Thats market value? And no the first official bid was 50+10 euros.
His market value is not above 40m euros
Rasmus Højlund | Signed for United
- Thread starter Zoo
- Start date
- Status
His market value is not above 40m euros
If you compare their numbers in their respective seasons played in Austria's Bundesliga, Šeško has scored a goal per 143 minutes played meanwhile Hojlund's stat is a goal per 173 minutes.Absolutely clueless. You claim Højlund is nothing special, and then go on and suggest Sesko ffs
Šeško was also in the top 10 of the Golden Boy Index for this year. Dont get me wrong, even Šeško is right now to raw to be the leading striker for United, but he has more potential than Hojlund. How each player develops only time will show. I actually think that Ferguson will end up the best of this up and coming generation of strikers, but Brighton wouldnt have sold him to us this year, whereas I think Šeško was definitely obtainable.
We’ll agree to disagree, Isak after all had a goal every 3.3 games during his time in La Liga, and just 9 in 40 for Sweden.
Højlund on the other hand had a goal every 3.5 games in Serie A but a far far superior 6 goals in 6 games for Denmark.
I’m not being harsh on Isak, I’d argue it’s in fact you being incredibly harsh on Højlund, when it’s obvious why both players have attracted a similar fee.
Finally we signed a striker. I just hope he doesn't flop like Martial.
I honestly get the feeling that a few would rather us have an extra 15 million sat in the clubs bank account than having signed a young, promising striker the manager was fecking desperate to sign. Just so they could say we've been "efficient" and "great negotiators" in the market that stick to their guns.
The purpose of the market is to strengthen the manager's hand according to what he and the recruitment team identify, attaining the highest priority targets. That's the primary goal for a club like Manchester United. It's not to scrimp and save and find this supposedly perfect theory of how transfer fees work relative to each other and pay the theoretically perfect amount (which isn't even a fecking thing as each player is a single commodity with uniqueness)
It's just really strange how bent of shape some get over something that's such nothingness and all excitement that you'd think one would get from seeing a new signing is lost.
We are still in the middle of a club sale that was initially planned to be decided by April and without the clarity on the sale we have no idea how much we can actually spend in cash right now and how much we have to commit in future fees.
Getting rid of Woodward is one thing, but achieving anything resembling full stability is not going to happen in a year even if everything goes perfectly.
Pretty sure the managers no1 priority was Kane
Yet we're massively overpaying for yet another gamble of a player after doing the same last season with Antony?
Everyone writing him off already can feck off celebrating his first goal as far as I'm concernedhorrible deal, shame ... for that money you add whatever extra it takes and go get Kane. As far as young prospects go, Hojlund is nothing special, we should have pursued Šeško instead, for that kind of money Leipzig would have sold him (not that either him or Hojlund are worth that sum though)
Sorry, but 10 examples of it working out doesn't counteract hundreds of players where it doesn't work out.
Hojlund has two/three years to improve on Isak’s ‘amazing’ 10 goal season.
Yeah those names will be remembered and hope he sticks it to every single one of you
Good to see the usual suspects are out in force, moaning to their hearts content, shitting up the forum like they tend to do.
Chelsea's initial valuation of Mount was 80m, we went in at 40m and then we met at 55+5m. Guess that doesn't count as negotiating.
Must be sad, only following football to moan about absolutely everything.
Chelsea's initial valuation of Mount was 80m, we went in at 40m and then we met at 55+5m. Guess that doesn't count as negotiating.
True. I’m still fuming at SAF for buying Rooney. 9 goals in 40 games. Absolutely disgrace. And what the hell did we think about when we made Denis Law Britain’s most expensive player in 1962!? You just don’t throw such a fee after a 10 league goals player. Fuming.
Good thing I don't
I have absolutely no problems with Onana, Mount or Amrabat. I can see the benefits including how they'll add to the playstyle ETH wants. Not so with this outlay on Hojlund. He'll have to buck the odds which are overwhelmingly not in his favour. The others have weight behind their signings and much better chances of being successful at Man Utd. Hojlund less than 50% being very generous.
Aye, I’d certainly be happy to place a bet that he beats that before turning 23, probably twice.
Alright c3po
Wayne Rooney at that time is miles better than Hojlund is now, miles
I can accept if he showed the level of talent Rooney or Benzema did when he was at Lyon.
He hasn't, I just hope he does well because he won't get time
We fecked him with the whole Mourinho hire.
nonsense, a player that weak was never destined for the top.
I'll say only this : Antony better cross the ball now!
Before he had the excuse no to do it because we had nobody in the box but now we have
Before he had the excuse no to do it because we had nobody in the box but now we have
I can't believe we've spent 100M on a no name striker who's only scored 9 goals in a shit Italian league!!! We could've signed Kane for the same amount easily!!!! Our club couldn't even understand this simple things!! Stupid club!!!
............
............
PSG got flat out refused because Atalanta knew they had another bidder, who would be willing to pay more, 'us'. Do you think if we were not in the picture, they would have refused the PSG offer that would have tripled their investment in Hojlund in just one season? No chance!
Isak had a breakout season in 2020/2021 and looked to be on the cusp of becoming a really good goalscorer. Again, greater body of work than Hojlund, so you could argue the fee was justified at the time.
Jackson was rated quite highly and there were clubs looking at him but i think what Chelsea paid for him was fair. We overpaid and I'm not just against the fee but the continued trend of us overpaying on practically every transfer. Mount was an overpay considering he was in his last season, we did the same for Martinez and Antony. The only fee we paid that can be considered a good deal was Onana.
So how Hojlund comes with comparable talent to Wayne Rooney.
This is fecking hilarious.
Yes, I didn't think it needed to be pointed out that you don't get the highest priority signing every single time. It's not a video game.
Can we stop comparing with Everton's Rooney? It's a bit silly, and wrong in so many ways.
For this fee I actually would have preferred Ramos or Kolo Muani, lets hope ETH has got this one right
Yeah, I’m not arguing that Højlund won’t outdo Isak! He’s a different player with a different role essentially.
The back and forth was about me claiming that Isak is a more versatile player and has a better first touch, and the other poster disagreeing.
Those things don’t make Isak better than Højlund though and I think a lot of people are getting overly defensive with this.
John O’Shea was a more versatile player than peak RvN, but I know who I’d rather have in my team.
Cashflow issues are going to increase overall fees. The only alternative to that is not buying players until they stop.
And the club (imo correctly) assumed that the problems with signing a cheaper and less suited striker will be bigger than with paying 70m for Højlund.
Then you should also know that the club doesn't have to sign who the manager want when the money doesn't make sense. E.g Antony last season (when the club could have sourced other options)
Absolutely. Keep him another season makes them stronger and if he keeps improving at that rate they’d get even more next Summer.
We had to give them a real reason to sell now, which PsG did not.
Seems like one of those players who will go nuts when he scores a derby goal.
Nah, @simonhch nailed you to the wall and it's killing you.
No the alternative is to seek other players. You don't have to sign cheaper, you could sign more proven though for the same money
And would you have been satisfied with us being chasing him around all summer, enduring Levy's gamesmanship, speculating all summer about will he won't he on a key position and possibly ending up with nothing? Because that's exactly what would have happened, if Kane was doable the club would have pursued him but it seems they learnt their lesson from last summer and moved on pretty swiftly the moment the Kane pursuit showed complications.
I'd be happy with us not signing Mount and signing either Kane or Osimhen instead
He’d just come off a season with 6 la liga goals. His total time in La Liga was a goal every 3.3 games and for Sweden a goal every 10 games.
Hojlund is a goal a game for Denmark and 1 every 3.5 in Serie A.
So no, no a “greater body of work” or remotely on the cusp of becoming a great goalscorer after 6 la liga goals in 2021/22.
It’s clear why both players attracted similar fees.
Atalanta would’ve been expecting another big improvement next season from him, something similar to Isak’s best season. I’d imagine they saw 15 league goals from him which would have been huge for their CL hopes and put his price at the valuation they stuck on him for this transfer.
They had absolutely no incentive to sell for less.
Last edited:
Young Rooney would be worth more than 150m plus easy today.
Be honest Cass, how many full Højlund games have you watched?
- Status