Bruno Fernandes Out? | Staying at Man United

Status
Not open for further replies.
You can't blame Bruno for considering the huge money on offer, but if they're only offering £80M, no chance. Saudi have far more money than that.

Didn't they offer double that for Salah with 1 year left on his contract and Liverpool turned them down. Worked out alright for them and Salah has resigned for 2 years at £400K/week.
 
Fleece them for every last penny. That goes for Bruno because he deserves it, and the club because it is the astute thing to do.
 
kanobbk said:
Can anyone in here that's in favour of selling Bruno for £80m, please name 2-3 players that we can bring in with his sale fee, that will either keep us at level par or in fact improve us?

Please, I'd like a good chunk of responses to this, I'm genuinely intrigued. £80m, 2-3 players that keeps us on level terms or improves us. Go. (side note, please at least attempt to refrain from throwing 19-21yr olds into your response) (Oh and remember, you need to account for the most creative* player across the top 5 European leagues leaving, and you are going to replace this)

P.s, this is my last post of the day so I can't respond until tomorrow.

*In terms of chances created, key passes etc.
Click to expand...
If United sell Bruno, they should sign Ederson for the midfield and try to convince Cherki to join and become the main player in the team.
 
I think we'd accept their bid if they pushed it to £100m, and whilst £100m sounds pretty nice, we have a pretty solid track record of pissing large amounts of cash up the wall on dross. I don't trust the club to spend that money wisely. Bruno is far from perfect, and frequently annoying as feck, but he's still our best player. I don't think we're in a position to lose that. Not this summer. Particularly as were also likely to lose Garnacho, and as maligned as he is, he's still one of our most productive players, though I'm more in favour of shipping him out.

It seems like we've spent a decade shipping out players and replacing them with worse players. Its hard to envisage us not doing that again, but I hope I'm wrong.
 
KeanoMagicHat said:
Cunha got 3 more goals and assists than Bruno did last season.
Click to expand...
Just checked, your right. Impressive.

I've not been a fan of Bruno a while, not because he's a poor player, he's a top player.

He just doesn't seem to work in a possession based system, I was hoping he could. The final with 62% completion rate on passing is very poor for a CM or AM if your game is based around passing.

Wishing him all the best in the sun...
 
We reportedly started this summer with a £100m budget, with sales on top. We look likely to sell Rashford, Sancho, Garnacho and might sell Antony - that should be another £130m+ in fees, leaving the club with a rough budget of £230m. That is absolutely fine. I would much rather see that money spent (with Bruno remaining in the side) than gamble away our only top player off the back of a season where we barely avoided being drawn into a genuine relegation battle, for an extra £80m.

19 goals and 18 assists for Bruno this season in all competitions - do you have any faith that Ineos can replace that this summer with £80m? Keep him in the side, and with the £230m budget get a decent striker and a goalscoring #10 (Cunha) for him to create for and our attack will be much stronger next season.
 
MaMa given red said:
Think of it like Moneyball.

We can't find a single player who can perfectly replicate the impact of selling Bruno but we can achieve similar results by combining the strengths of multiple players.

His sale could facilitate a new goalkeeper and striker and a midfielder better suited to the 3-4-3 system.
Click to expand...
We paid 90 million quid for antony.

We paid 70 million quid for rasmus.

The idea that we can uncover gems or create a new squad from a Bruno sale is just wishful thinking.

Selling your club captain, the only world class player in the squad, to raise money is exactly what mid table clubs do. That is what we are becoming, and people are letting their expectations sink as rapidly as the club is.
 
devilish said:
I agree. However it's also rare for someone to accept the first offer as well. Al hillal need a player like yesterday (WC club). Their owner can probably find 10m under the bed
Click to expand...
I'm sure if they really want him United could squeeze out the extra 10m, probably in the form of performance bonusses.
 
SilentWitness said:
I don't think that's a fair comparison as they had a transfer ban.
Click to expand...
That is the point. Even with their limited ability in how they could replace Hazard, Chelsea didn’t collapse the following season.

Alex99 said:
So the two examples you've given saw the selling clubs go backwards the next season?

Spurs also, quite famously, squandered most of the Bale money.

Of the seven players they brought in the summer they sold Bale, four were sold two summers later having done feck all (Paulinho, Soldado, Chiriches and Capoue) and another went the summer after that (Chadli). Eriksen and Lamela were the only ones that came close to being a success, and that's definitely stretching the definition of "success".

The summer after they sold Bale, their most expensive signing was Federico Fazio for just £8 million because the well had very much run dry. They finished 5th.
Click to expand...
Yes the two teams went backwards ever so slightly and qualified for the same European competitions they did when they had Bale and Hazard.

The difference here is we don’t have to compete in Europe and the PL without Bruno. We’ll be playing one game a week. We will be making signings to improve the team anyway especially in attack and I think even if we lose Bruno our attack will be 100% better than it was this season.
 
Fenômeno said:
It's rare to get 80m or above for someone who is about to hit 31, There have actually only been 2 in recent history Ronaldo to Juve and Kane to Bayern (Kane was 30 though). Despite people's protests 80m is reasonable.
Click to expand...
The big difference here is the potential buyers. State-owned KSA teams (a group Al-Hilal is a part of) have a bottomless purse when it comes to marquee signings, even if they try to rectify that image in public. They are also in a hurry. 100m will also have better optics for the United fanbase when it's our clearly best player departing.
 
Nogbadthebad said:
We paid 90 million quid for antony.

We paid 70 million quid for rasmus.

The idea that we can uncover gems or create a new squad from a Bruno sale is just wishful thinking.

Selling your club captain, the only world class player in the squad, to raise money is exactly what mid table clubs do. That is what we are becoming, and people are letting their expectations sink as rapidly as the club is.
Click to expand...

It's a bit different when they're over 30.

Midtable clubs do that when the player is in their prime, mid 20's.

We've had Bruno's best years.
 
We find it incredibly hard to recruit players of sufficient quality, and that's only going to get harder now that we're a bottom third side. Fernandes is one of the obly clear successes of the last 10 years.

Accepting this offer would be a clear sign of an utterly brainless refusal to acknowledge how difficult it is for us to identify and bring in quality players - gambling on spending the fee on players of an equal or better quality than our best player in a decade.

Plus of course all fees we pay will undergo the inflation that comes with everyone knowing we've got money to spend and a huge hole to fill.

Anyone who thinks that a season of pot shots from Cunha shows he is ready to replace what Fernandes brings to the team is delusional
 
80m would get us two shit players. Or 1 shit + overpriced player
That's United way baby.
 
Nogbadthebad said:
We paid 90 million quid for antony.

We paid 70 million quid for rasmus.

The idea that we can uncover gems or create a new squad from a Bruno sale is just wishful thinking.

Selling your club captain, the only world class player in the squad, to raise money is exactly what mid table clubs do. That is what we are becoming, and people are letting their expectations sink as rapidly as the club is.
Click to expand...
Yea we have different people making the recruiting decisions now, and if you never trust them, you continually expect them to do badly then we are defeating ourselves, we just fall apart.

I wouldn't say Bruno is world class, hes been very good but not world class. Big clubs 100 percent sell top aging players when they think its time to move them on, its been a weakness of ours that we either didn't, or couldn't. We won't get a better offer and age wise its the perfect time.
 
On paper it looks great as others have stated but think about this; if you want to sign the sought after players, you'll need to pay them big wages to compensate for no CL football this season (and potentially next as you rebuild). INEOS aren't going to pay those ridiculous wages anymore. This leaves you with £80-100mil to spend on 2-3 punts which may or may not work out. Every team will also know United have money to burn so 3 punts could easily become only 2.
 
BarstoolProphet said:
The big difference here is the potential buyers. State-owned KSA teams (a group Al-Hilal is a part of) have a bottomless purse when it comes to marquee signings, even if they try to rectify that image in public. They are also in a hurry. 100m will also have better optics for the United fanbase when it's our clearly best player departing.
Click to expand...
Sure, if we can squeeze extra money out of it then i'm all for it, i was just making the point that according to the market 80m is reasonable, doesn't mean we shouldn't try for more. Personally, i'm fine with the 80m if it came down to it.
 
Nogbadthebad said:
We paid 90 million quid for antony.

We paid 70 million quid for rasmus.

The idea that we can uncover gems or create a new squad from a Bruno sale is just wishful thinking.

Selling your club captain, the only world class player in the squad, to raise money is exactly what mid table clubs do. That is what we are becoming, and people are letting their expectations sink as rapidly as the club is.
Click to expand...
I mean that was before INEOS. The biggest question mark under INEOS is Ugarte. The rest have made sense profile- and value-wise, even if none of them have been bonafide successes (Mazraoui the closest). The salaries have also been worked on, meaning we could find it easier to flog flops or deadwood both in terms of negotiations and PSR. Then you also have the likes of Heaven, who looks like a good squad player at worse, and he was signed for barely a mill.
 
Fenômeno said:
It's rare to get 80m or above for someone who is about to hit 31, There have actually only been 2 in recent history Ronaldo to Juve and Kane to Bayern (Kane was 30 though). Despite people's protests 80m is reasonable.
Click to expand...

For his impact on our team alone, £80m is nowhere near reasonable.
 
KeanoMagicHat said:
Players over 30 don't go for £100m though, would be lucky to be offered £60m if it was in Europe. It's alright not to want to sell, but it's a fair offer in the market.
Click to expand...
There’s no such thing as don’t want to sell. Even Yoro has a price we would listen to.

For me, £80m is too low, £100m is about acceptable. If they don’t want to offer that then he would be staying.
 
FFS it's so annoying that but for our awful keeper and centre forward (combined cost of £111 million plus extras) we would almost certainly have beaten Spurs last week - which would have given us as much money as this 'transformative' amount that we are being offered to sell our best player.
 
El Jefe said:
That is the point. Even with their limited ability in how they could replace Hazard, Chelsea didn’t collapse the following season.


Yes the two teams went backwards ever so slightly and qualified for the same European competitions they did when they had Bale and Hazard.

The difference here is we don’t have to compete in Europe and the PL without Bruno. We’ll be playing one game a week. We will be making signings to improve the team anyway especially in attack and I think even if we lose Bruno our attack will be 100% better than it was this season.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no guarantee that we'll spend the money on signings that will improve the team.

I'm far less pessimistic than I was about our summer pre-INEOS, but that's just because the slate's been wiped clean. There's basically no evidence to support us getting it right this summer, and I'd rather keep our best player than gamble on us sliding backwards without him because we got it wrong.

We didn't finish in the top six this season. We finished in the bottom six. Sliding even slightly backwards presents a far bigger risk for us than it did for either Chelsea and Spurs when they sold Hazard and Bale.
 
Superunknown said:
Based on what? Where are the goals coming from? Is Onana going to stop leaking them?
Click to expand...
United are already close to signing a player with more goal contributions than Bruno or anyone else in the United team last season. If we believe that the change of the manager and system mid-season also played a role in the performances in the PL, we should expect a big improvement in league performances.
 
If we signed for example Gyokres and Mbeumo with the money it would be worth it. But can't see that happening - the problem is we aren't attractive enough to sign decent replacements, so I don't think we would spend the money well.
 
Fenômeno said:
Who would buy him in Europe for that fee?
Click to expand...
I am not sure 100 percent who needs him, maybe Bayern? Barcelona, RM, PSG, do not need him. I doubt Liverpool would want him or we would sell to them. Inter, Juve? I am not 100 percent of their situation either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.