Putting the Sanchez transfer fee into context (financial comparisons)

Raees

Pythagoras in Boots
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
29,464
  • Neymar - £200m + £660K a week (Pre tax) on 5 Year contract = £200m +172m in wages = £372m overall
  • Coutinho - £140m + £240K a week (Pre Tax) on 5 year contract = £200m +63m = £263m Overall
  • Dembele = £135.5m + 220K a week (Pre tax) on 5 year contract = 135.5m + 57m = £192.5m overall
  • Pogba = £89.3m + 200K a week (pre tax) on a 5 year contract = £89.3m + 52m = £141m overall
  • Van Dijk - £75m + 180K a week (Pre tax) on 5 year contract = £75m + 47m = £122m overall
  • Sanchez = £0 + £10m signing on fee, £15m to agent, £350k a week wages on a 4.5 year contract = 25m + 82m = £107m overall

So I was on the tube, and saw at least 3 papers describing the Sanchez transfer as monstrous, taking his salary into account, agents fees when none of this shit ever gets mentioned with other transfers.

So putting his transfer into context.. I haven't even put it into context such as the fact we save money on Mkhi's wages, nor have I been able to locate exact details relating to agent's fees etc for these other transfers or other bonuses but feel free to make amends to the figures used in my OP. Neymar's overall transfer was touted to be in region of £450m - but I am not sure how they reached this figure for example.. need more info.

But the bottom line is, signing a genuine star in Sanchez, a guy who will be the jewel in our attack and our main man for the money we did - is for my money, considering that he is playing for a historically ferocious rival for the money we did.. is an absolute bargain.

The narrative in the media about the fee is a fecking joke it really is. Sanchez salary is a touch overpriced, but does he deserve more wages than a Coutinho? feck yes, he's a main attacker for a side not just a playmaker support act. Secondly he's a sure thing, not a risk or a developing player like a Dembele and you're getting him on a free transfer effectively and you're trying to beat a rival like City to his signature. I'd say taking that all into account £300k would probably be a very fair price in this current inflated market.

Anyway feel free to add any further details, comparisons, thoughts.






 
Last edited:

Devil_forever

You're only young once, you can be immature f'ever
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
11,008
Location
Head of the naval division of lolibfascon
Do none of you understand that Mkhitaryan had a market value, would it have been easier to understand had we sold him to another club and then paid that fee to Arsenal? Also the signing on fee was £20m. Go listen to Duncan Castle’s podcast and he backs up Matt Law’s original claim that Sanchez’s agent asked for the money city were saving this jan compared the last summer to be paid to himself and his client in the form of a greater signing on fee and wages.
 

11101

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
21,203
I think it's fair to subtract the 150ish Miki was being paid from Sanchez's salary, if you are also using him to discount the transfer fee. It should be one or the other.
 

OoopsMisclick

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
282
Location
Gold & Green
Actually, the cost of Sanchez is even lower.

You need to deduct Mihki's wages for 3(?) years off sanchez his wages.
(I think mikhi had like 3 years left no?)
 

Booda

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
90
Its true that Micky's value has been taken off our books , but surely Sanchez's value has more than covered that
 

NFM

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Messages
339
Do none of you understand that Mkhitaryan had a market value, would it have been easier to understand had we sold him to another club and then paid that fee to Arsenal? Also the signing on fee was £20m. Go listen to Duncan Castle’s podcast and he backs up Matt Law’s original claim that Sanchez’s agent asked for the money city were saving this jan compared the last summer to be paid to himself and his client in the form of a greater signing on fee and wages.
Following your logic , the correct calculation is to add the fee paid to dortmund less his wages plus the extra £10m signing on fee. Which I think nets out at about zero. So the figure of net cost £133m is approx correct. If the reports are correct and its all spread over the 4.5 yrs , then for a world class attacker in his prime, this is a great deal.
 

Mihai92

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
54
  • Neymar - £200m + £660K a week (Pre tax) on 5 Year contract = £200m +172m in wages = £372m overall
  • Coutinho - £140m + £240K a week (Pre Tax) on 5 year contract = £200m +63m = £263m Overall
  • Dembele = £135.5m + 220K a week (Pre tax) on 5 year contract = 135.5m + 57m = £192.5m overall
  • Pogba = £89.3m + 200K a week (pre tax) on a 5 year contract = £89.3m + 52m = £141m overall
  • Sanchez = £0 + £10m signing on fee, £15m to agent, £350k a week wages on a 4.5 year contract = 25m + 108m = £133m overall
  • Van Dijk - £75m + 180K a week (Pre tax) on 5 year contract = £75m + 47m = £122m overall
So I was on the tube, and saw at least 3 papers describing the Sanchez transfer as monstrous, taking his salary into account, agents fees when none of this shit ever gets mentioned with other trophies.

So putting his transfer into context.. I haven't even put it into context such as the fact we save money on Mkhi's wages, nor have I been able to locate exact details relating to agent's fees etc for these other transfers or other bonuses but feel free to make amends to the figures used in my OP. Neymar's overall transfer was touted to be in region of £450m - but I am not sure how they reached this figure for example.. need more info.

But the bottom line is, signing a genuine star in Sanchez, a guy who will be the jewel in our attack and our main man for the money we did - is for my money, considering that he is playing for a historically ferocious rival for the money we did.. is an absolute bargain.

The narrative in the media about the fee is a fecking joke it really is. Sanchez salary is a touch overpriced, but does he deserve more wages than a Coutinho? feck yes, he's a main attacker for a side not just a playmaker support act. Secondly he's a sure thing, not a risk or a developing player like a Dembele and you're getting him on a free transfer effectively and you're trying to beat a rival like City to his signature. I'd say taking that all into account £300k would probably be a very fair price in this current inflated market.

Anyway feel free to add any further details, comparisons, thoughts.





How did you get 108m for Sanchez? I calculated and the result is around 82m. The 350k wage is after tax?
 

DdeGoat

New Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
468
You need to add the transfer fee. Mkhi with 3 years remaining on his contract would have gone for at least 40m in the summer under the current market conditions.

Also, all those are young players with a resale value. Don't think Sanchez would have much value when his contract finishes.
 

Raees

Pythagoras in Boots
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
29,464
I think it's fair to subtract the 150ish Miki was being paid from Sanchez's salary, if you are also using him to discount the transfer fee. It should be one or the other.
Yep I agree, but I also wanted to just keep the full salary in to show even if we show the finances like this.. still comes across a bargain, and if we do it the way you suggest.. it is peanuts. In fact, even if we add the £35m transfer fee - I'd still argue it is a bargain. You're getting a mature player 29-32 .. so basically three really good years and one year past his peak for a 140m-180m package depending on what figures you chose to include.

For me, definitely worth it and value for money - certainly not a rip off, like media is suggesting.
 

Fridge chutney

Full Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2016
Messages
8,872
Pogba is not on 200k pre tax. He's on 290k all in.

Also where did you get 15M agent fee?
 

Trigg

aka Trippin_Stoned
Joined
Mar 24, 2004
Messages
5,944
Location
Sowerby Bridge
You need to add the transfer fee. Mkhi with 3 years remaining on his contract would have gone for at least 40m in the summer under the current market conditions.
Wishful thinking that judging by his current form.
 

P-Nut

fan of well-known French footballer Fabinho
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
21,602
Location
Oldham, Greater Manchester
If you added signing on fee and agents fee to most transfers we'd be coming out smelling of roses.

I don't understand why people subtract Mkhis wages when working out the Sanchez price.

If we sold Mkhi elsewhere for say 35m and bought Sanchez for 35m you then wouldn't subtract Mkhis wages so no need to do it here either.
 

InfiniteBoredom

Full Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2013
Messages
13,548
Location
Melbourne
You need to add the transfer fee. Mkhi with 3 years remaining on his contract would have gone for at least 40m in the summer under the current market conditions.

Also, all those are young players with a resale value. Don't think Sanchez would have much value when his contract finishes.
We bought him for 28m and he wasnt exactly a roaring success here, putting it kindly. He's also 29 year old. Who would pay 40m for him come the summer?

The 35m valuation with Arsenal if anything was a great deal for us.
 

Raees

Pythagoras in Boots
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
29,464
Pogba is not on 200k pre tax. He's on 290k all in.

Also where did you get 15M agent fee?
Like I said in the OP, if you can get better sources for figures and post links in this thread.. I'll keep updating the OP as we go along until we get accurate figures.
 

DdeGoat

New Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
468
We bought him for 28m and he wasnt exactly a roaring success here, putting it kindly. He's also 29 year old. Who would pay 40m for him come the summer?

The 35m valuation with Arsenal if anything was a great deal for us.
So the OP needs to add at least 35m to the above. We bartered for Sanchez, Arsenal didn't give him to us for a free.
 

M Bison

Full Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
6,795
Location
In the Wilderness
Supports
York City
Even at twice the total cost, its an absolute bargain. Fantastic player who also helped us get rid of that waste of space from Armenia.
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
36,514
You need to add the transfer fee. Mkhi with 3 years remaining on his contract would have gone for at least 40m in the summer under the current market conditions.

Also, all those are young players with a resale value. Don't think Sanchez would have much value when his contract finishes.
Player who didn't even enter the pitch in 9 out of last 13 games won't be sold for 40 Million. He is also 29 years old, I don't see any team paying 40 Million for him.

As it is we have done excellent job in swapping him with Sanchez, so doesn't matter how much Sanchez cost in transfer fee and we don't have to worry about offloading Mkhitaryan in the summer.
 

DdeGoat

New Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
468
Player who didn't even enter the pitch in 9 out of last 13 games won't be sold for 40 Million. He is also 29 years old, I don't see any team paying 40 Million for him.

As it is we have done excellent job in swapping him with Sanchez, so doesn't matter how much Sanchez cost in transfer fee and we don't have to worry about offloading Mkhitaryan in the summer.
Of course it matters as the OP wants to make financial comparisons. Otherwise what is the purpose of this thread?
 

Trigg

aka Trippin_Stoned
Joined
Mar 24, 2004
Messages
5,944
Location
Sowerby Bridge
No that's the market. Form can change quickly. He was accumulating assists like it's his job earlier in the seaosn.
And then didn't do anything for 3 months and was dropped never to be seen again. Silly market or not, I see no way we would have got a min of £40m. It's a moot point now anyway.
 

Interval

Level
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
11,334
Location
Mostly harmless
Someone clearly flunked maths in school. Sanchez at 350k pw adds up to 82mn in wages taking his overall contact to 107mn

The OP uses Essien calculator
 

DdeGoat

New Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
468
And then didn't do anything for 3 months and was dropped never to be seen again. Silly market or not, I see no way we would have got a min of £40m.
Okay, £35m... £30m...£25m..whatever is that amount needs to be added. Sanchez wasn't a gift.
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
36,514
Of course it matters as the OP wants to make financial comparisons. Otherwise what is the purpose of this thread?
I meant in a way that we exchanged played, so doesn't matter what price press puts on each player as it ended up costing 0 in money exchange.

Also it's hard to offload under performing player with huge contract, we don't have to worry about that or even paying him off.
 

Raees

Pythagoras in Boots
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
29,464
How did you get 108m for Sanchez? I calculated and the result is around 82m. The 350k wage is after tax?
Well spotted. Blaming this on my tools. PS is the 350K definitely pre-tax confirmed salary for Sanchez..
 

DdeGoat

New Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
468
I meant in a way that we exchanged played, so doesn't matter what price press puts on each player as it ended up costing 0 in money exchange.

Also it's hard to offload under performing player with huge contract, we don't have to worry about that or even paying him off.
This is a thread on financial comparison for some of the big deals in the last couple of years. We don't have to worry about it or not is not the point here. Do you think Liverpool got Van Dyk for -£65m as they got £140m in this window? This is not a net spend thread. The purpose is to compare the full cost of the deal.

If you are calculating the total financial impact of the deal, then you have to add Mkhi's value and each players resale value. Otherwise this is a pointless exercise.
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
36,514
This is a thread on financial comparison for some of the big deals in the last couple of years. We don't have to worry about it or not is not the point here. Do you think Liverpool got Van Dyk for -£65m as they got £140m in this window? This is not a net spend thread. The purpose is to compare the full cost of the deal.

If you are calculating the total financial impact of the deal, then you have to add Mkhi's value and each players resale value. Otherwise this is a pointless exercise.
So who will decide what Mkhitaryan's cost is?
 

Massive Spanner

Give Mason Mount a chance!
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
27,891
Location
Tool shed
The is pretty bizarre. Saying the fee is Zero makes no sense really. Mkhi clearly had a market value and it should be added on. Without him included we would have both paid a fee and received money for him from another club.
 

Jacko21

Full Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2016
Messages
4,567
Location
Manchester
Michael Jordan was earning £23m a year (in 1997!) for dropping a ball through a hoop.

Lewis Hamilton is earning £40m a year for driving a car around.

Alexis Sanchez will earn £13m a year for kicking a ball around.

It's all relative.

FWIW, I don't care for the fact that footballers salaries are referenced by the week as opposed to yearly. It's an outdated, irrelevant way of looking at things.
 

Norris

Full Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2015
Messages
7,407
Pogba on 200k ? Is that accurate ?

And Dembele on 220k ?? :eek:
He's a teenager ffs.
 

Fluctuation0161

Full Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
8,156
Location
Manchester
If you added signing on fee and agents fee to most transfers we'd be coming out smelling of roses.

I don't understand why people subtract Mkhis wages when working out the Sanchez price.

If we sold Mkhi elsewhere for say 35m and bought Sanchez for 35m you then wouldn't subtract Mkhis wages so no need to do it here either.
But normally the press don’t add players wages to their “transfer fee”. As they are making an exception with Sanchez by moving the goal posts to include wages then you have to take that into account for the swap deal.
 

SirAF

Ageist
Joined
Sep 28, 2003
Messages
37,563
Location
Do none of you understand that Mkhitaryan had a market value, would it have been easier to understand had we sold him to another club and then paid that fee to Arsenal? Also the signing on fee was £20m. Go listen to Duncan Castle’s podcast and he backs up Matt Law’s original claim that Sanchez’s agent asked for the money city were saving this jan compared the last summer to be paid to himself and his client in the form of a greater signing on fee and wages.
Obviously, but Sanchez value in the market would be greater than Mhkitaryan's either way.
 

ZAGREB RED

Guest
It all depends on how you calculate Mkhitaryan's value - in this case it would appear to be £35M which is what Arsenal valued Sanchez at. I'm not sure how much United would have asked for/received for Mkhitaryan if he was being sold in this window and we will never know.
I actually thought that had United paid around £15M for Sanchez plus Mkhitaryan that would have been a decent enough deal from United's POV. A lot depends on how you look at this transfer and there are obviously United's and Arsenal's own aspects on it. Who, if anyone, got the best deal will only be known when you see how the two players perform at their new clubs.
I think most United fans will see it as one of the best attacking talents around just now came in and United swapped him for a player who had been under-performing and needed to move on.
 

SteveW

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
7,194
I think we've done great business but looking at the OP. 1. Mhki's transfer value shouldn't be ignored. 2. All of the other players mentioned are young and will most likely still have huge sell on value at the end of their contracts. Sanchez won't.

That said I still think this is a phenomenal deal for us. Jose's signings have generally been outstanding.
 

Bwuk

Full Member
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
17,281
I really don't care what he cost.

We can comfortably afford it.