People saying we absolutely have to keep them 'because they bring depth' and 'who would we replace them with' really dont have a grasp on the finances... Our highest and third (at least until De Gea signs a new deal) highest earners are nothing more than impact subs. Impact subs that cant even make an impact when we're coasting against Fulham, but that's by the by. What sort of precedent does that set? What happens when we negotiate deals for the likes of Rashford or De Gea, players who actually will contribute to our success in the future. Or when we negotiate with players we want to sign in the future? How much extra money are we going to drain with these deals? The fact is that if by some miracle we could shift both Lukaku and Sanchez this summer we'd free up SO MUCH MONEY from our wage bill we'd have the finances to go and sign whoever the feck we wanted to replace them. But we wouldn't even need to sign big names to replace the (lack of) quality we'd lose from shifting the pair of them. What we need is a top quality right winger and possibly some cover for Rashford at striker, Greenwood dependent. The issue isn't "should we", it's "can we". And the answer to that is probably no. But if some dumb Italian club wants to bid a decent amount for Lukaku we'd be total morons not to accept. Likewise Sanchez, although with his wages and at his age and with his form I think it will take an absolute miracle to shift him this summer. China is our only hope with him.