2017/18 Transfers and Rumours

[RanzB]

Doesnt make sense..they spend like they want any other time and I think he was playing hardball with Sanchez and it bit him in the ass

That's horsesh.t. Use transfer fees only, the way it's always been done.

 

[Stickfigure]

That's horsesh.t. Use transfer fees only, the way it's always been done.

That's the funny thing, every article I read about Sanchez had every penny involved (wages, image rights, signing bonus, agent fees blah blah blah) but when any other team signs a player, only the transfer fee is mentioned.

Laughable.

 

[Praemon]

Doesnt make sense..they spend like they want any other time and I think he was playing hardball with Sanchez and it bit him in the ass

View attachment 494801

It's not just the money. City apparently had a verbal agreement with Sanchez and his agent before the January window, and all that was needed was for the window to open and City to negotiate the final transfer fee with Arsenal. What changed was Sanchez' agent then came back at the 11th hour and said they wanted more money and didn't want to honour the initial agreement. This is when City pulled out of the deal. Of course they could've paid the fees, but they pulled out because Sanchez and his agent were playing dirty. I think it was the right move.

Also, with regards to City's spend, they had 7 first team squad players who left the club at the start of the season. 4 of them were defenders, and the other a Cup goalkeeper. City had on average the oldest side in the league last season. So they had to spend on new defenders, and the ridiculous fees being asked by clubs these days means it won't come cheap. I have a feeling City won't sign more than one or 2 players in the summer, at most, to try offset this.

 

[dbecks]

That's horsesh.t. Use transfer fees only, the way it's always been done.

I agree, but like what Stick is saying...everyone is going on about the Sanchez deal being too much by roping in any penny they can

 

[RexxGrim]

That's the funny thing, every article I read about Sanchez had every penny involved (wages, image rights, signing bonus, agent fees blah blah blah) but when any other team signs a player, only the transfer fee is mentioned.

Laughable.

The reason why the salary is brought in when the Sanchez transfer is discussed, is because it was basically a free transfer. Sure United paid a fee, but lets be honest, that was much less than the player was worth. 6 months on his contract being the obvious reason for this.

The media needs to throw massive figures around as they required us to click click. If the can't talk about a massive transfer fee they're going to talk about a massive salary.

I don't really understand why so many United fans are triggered by this as if it's some kind of media conspiracy against United.

 

[JJCT]

All this talk of City "saving" money. How exactly is it saving money to bid 60 million for Maharez because Sane is injured for 6 weeks? Where is this amazing academy that City are supposed to have set up?

 

[mercurial]

It's not about money. Sanchez chose United over City, so City came up with the moral high ground BS to save face. They will never back down on price if they really want a player. That much has been proven time and time again.

 

[Stickfigure]

The reason why the salary is brought in when the Sanchez transfer is discussed, is because it was basically a free transfer. Sure United paid a fee, but lets be honest, that was much less than the player was worth. 6 months on his contract being the obvious reason for this.

The media needs to throw massive figures around as they required us to click click. If the can't talk about a massive transfer fee they're going to talk about a massive salary.

I don't really understand why so many United fans are triggered by this as if it's some kind of media conspiracy against United.

Agreed. Clickbait, that’s all it is.

All this talk of City "saving" money. How exactly is it saving money to bid 60 million for Maharez because Sane is injured for 6 weeks? Where is this amazing academy that City are supposed to have set up?

 

[fishfly]

Have you looked at the salaries, and what effect it has on the rest of the team come renegotiation time.

I don't know if you remember Macca from Liverpool. He left on a free transfer with a huge salary. I don't think we would have been able to match it despite his importance in our team

Salary or not 35m plus 250k or 350k for 4 years = 87m (250k/week) or 107m (350k/week) - really pocket change considering if you look at Sterling who is reportly on 180k a week plus his reported 49m pound transfer fee on a 5 year contract = 95m

(all figures based on the assumption they work on a 52 week salary)

 

[fishfly]

The reason why the salary is brought in when the Sanchez transfer is discussed, is because it was basically a free transfer. Sure United paid a fee, but lets be honest, that was much less than the player was worth. 6 months on his contract being the obvious reason for this.

The media needs to throw massive figures around as they required us to click click. If the can't talk about a massive transfer fee they're going to talk about a massive salary.

I don't really understand why so many United fans are triggered by this as if it's some kind of media conspiracy against United.

No one is triggered but everyone and it's dog wants to talk about how expensive Sanchez's salary is and this and that.

One thing for sure is United wanted Sanchez and paid him what he asked for using money made from United's stature rather than Shiek's oil money - he is a proven EPL player and always gives 110%

City coming up with the whole moral high ground is just using it as a farce.

 

[Splinter]

The reason why the salary is brought in when the Sanchez transfer is discussed, is because it was basically a free transfer.

How was it a free transfer? Mkhi went the other way, a player who cost us how many million?

 

[fishfly]

Agreed. Clickbait, that’s all it is.

Scary thing is City has one of the best facilities for the youth - they were suppose to bring the young players into the team instead billions has been spent buying the defence

How was it a free transfer? Mkhi went the other way, a player who cost us how many million?

35m - it's ok he paid that back with the goals that got us back into the CL


In another news:

Man United extend Juan Mata contract by a year - Jose Mourinho

http://kwese.espn.com/football/manc...nd-juan-mata-contract-by-a-year-jose-mourinho

 

[Splinter]

35m - it's ok he paid that back with the goals that got us back into the CL

Yep, but my point is with the number of years remaining on his contract, he was worth effectively 30ml odd to us - thus this is what the "transfer fee" was for Sanchez.

 

[dbecks]

I agree, the player choose United over City

We got a better player (a proven EPL star) in for swapping out one that had potential but was not showing it

Dont make verbal agreements as they dont stand up - if you wanted him, pay the money when the chance came - and it came in January (with CL, FA Cup and League, I would of loved a Sanchez in Jan to add to the squad)

 

[mercurial]

Also don't forget that they waited until the last day of the previous transfer window to try and sign him. You don't do that when you absolutely know you want a player. In all honesty, I'm not entirely convinced they really wanted him.

 

[Hamish McPanji]

Salary or not 35m plus 250k or 350k for 4 years = 87m (250k/week) or 107m (350k/week) - really pocket change considering if you look at Sterling who is reportly on 180k a week plus his reported 49m pound transfer fee on a 5 year contract = 95m

(all figures based on the assumption they work on a 52 week salary)

Is that actually how much he is being paid? I think you underestimate the amount being paid. In addition, you calculate 5 years for Sterling Vs 4 years for Sanchez. You're not really comparing like for like there.

Things that need to be considered between Mahrez Vs Sanchez

1. Transfer fee + Agents fee
2. Wages
3. Age (resale value)

 

[RanzB]

I'm going to ask this with all sincerity:

Who gives a **** about all this? End of the day, the games and the results matter. Leave the money **** up to the accountants.

Pep has been a hypocrite, but I'm sure I can find examples of Jose/Klopp/Conte/Wenger doing the same thing. Who really cares.

 

[cenredash]

Is that actually how much he is being paid? I think you underestimate the amount being paid. In addition, you calculate 5 years for Sterling Vs 4 years for Sanchez. You're not really comparing like for like there.

Things that need to be considered between Mahrez Vs Sanchez

1. Transfer fee + Agents fee
2. Wages
3. Age (resale value)

4. Value to the team (on the field and off)
5. Profile of the player
6. Future performance of player and team
7. Clubs financial situation

Also, nobody knows yet how much he Alexis is being paid or what Mahrez will settle for or what Sterling's contract says, so that is speculation either way, and wages all have performance clauses.

If money wasn't an issue I don't think any manager would not go in for Sanchez at whatever the total package. That's like saying no to Messi, or Zidane, or Ronaldo, or Maradonna or Pele or Neymar. I'm not saying he is at that level, but in his position I don't think any manager couldn't do with more quality on the wings than they currently have in their squad.

So, with what information is out there that suggests that money is no object for City, for their manager to say it is too expensive is just crazy talk.

 

[_kabal_]

Also don't forget that they waited until the last day of the previous transfer window to try and sign him. You don't do that when you absolutely know you want a player. In all honesty, I'm not entirely convinced they really wanted him.

Agreed. I always thought that it would be a strange signing, a sort of buy all the shiny things.

Sanchez is a brilliant player, but all Pep teams on based on keeping possession, and Sanchez just loses the ball too often. This doesnt change the fact that he is ****ing brilliant

 

[mercurial]

Danny Blind: "I can confirm that Roma want Daley but Manchester United don’t want to let him go on loan, only on a permanent basis. They don’t want to sell him now, only in the summer."