbers to Rashford and Garnacho this year plus if you have a look at this comp of some of his Chelsea highlights, it’s very clear to see he is far more threatening. Yes, he hasn’t been the same as he has for City but he’s still a v good player and quite underrated. He makes stuff happen, even if sometimes he doesn’t have the finish. Often makes good decision from the wing too.




Chelsea haven’t got the best out of him because, well, Chelsea!
Click to expand...

The dreaded compilation time.
 
sparx99 said:
I’m not excited by the idea of Sterling given who he has played for and the flaws in his game but he was a childhood Utd fan and he’s a more impactful player than Sancho and Antony. I’d much rather see him replacing Garnacho or Rashford when a sub is needed. Not every signing has to be a 21yr old wonderkid with the long term in mind.

Even if we picked up his wages his contract expires 2026 the same as Sancho so we maybe get a useful player at no extra cost for 2yrs. If we were taking him permanently then I would assume a lower wage with an extra year could work.
Click to expand...
Exactly this.
FrankDrebin said:
The dreaded compilation time.
Click to expand...
i mean I hate them as much as you but I have no way to highlight my opinion other than “just cos”. It at least shows him being dangerous and doing things our other wingers just don’t do - ie, getting the ball high up, driving at speed with the ball, making good decisions with crosses. Arriving in the box to score in striker like positions (which I think he’s very good at) and overall showing genuine quality. Now has he been consistently doing that at Chelsea? No. However who has been for them?
 
TsuWave said:
Sterling, on appropriate wages, is an useful player. Certainly better than having Sancho parked up somewhere not doing anything. If we can't move Sancho on for money - this wouldn't be a bad deal, but again - contingent on Sterling taking a massive wage cut
Click to expand...
As much as I find him annoying, based off last season's performances Sterling is easily a better player than Sancho and Antony, and he might currently be better than Rashford as well. I don't think Sterling is a must sign or that he should be taking minutes away from Garnacho and Amad, but he is still a decent player.
 
Adamsk7 said:
Exactly this.

i mean I hate them as much as you but I have no way to highlight my opinion other than “just cos”. It at least shows him being dangerous and doing things our other wingers just don’t do - ie, getting the ball high up, driving at speed with the ball, making good decisions with crosses. Arriving in the box to score in striker like positions (which I think he’s very good at) and overall showing genuine quality. Now has he been consistently doing that at Chelsea? No. However who has been for them?
Click to expand...
Maybe I am trying to talk myself into this, but..... Sterling is decent at beating a defender 1 v 1 by using his extreme quickness, and he could be very useful when we're struggling against a team thats sitting back.
 
Sterling is not of the required level for a starter, but he's considerably better than Rashford, he's better than Antony, and he's probably better than current Sancho.

Don't want him here on big wages but I guess as a stop gap on a reasonably short contract he's ok for now.
 
Potential Sterling signing goes against our model to sign young players with high potential.

Feels like a Casemiro type signing, we’ll have issues moving him in once he’s past 31.

We should rather go for another direct left winger, Rashford clearly can’t be the first choice LW. Waiting for a Nico Williams like player next season is also an option.

Chiesa also, if we can facilitate it via Sancho. Also not sure but if Rodrygo is somehow surplus to RM requirements, we can go for him as well if he’s available for aroind 60-70m fee
 
You must log in or register to reply here.