Transfer Tweets - Manchester United - 2024/25

[chay chay okocha]

Viewed in isolation, £25M seems cheap for a a player like Sancho, even with all his baggage. But we really need to move on from looking at transfer fees in isolation because it's only half (figuratively) of the picture, given the market leading salaries we pay. I saw someone earlier compare this to the £30M Forest paid for Nketiah, and conclude that we can't sell players efficiently. But the better way to think about the cost of each player to their new club is better represented in transfer fee + wages (at least these two components, probably more that a professional in the space could allude to):

1. Sancho: £25M transfer fee + reported £250K a week over a typical 4 year contract = £77M outlay for the buying club
2. Nketiah: £30M transfer fee + reported £120K a week over a typical 4 year contract = £55M outlay for the buying club

Additionally, there are a dearth of strikers, which should make Nketiah relatively more valuable given his position (and Sancho plays in a position full of talented and proven players across the league). Given all that, the prices mooted start to look a lot more reasonable.

 

[JB7]

Mazraoui or Dalot will shut him down when playing Chelsea. Double bonus.

He won't be able to play against us this year.

 

[Vidooq]

 

[Plant0x84]

Lovely stuff. Feck off Jadon, you were a massive disappointment.

 

[Dannn411]

The joint-worst ever United signing.

 

[Canuckred64]

Is there no loan fee?

 

[bb8]

It's huge. There will be loan fee and wages saved. The overall package for us is going to be in the region of 50-60m when loan fee, obligation to buy and wages saved are all factored in.

With his and McTominay's sales and the overall wage budget reductions we are much better placed for a January signing and will be able to be in the mix for any hot prospect next summer.

Yeah. Using the most conservative estimates I've heard:

24-25 season: £8M loan fee. I'm assuming there's no additional wage coverage for now (i.e., the loan fee is to help cover his wages). It's possible there is the £8M loan fee PLUS partial coverage of his wage (which is £13.5M), but I doubt it unless we hear otherwise

25-26 season: We don't owe Sancho any wages (saving us £13.5M), as he'll be on contract with Chelsea. In addition they give us £23M

Total: 8 + 13.5 + 23 = £44.5M, using conservative estimates

That's a ton. That amount would pay for De Ligt's entire transfer fee. Gives us a lot of flexibility this winter or next summer. I'm pumped!

 

[mazhar13]

Tier 1:

 

[Ian Reus]

Tier 1:

21 million it is then. Ta very...

 

[Dazzmondo]

Tier 1:

Oh ffs, we're going to be stuck with Sancho when Chelsea get relegated

 

[Baneofthegame]

Yeah. Using the most conservative estimates I've heard:

24-25 season: £8M loan fee. I'm assuming there's no additional wage coverage for now (i.e., the loan fee is to help cover his wages). It's possible there is the £8M loan fee PLUS partial coverage of his wage (which is £13.5M), but I doubt it unless we hear otherwise

25-26 season: We don't owe Sancho any wages (saving us £13.5M), as he'll be on contract with Chelsea. In addition they give us £23M

Total: 8 + 13.5 + 23 = £44.5M, using conservative estimates

That's a ton. That amount would pay for De Ligt's entire transfer fee. Gives us a lot of flexibility this winter or next summer. I'm pumped!

I would assume if we wanted 40 million for him the deal would have to be around the figures you mentioned, which I’m more than happy with.

 

[Tom Van Persie]

https://archive.ph/sqxfF

 

[pacifictheme]

That line about ten hag is concerning if true. Think he will be what holds us back this season.

 

[Withnail]

That line about ten hag is concerning if true. Think he will be what holds us back this season.

Which line? He's mentioned about 15 times.

 

[saivet]

That line about ten hag is concerning if true. Think he will be what holds us back this season.

After reading the article it doesn't sound concerning. Basically ETH wanted to keep McT and the recruitment team basically showed him clips and analysis as to why he'd be a good signing. ETH may have simply not been familiar with Ugarte, rather than not wanting him.

 

[Matt851]

After reading the article it doesn't sound concerning. Basically ETH wanted to keep McT and the recruitment team basically showed him clips and analysis as to why he'd be a good signing. ETH may have simply not been familiar with Ugarte, rather than not wanting him.

Ten hag is a genuinely horrific judge of talent

 

[DavelinaJolie]

Interesting read. Obviously it's bit rose tinted, but it is interesting to read how they've gone about business.

 

[VP89]

That line about ten hag is concerning if true. Think he will be what holds us back this season.

Why, he's not a yes man and Ugarte apparently has some flaws

 

[UnitedSofa]

 

[saivet]

Ten hag is a genuinely horrific judge of talent

There is that too! I don't think ETH will use any initial reservations against Ugarte though.

 

[McTerminator]

Strangely worded amounts.

Initially: 'less than £40m' - strange way of wording a fee that's actually also well below £30m.

Now 'between around £23m'. I'd think 'between £20-25m' or 'around £23m' works better than 'between around £23m'.

I am convinced that guy knows nothing. All of his updates seem to come just after someone credible and dressed up as his own.

 

[moses]

That line about ten hag is concerning if true. Think he will be what holds us back this season.

Why? You prefer some sort of hive mind? Why have so many voices if you don't want a conversation.

Desperate reaching to have a pop. In every thread. Tedious.

 

[dubplate warrior]

That line about ten hag is concerning if true. Think he will be what holds us back this season.

To be fair I'm delighted we didn't listen to him and bought the player we wanted instead. That's actually very encouraging for me. I haven't read the article due to paywall but am I correct in it saying that he wanted to keep Scott over signing Ugarte? If that's the case it shows what we're lumbered with.

 

[moses]

To be fair I'm delighted we didn't listen to him and bought the player we wanted instead. That's actually very encouraging for me. I haven't read the article due to paywall but am I correct in it saying that he wanted to keep Scott over signing Ugarte? If that's the case it shows what we're lumbered with.

I don't think it was one or the other. He likes Scott and would have preferred to keep him around.

Just read an article instead of guessing what might be in it that might back up your opinion.

 

[dubplate warrior]

I don't think it was one or the other. He likes Scott and would have preferred to keep him around.

Just read an article instead of guessing what might be in it that might back up your opinion.

Again shows what we're lumbered with. Scott was never good enough and should have been sold a long time ago.

I didn't read the article due to paywall and asked a question if you actually read the comment. Did you read the article? Do share.

 

[moses]

Again shows what we're lumbered with. Scott was never good enough and should have been sold a long time ago.

I didn't read the article due to paywall and asked a question if you actually read the comment. Did you read the article? Do share.

Scott is a limited footballer but seems like a good lad and successful squads can contain those players and ours did in the past before PSR. The manager was having a go at PSR forcing clubs to sell academy players.

 

[Bertie Wooster]

I don't think it was one or the other. He likes Scott and would have preferred to keep him around.

Just read an article instead of guessing what might be in it that might back up your opinion.

To be fair to the poster on the bolded bit, so many sites are blocking things unless you register or pay a fee to subscribe. This being one of them.

A lot of people would like to read the links, but don't want / can't afford to keep joining up / paying subscriptions to everything.

 

[RuudTom83]

I think a few people would of taken McTom & Ugarte over Casemiro & Ugarte. For a few different reasons.

But if anything it just shows that the new regime is active and involved in the discussions for players with the manager. Which is a healthy thing.

 

[dubplate warrior]

Scott is a limited footballer but seems like a good lad and successful squads can contain those players and ours did in the past before PSR. The manager was having a go at PSR forcing clubs to sell academy players.

Oh here we go.

 

[Nas-JR]

Again shows what we're lumbered with. Scott was never good enough and should have been sold a long time ago.

I didn't read the article due to paywall and asked a question if you actually read the comment. Did you read the article? Do share.

You followed up your question with a pre-conceived idea of what was said based on your impression and disdain of Ten Hag. You then took the last point about him wanting to keep Scott and still concluded that Ten Hag is an idiot for wanting that.

The decision to get was absolutely the right one given the timing and fee, but from Ten Hag's perspective he's lost someone who scored crucial goals last year and is a model professional, so I understand why the football coach might still want him to stay especially as no replacement was coming and that forward line up severely lacks in goalscoring. If you can't rationalise that then I don't know what to say.

 

[moses]

To be fair to the poster on the bolded bit, so many sites are blocking things unless you register or pay a fee to subscribe. This being one of them.

A lot of people would like to read the links, but don't want / can't afford to keep joining up / paying subscriptions to everything.

So we guess what's in them to suit an opinion we already hold?

That's not very good for what's already a quite polarised discussion.

We can't all read everything but we definitely can't fabricate what we don't read to use to back up a viewpoint. That's nuts.

 

[dubplate warrior]

To be fair to the poster on the bolded bit, so many sites are blocking things unless you register or pay a fee to subscribe. This being one of them.

A lot of people would like to read the links, but don't want / can't afford to keep joining up / paying subscriptions to everything.

I literally said in the post he quoted I couldn't read it due to paywall and if I'm incorrect in what the tweets are insinuating, could posters fill me in.

 

[moses]

Oh here we go.

Where is it we are going?

 

[dubplate warrior]

So we guess what's in them to suit an opinion we already hold?

That's not very good for what's already a quite polarised discussion.

We can't all read everything but we definitely can't fabricate what we don't read to use to back up a viewpoint. That's nuts.

Or you know, learn to read.

 

[Rasmus_9]

Strangely worded amounts.

Initially: 'less than £40m' - strange way of wording a fee that's actually also well below £30m.

Now 'between around £23m'. I'd think 'between £20-25m' or 'around £23m' works better than 'between around £23m'.

To be fair I’ve read that we are also getting a £10 million loan fee for this season so the total is going to be closer to be £40 million

 

[moses]

Or you know, learn to read.

I can read. You didn't read an article and took a guess at what it might say so you could have a pop. It's absurd. And tedious. I'm telling you not to do it. Thanks.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

To be fair I'm delighted we didn't listen to him and bought the player we wanted instead. That's actually very encouraging for me. I haven't read the article due to paywall but am I correct in it saying that he wanted to keep Scott over signing Ugarte? If that's the case it shows what we're lumbered with.

No, Ten Hag (like most managers) just doesn’t slag off players… he even said semi positive things about Sancho in case he stayed.

I haven’t seen anything to say he wanted McT over Ugarte, just that he would have liked to keep McT… that could be true or could be being nice, it doesn’t matter.

 

[moses]

You followed up your question with a pre-conceived idea of what was said based on your impression and disdain of Ten Hag. You then took the last point about him wanting to keep Scott and still concluded that Ten Hag is an idiot for wanting that.

The decision to get was absolutely the right one given the timing and fee, but from Ten Hag's perspective he's lost someone who scored crucial goals last year and is a model professional, so I understand why the football coach might still want him to stay especially as no replacement was coming and that forward line up severely lacks in goalscoring. If you can't rationalise that then I don't know what to say.

Exactly, the manager just wanted more options.

 

[NLunited]

No, Ten Hag (like most managers) just doesn’t slag off players… he even said semi positive things about Sancho in case he stayed.

I haven’t seen anything to say he wanted McT over Ugarte, just that he would have liked to keep McT… that could be true or could be being nice, it doesn’t matter.

I can see him wanting to keep McT for the role he played last season. Aerial presence and his ability to add dynamism to our attack.

Swapping Ugarte for him means we lose those two things: makes perfect sense for 10Hag to want to keep McT in addition to Ugarte.

 

[Nas-JR]

I can read. You didn't read an article and took a guess at what it might say so you could have a pop. It's absurd. And tedious. I'm telling you not to do it. Thanks.

Spot on.