A Look at Goalkeeper Options and Replacing De Gea

[Zed is not dead]

Given all the noise regarding players being unsettled by Maldini’s departure, especially Mike Maignan, we should try an approach for Maignan.

His contract runs until July 2026, but he’s only on c. €3,5m a year. So basically for €15m you can buy his contract.

Given they only bought him for €15m, Milan would probably let him go for a figure around €40-50m, which would be a steal for a keeper of his quality.

It’s all hypothetical but given AC Milan are ultimately owned by a fund, they’ll look at the money before they look at the sporting sense of keeping or selling Maignan.

 

[Zed is not dead]

Pretty conclusive thread highlighting how much he needs replacing. We have the perfect opportunity to simply let him walk out the door because he is out of contract. A serious club would simply say thanks and goodbye. Let's start to be a serious club please....

Not defending De Gea at all, but I’ve read the article and by the same metrics Ederson is also one of the worst keepers in the league, and not that better at sweeping

 

[Tony Clifton]

I want a big imposing presence in net that can sweep and claim crosses but is also extremely confident with the ball at his feet. Meslier has got another dweeby body. As does Raya. Get fecking Costa.

Agreed. Raya just ain't it.

Also, the goalkeeper position is surely the one and only that nowadays requires height for real, isn't it? I'm sure most (if not all) of us agree on that? Transfermarkt lists Raya as 183 cm. Shorter than Pickford, who is 185 cm.

And the image below to support my obvious biased pro-United agenda within the context of getting Raya. The focus was on Kepa, but he got out-conceded by Raya in the metric:

 

[sifi36]

Not defending De Gea at all, but I’ve read the article and by the same metrics Ederson is also one of the worst keepers in the league, and not that better at sweeping

Ederson being an average/below average shot-stopper isn’t in doubt. It becomes less important the fewer shots you face and the goalkeeper can definitely influence shot prevention.

On sweeping, it isn’t normalised for how much possession the team has. A goalkeeper who plays for a team that averages nearly 70% possession is going to have a lot less to do than one who plays in a team averaging 40%, it doesn’t mean they’re bad at the task in question. The same applies to cross claiming. I don’t have the numbers handy, but I’d wager that City probably face half the number of crosses per 90 than someone like Everton.

 

[tombombadil]

There is a phased introduction happening of losses being capped to a certain amount, but it’s unlikely to have much impact as long as our spending spree doesn’t last more than a couple of seasons, when the rules become more stringent.

De Gea is not world class, he’s well below average (and those bargain basement choices) at the majority of what a goalkeeper is tasked with doing, see the OP.

Even if we ignore his monstrous wages, would he be considered as an option if City, Liverpool or Arsenal needed a backup keeper? He’s so far from their starters in strengths and weaknesses that none of them would give a second look and on that basis neither should we.

No, not really. There is a reason we have a reported 100 million budget. No amount of hand waving is gonna wave it away.

And DDG worse than bargain basement? WOW. That's so many levels of exaggeration

Assuming your numbers are even correct or a good reflection of footballing quality, the fact you are not taking the top 2 players on the list is very telling.

Also, DDG is reportedly accepting a wage cut as well for the new contract. So no longer monstrous wages.

Bottom line, even pretending you're 100% correct, our financial situation still hasn't changed. So yeah, it makes more sense to get one GK to challenge DDG. Our multiple time player of the year.

Side note for perspective on your numbers: you are claiming we can sell Henderson (who's not even on your list) for 30 - 40 million and replacing him with a 10 million keeper.

 

[tombombadil]

We are so fecked

Yes, that is more or less my point. We're so financially screwed from years of mismanagement. We have to make compromises this window.

 

[tombombadil]

Pretty conclusive thread highlighting how much he needs replacing. We have the perfect opportunity to simply let him walk out the door because he is out of contract. A serious club would simply say thanks and goodbye. Let's start to be a serious club please....

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Good. So based on your data, at least we've established that he is at least PL level and better than Ederson and not bargain basement .

 

[Ish]

Whatever's happened to Robert Sanchez at Brighton. Seemingly thought he was one to look out for in terms of a "modern keeper" (read good with ball at feet) but then lost out to Steele.

 

[daba]

The clock is ticking on DDG contract...at this rate it wont be a matter of extending him or not...it will be more about re-signing him on a free transfer when nobody else picks him up haha.

My guess is our preference due to budgets/required squad building elsewhere in the squad, is to get a young understudy like Verbruggen in. In which case I assume we’ve given De Gea a hard deadline of when he needs to decide by. Then we will act accordingly:

- De Gea signs, we get someone like Verbruggen
- De Gea doesn’t sign, we get Costa/Onana

Don’t understand why that is our preferred stance. The last couple months of the season should have been the nail in the coffin for De Gea’s future IMO. He’s an icon of the club, but thanks and goodbye.

 

[daba]

Given all the noise regarding players being unsettled by Maldini’s departure, especially Mike Maignan, we should try an approach for Maignan.

His contract runs until July 2026, but he’s only on c. €3,5m a year. So basically for €15m you can buy his contract.

Given they only bought him for €15m, Milan would probably let him go for a figure around €40-50m, which would be a steal for a keeper of his quality.

It’s all hypothetical but given AC Milan are ultimately owned by a fund, they’ll look at the money before they look at the sporting sense of keeping or selling Maignan.

Is it legal to just buy out contracts like that?

Never really considered it, but there must be some red tape (eg. A non-compete clause like normal employment contracts have) stopping a player terminating his own contract and joining another club straight away.

 

[Big Ben Foster]

Is it legal to just buy out contracts like that?

Never really considered it, but there must be some red tape (eg. A non-compete clause like normal employment contracts have) stopping a player terminating his own contract and joining another club straight away.

There's the Webster ruling from 2008, but clubs have operated under a gentleman's agreement to not use it, lest the floodgates open and dramatically shift the balance of power between players and clubs.

 

[sullydnl]

Whatever's happened to Robert Sanchez at Brighton. Seemingly thought he was one to look out for in terms of a "modern keeper" (read good with ball at feet) but then lost out to Steele.

The reason given by De Zerbi is that Steele is better again on the ball than Sanchez. Which would put our weaknesses into context given Sanchez would be an upgrade to our goalkeeper in that regard.

However, Sanchez also generally had a fairly poor season I think.

 

[Red_toad]

Given all the noise regarding players being unsettled by Maldini’s departure, especially Mike Maignan, we should try an approach for Maignan.

His contract runs until July 2026, but he’s only on c. €3,5m a year. So basically for €15m you can buy his contract.

Given they only bought him for €15m, Milan would probably let him go for a figure around €40-50m, which would be a steal for a keeper of his quality.

It’s all hypothetical but given AC Milan are ultimately owned by a fund, they’ll look at the money before they look at the sporting sense of keeping or selling Maignan.

Best keeper in the world for my money this year, been pretty incredible. But I don’t think he’s moving.

 

[Ish]

The reason given by De Zerbi is that Steele is better again on the ball than Sanchez. Which would put our weaknesses into context given Sanchez would be an upgrade to our goalkeeper in that regard.

However, Sanchez also generally had a fairly poor season I think.

Yeah i thought the bolded bit was actually quite scathing when you think about it - unless of course Sanchez has had such a poor season, even his superior kicking game doesn't make up for how shite he's been with the gloves (which i don't recall too much tbf). Would be a decent, cheaper option to compete/surpass DDG if we're constraint by our budget.

 

[sifi36]

No, not really. There is a reason we have a reported 100 million budget. No amount of hand waving is gonna wave it away.

And DDG worse than bargain basement? WOW. That's so many levels of exaggeration

Assuming your numbers are even correct or a good reflection of footballing quality, the fact you are not taking the top 2 players on the list is very telling.

Also, DDG is reportedly accepting a wage cut as well for the new contract. So no longer monstrous wages.

Bottom line, even pretending you're 100% correct, our financial situation still hasn't changed. So yeah, it makes more sense to get one GK to challenge DDG. Our multiple time player of the year.

Side note for perspective on your numbers: you are claiming we can sell Henderson (who's not even on your list) for 30 - 40 million and replacing him with a 10 million keeper.

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/a-l...ir-play-rules-on-man-utd.474688/post-30591054

Read this post. Making 60m in sales allows us to spend 300m on signings from an FFP standpoint. It’s not handwaving, it’s reality. Liquidity is available through our credit facility/new owners.

If De Gea is better than bargain basement, how come he’s worse at claiming crosses, sweeping, long distribution and shot stopping on both the eye test and any statistical analysis. Find me one metric that supports the idea that he’s better than average in those areas. Name one top goalkeeper who isn’t at the top of the list in post #5, where the list excludes goalkeepers with small sample sizes. It’s not exact, and you can argue about whether one should be slightly higher or lower, but it’s close enough. I also made it clear that a personality and visual assessment would be necessary to make a decision.

Rulli moved to Ajax in January and Blaswich is 32, below average at shot stopping and both have a small sample size. If you read the OP, I made it clear this is important and as a result they are both absent from the list in post #5. This means a decision on them cannot be made based on statistical analysis alone.

I addressed his reduced wages in my previous post. Him signing for 200k a week has a significant cost from an FFP standpoint, of 10m a year, that’s the same as signing a player for 50m this summer, our backup goalkeeper should not require this much resource.

Henderson has value due to his long contract and homegrown status plus a positive loan to a PL side. I also said he’ll be sold for 20-30m, not 30-40m. Casteels is older, has a year remaining on his contract and plays for a Wolfsburg side without European football next season. There’s lots of reasons why he’d be cheaper with the potential to be a better backup than Henderson or De Gea.

And if you’re going to bring up his player of the year awards, we might as well sign Sir Bobby to partner Casemiro, seeing as we’re living in the past. Neither De Gea nor Sir Bobby are the players they were, and the game has moved on since either one was considered world class.

 

[tombombadil]

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/a-l...ir-play-rules-on-man-utd.474688/post-30591054

Read this post. Making 60m in sales allows us to spend 300m on signings from an FFP standpoint. It’s not handwaving, it’s reality. Liquidity is available through our credit facility/new owners.

If De Gea is better than bargain basement, how come he’s worse at claiming crosses, sweeping, long distribution and shot stopping on both the eye test and any statistical analysis. Find me one metric that supports the idea that he’s better than average in those areas. Name one top goalkeeper who isn’t at the top of the list in post #5, where the list excludes goalkeepers with small sample sizes. It’s not exact, and you can argue about whether one should be slightly higher or lower, but it’s close enough. I also made it clear that a personality and visual assessment would be necessary to make a decision.

Rulli moved to Ajax in January and Blaswich is 32, below average at shot stopping and both have a small sample size. If you read the OP, I made it clear this is important and as a result they are both absent from the list in post #5. This means a decision on them cannot be made based on statistical analysis alone.

I addressed his reduced wages in my previous post. Him signing for 200k a week has a significant cost from an FFP standpoint, of 10m a year, that’s the same as signing a player for 50m this summer, our backup goalkeeper should not require this much resource.

Henderson has value due to his long contract and homegrown status plus a positive loan to a PL side. I also said he’ll be sold for 20-30m, not 30-40m. Casteels is older, has a year remaining on his contract and plays for a Wolfsburg side without European football next season. There’s lots of reasons why he’d be cheaper with the potential to be a better backup than Henderson or De Gea.

And if you’re going to bring up his player of the year awards, we might as well sign Sir Bobby to partner Casemiro, seeing as we’re living in the past. Neither De Gea nor Sir Bobby are the players they were, and the game has moved on since either one was considered world class.

Sure. When we finally find a buyer at that price for all said players, let me know. Our history of selling players is less than stellar. And we haven't even started about the choice of players to sell. E.g. Should we be selling Mctominay instead of Fred? And that is also assuming what the fella says is correct. E.g. Does the increased transfer budget factor in the increased salary from purchasing new players? If we have to deduct salaries from that amount, then the actual transfer budget is a lot less than that.

Yes, yes, according to your expert analysis, DDG is the worst player in the history of Man Utd. And yet we somehow still finished 3rd and won a minor trophy with him playing almost every game. How many clean sheets did he get along the way, btw? Worst than bottom basement indeed.

I don't care. I don't even care where you pulled these numbers from. I have no time to argue with someone about football statistics on an excel file someone on the internet plucked from god knows where. I also have no time to argue about their interpretation of said statistics. I've said it from the start. You still need to meet FFP. You can rationalize all you want. You'll need to meet FFP and you are arguing for replacing a known second choice keeper with an unknown 3rd choice keeper. Will it work, I don't know. But it is for sure a gamble. Bigger gamble than the alternative I presented. And we still haven't even started on the other positions we need to fill.

 

[sifi36]

Sure. When we finally find a buyer at that price for all said players, let me know. Our history of selling players is less than stellar. And we haven't even started about the choice of players to sell. E.g. Should we be selling Mctominay instead of Fred? And that is also assuming what the fella says is correct. E.g. Does the increased transfer budget factor in the increased salary from purchasing new players? If we have to deduct salaries from that amount, then the actual transfer budget is a lot less than that.

Yes, yes, according to your expert analysis, DDG is the worst player in the history of Man Utd. And yet we somehow still finished 3rd and won a minor trophy with him playing almost every game. How many clean sheets did he get along the way, btw? Worst than bottom basement indeed.

I don't care. I don't even care where you pulled these numbers from. I have no time to argue with someone about football statistics on an excel file someone on the internet plucked from god knows where. I also have no time to argue about their interpretation of said statistics. I've said it from the start. You still need to meet FFP. You can rationalize all you want. You'll need to meet FFP and you are arguing for replacing a known second choice keeper with an unknown 3rd choice keeper. Will it work, I don't know. But it is for sure a gamble. Bigger gamble than the alternative I presented. And we still haven't even started on the other positions we need to fill.

When the premise of the thread is a statistical analysis which you don’t seem to care about, why are you even posting in this thread? Either refute the data (there are limitations which I’ve acknowledged and would be happy to discuss further) or post in another thread about our goalkeeper situation, there’s a few to choose from. The source of the data is Opta via FBREF, which you’d be aware of it you were capable of engaging with the OP at the very least. If you can’t tell me why I’m wrong then I’m not really interested in the unsubstantiated opinions of a pointless character from an overrated children’s novel.

I never said he was the worst goalkeeper ever, I implied in my previous post that he used to be world class but I guess that was too subtle for you, especially when you misrepresent my argument with a childish hyperbole.

 

[tombombadil]

When the premise of the thread is a statistical analysis which you don’t seem to care about, why are you even posting in this thread? Either refute the data (there are limitations which I’ve acknowledged and would be happy to discuss further) or post in another thread about our goalkeeper situation, there’s a few to choose from. The source of the data is Opta via FBREF, which you’d be aware of it you were capable of engaging with the OP at the very least. If you can’t tell me why I’m wrong then I’m not really interested in the unsubstantiated opinions of a pointless character from a an overrated children’s novel.

I never said he was the worst goalkeeper ever, I implied in my previous post that he used to be world class but I guess that was too subtle for you, especially when you then misrepresent my argument with a childish hyperbole.

I've told you why I disagree with you on multiple issues. I'm just not interested in arguing about the stats because I haven't the time to analyse it. I do agree that DDG is declining btw. It's normal for any footballer to decline as they age. I just don't think he is shite. Not yet anyways. Definitely not worse than bargain basement. Which is hyperbole on your part.

The thread title literally says goalkeeper options and replacing DDG. I've stated my case and given my reasons for it. It's not practical to replace both Henderson and DDG at the same time considering our constraints. It makes more sense to spread it out. Replace Henderson with someone who hopefully can challenge DDG this season. Hopefully this player can replace him by the end of the season. And then find another younger keeper over the next few years and DDG can retire at the end of his contract. Safer choice and allows us more room for other players this season.

And I'll have you know Tom Bombadil is not a pointless character in an overrated children's novel. He's a pointless character in an adult novel. *storms to bedroom*

 

[King Azaz the Unabridged]

I'm just not interested in arguing about the stats because I haven't the time to analyse it.

More like you clearly don't understand it. Which is clear from the woeful attempts you have made to try and dismiss what the OP is saying, and also the fact that you're still banging the "proven world class shot stopper" drum a few posts earlier

It's actually quite mad at this point. The guy's put effort into putting together an incredibly detailed opening post, engaged with pretty much everyone in an extremely patient manner, and 6 pages into the topic we're still getting the emotionally charged posters working themselves up into saying "no you're wrong and your data is shite and I can't be bothered to tell you why, I'm just going to ignore half the stuff you say and distort your entire argument into saying De Gea is the worst footballer in history so I can feel good about myself for putting you DOWN!"

 

[GwilDor]

I admire your patience @sifi36, i doubt i could restrain myself and continue with well-informed and to-the-point replies the way you have. TBH tombombadil, sifi36 has argued his case with understandable stats and points, whilst your arguments, to me, seem to be only trying to highlight the weaknesses of a statistical analysis you don´t have the time to understand completely, and a fear of change. I for one stand wholly behind your approach sifi, with us going for keepers who fit our style of play. And, as you have pointed out, that is also likely to support our financial position with regards to FFP.

 

[tombombadil]

More like you clearly don't understand it. Which is clear from the woeful attempts you have made to try and dismiss what the OP is saying, and also the fact that you're still banging the "proven world class shot stopper" drum a few posts earlier

It's actually quite mad at this point. The guy's put effort into putting together an incredibly detailed opening post, engaged with pretty much everyone in an extremely patient manner, and 6 pages into the topic we're still getting the emotionally charged posters working themselves up into saying "no you're wrong and your data is shite and I can't be bothered to tell you why, I'm just going to ignore half the stuff you say and distort your entire argument into saying De Gea is the worst footballer in history so I can feel good about myself for putting you DOWN!"

And still we finished 3rd with DDG playing almost every game and how many clean sheets did he get?

If you bothered to understand my point from the beginning, I am not arguing against his statistical analysis or choice of players. I am arguing against replacing 2 players at the same time due to our financial constraints and against calling DDG a worse than bargain basement player.

I admire your patience @sifi36, i doubt i could restrain myself and continue with well-informed and to-the-point replies the way you have. TBH tombombadil, sifi36 has argued his case with understandable stats and points, whilst your arguments, to me, seem to be only trying to highlight the weaknesses of a statistical analysis you don´t have the time to understand completely, and a fear of change. I for one stand wholly behind your approach sifi, with us going for keepers who fit our style of play. And, as you have pointed out, that is also likely to support our financial position with regards to FFP.

Please read above. I do champion data driven analysis btw. Cause in the old days, I was the one throwing statistics at people who claimed Michael Carrick can't pass. I just don't have the time to analyse what he posted, gauge the source, his interpretation of the data, what is on the ball comfort? etc etc etc because that is not my point. I am arguing something totally not related to that.

 

[samlee86]

Can you please do one for Mason Mount and send it to ETH

 

[King Azaz the Unabridged]

And still we finished 3rd with DDG playing almost every game and how many clean sheets did he get?

This isn't really as strong a point as you seem to think it is, compared against the literal dozen individual metrics that tell you De Gea is average at best.

Clean sheets are a collective stat. We're one of the best teams in the league, we have some of the best defenders in the league. We're likely to win games and keep clean sheets even with a mediocre keeper - just like when Roy Carroll managed to blag 15 clean sheets in 05, only 2 fewer than De Gea managed this season (and Carroll only played 26 league games. If you want to add in the 4 that Howard managed, the pair of them kept more clean sheets that season than De Gea's ever managed for us, including the entire spell where he was one of the best in the world).

And still we finished 3rd with DDG playing almost every game and how many clean sheets did he get?

If you bothered to understand my point from the beginning, I am not arguing against his statistical analysis or choice of players. I am arguing against replacing 2 players at the same time due to our financial constraints and against calling DDG a worse than bargain basement player.

One, you clearly are trying to argue against his statistical analysis or choice of players, you're just doing a poor job because you're attempting to dismiss his well-laid-out arguments while providing no substance of your own. As seen by that attempted gotcha of asking him why he's not considering Rulli and Blaswich if they ranked so high in the opening post. You tried the same Twitter-tier shutdown to TrueRed79 (who, ironically enough, posted a Twitter thread ) where your takeaway from all of the information posted was somehow that De Gea is better than Ederson.

Two, the OP responded to your claim that we can't replace both goalkeepers at once with a detailed argument as usual, and your response to nearly all of it can be summed up as "you don't know if any of these claims you're making are true". Why even bother engaging?

Three, anyone following the thread can see the "bargain basement" comment you're still hung up on is very clearly a claim that you made to dismiss a player the other poster cited as a potential replacement - he presented data and reasoning to make his case, and you dismissed it (might be seeing a trend here...) by zeroing in on the price of the player, somehow managing to do this in the same post as calling De Gea a "proven world class shot stopper" - in a thread that makes such a compelling case against this idea that it should really be stickied at the top of the forum until people stop throwing it out there in the face of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

[tombombadil]

This isn't really as strong a point as you seem to think it is, compared against the literal dozen individual metrics that tell you De Gea is average at best.

Clean sheets are a collective stat. We're one of the best teams in the league, we have some of the best defenders in the league. We're likely to win games and keep clean sheets even with a mediocre keeper - just like when Roy Carroll managed to blag 15 clean sheets in 05, only 2 fewer than De Gea managed this season (and Carroll only played 26 league games. If you want to add in the 4 that Howard managed, the pair of them kept more clean sheets that season than De Gea's ever managed for us, including the entire spell where he was one of the best in the world).



One, you clearly are trying to argue against his statistical analysis or choice of players, you're just doing a poor job because you're attempting to dismiss his well-laid-out arguments while providing no substance of your own. As seen by that attempted gotcha of asking him why he's not considering Rulli and Blaswich if they ranked so high in the opening post. You tried the same Twitter-tier shutdown to TrueRed79 (who, ironically enough, posted a Twitter thread ) where your takeaway from all of the information posted was somehow that De Gea is better than Ederson.

Two, the OP responded to your claim that we can't replace both goalkeepers at once with a detailed argument as usual, and your response to nearly all of it can be summed up as "you don't know if any of these claims you're making are true". Why even bother engaging?

Three, anyone following the thread can see the "bargain basement" comment you're still hung up on is very clearly a claim that you made to dismiss a player the other poster cited as a potential replacement - he presented data and reasoning to make his case, and you dismissed it (might be seeing a trend here...) by zeroing in on the price of the player, somehow managing to do this in the same post as calling De Gea a "proven world class shot stopper" - in a thread that makes such a compelling case against this idea that it should really be stickied at the top of the forum until people stop throwing it out there in the face of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I addressed his statistical analysis due to him claiming DDG is worse than bargain basement keeper. Reread again. Also I said DDG is better than Ederson because the statistics someone posted ranked Ederson lower than DDG for shot stopping. I added a smiley for safe measure. So you can calm your tits now. The main point was DDG was PL level and not bargain basement.

And I have literally addressed his claims about FFP. It's built on a house of cards of assumptions. And even if we did accept them, still does not address the concern of FFP.

And bargain basement term I used was to compare 50 million GK vs 10 million GK. With Henderson, a 2nd choice GK, as benchmark that he claimed was 20 - 30 million.

And again, I'm not even arguing these definitions. I don't care about them. Cause if you actually read my posts, I accepted his posts and it still doesn't get us to managing the FFP constraints we have. We have a first choice striker, first choice midfielder, first choice centerback and goalkeeper to fill. Some may argue we have even more positions to fill than that. It's going to be a huge challenge to try and fit all that. Just two of those players could arguably get us to 100 million already. Which would you prioritize? 2 GKs? I know I wouldn't.

I've been repeating myself multiple times at this point. I'm done for now. Goodnight,

 

[GwilDor]

I´m not quoting the previous post, as to not bring someone back from bed. Wish you the best of night tombombadil. Been busy putting my own kids to bed and doing chores around the house for a bit. But, if you should come back and read this at a later time, please note;
Several of us say that Sifu36 has indeed answered your reservations regarding the statistics and analysis provided, and also admitted it has its limitations, as well as what they are. He has answered your reservations with regards to FFP, with very reasonable valuations of both our own players(Henderson transfer sum by using rumoured transfer sums) and to my understandings the mentioned possible targets transfer value. The MAIN point with regards to FFP though, is that our current GK´s have an unreasonably high wage. Even if you take into consideration that DDG would sign a new contract with a strongly reduced wage (one of those assumptions you dislike, here with the margins in your favour), the wages would still be considerably higher, than a newly signed GK with the prospect of being #2. The difference in wages affects our FFP directly. More so than a relatively small transfer fee. Again, this was explained to you in a previous post. Sifu even detailed out (admittedly using those assumptions you dislike) how this sums out in the end with regards to our FFP (but if you want to make your own assumptions for transfer fees or wages, feel free to use those in a counterargument).

Now, to finish off, you say you think its to much of a change to change both Henderson and DDG in one summer. The FFP reservations were answered by me above, and more detailed by Sifu in an earlier reply to you.
If you´re thinking more in a squad stability sense that it is a bad plan to change 2 GK´s in one window, we´ll simply have to disagree. That reservation has also been adressed before, simply we think that it is WAY more important to have GK´s fitting the team style of play, than having stability in the squad per se.

Lets thank DDG for his service over the years. Especially for the years he was our saviour, putting himself in the «best GK in the world» discussion. But its time to move on.

 

[sifi36]

Thank you both for reiterating what I’m trying to convey and doing so in a cogent manner.

A couple of things to add. The first is the rumoured 100 million budget is nonsense. It was the same thing last summer and we spent more than double that.

We have saleable assets this summer, with specific clubs linked - McTominay to Newcastle, Henderson to Forest, Fred to Fulham and Maguire to Spurs/West Ham. Unlike previous windows, our deadwood actually have potential Premier League takers and as such we will be raising a decent amount (at least 50m) from sales. I guess we’ll see how that goes. The maths and the rules around this from an FFP standpoint are pretty clear. Doing so would allow us to spend at least what we did last summer.

Secondly, if one accepts a starting goalkeeper is to be brought in, extending De Gea is worse than signing a backup from an FFP standpoint. His annual wages exceed the wages and amortised transfer fee of any reasonable candidate for backup. We could sign someone for 20m and put them on a 100k weekly salary (4m amortisation and 5m in salary) and it would still be less than the rumoured terms of De Gea’s extension, 200k a week, or 10m a year from an FFP standpoint. Signing a backup goalkeeper on these terms is unnecessary but it demonstrates the foolishness of extending De Gea from a financial standpoint.

It would also make negotiating terms with a new goalkeeper harder. How do you tell Costa he’s getting 150k a week (the same as Alisson who is probably the second highest paid goalkeeper in the world) when the guy he’s supposed to be replacing is on a third more?

Finally, how is the team’s play style supposed to evolve if we’re flitting between a goalkeeper who plays the game we want to and another who’s incapable of it?

 

[jesperjaap]

My guess is our preference due to budgets/required squad building elsewhere in the squad, is to get a young understudy like Verbruggen in. In which case I assume we’ve given De Gea a hard deadline of when he needs to decide by. Then we will act accordingly:

- De Gea signs, we get someone like Verbruggen
- De Gea doesn’t sign, we get Costa/Onana

Don’t understand why that is our preferred stance. The last couple months of the season should have been the nail in the coffin for De Gea’s future IMO. He’s an icon of the club, but thanks and goodbye.

Dont think that would be our stance at all. Regardless of whether DeGea stays or goes, we have to sign a second choice keeper regarldess of whether that is young or experienced as we are selling Henderson. That second choice keeper could an dshould be a negative spend.

Think the stance is simply with what we are looking to do this summer, do we have the time and resources AND budget to go and sign two keepers this summer. Ten Hag has already said DeGea has to know he isnt guranteed to be first choice next season.....so none of us know the stance but my presumtion is more a case of our deciosion is whether the two parties can come to an agreement on what will be a reduced salary and the length of contract, and talks sound pretty advanced....think we only look for a replacement if Degeas demands and our offer doesnt match and cant be areed on

 

[Tango80]

Yeah I think the numbers have to work for us to bring in a new keeper. Getting a top range one this summer doesn't quite work - we simply don't have the wiggle room to do it.

I believe ETH would get a new keeper IF he was given a blank cheque. But at the same time, he's looking at other areas and thinking we don't have a forward that plays his style of football, or we don't have that midfielder that plays his style etc etc. The crux of it is he's taken a look at our team and gone

we keep a lot of clean sheets
We don't score enough goals
Eriksen can't start as many games as he has

And hence why he's decided on the priorities that he has.

 

[daba]

Dont think that would be our stance at all. Regardless of whether DeGea stays or goes, we have to sign a second choice keeper regarldess of whether that is young or experienced as we are selling Henderson. That second choice keeper could an dshould be a negative spend.

Think the stance is simply with what we are looking to do this summer, do we have the time and resources AND budget to go and sign two keepers this summer. Ten Hag has already said DeGea has to know he isnt guranteed to be first choice next season.....so none of us know the stance but my presumtion is more a case of our deciosion is whether the two parties can come to an agreement on what will be a reduced salary and the length of contract, and talks sound pretty advanced....think we only look for a replacement if Degeas demands and our offer doesnt match and cant be areed on

Don’t think what you’ve said there is much different to what I’ve said above to be honest. So it’s a bit of a strange reply.

I think your “presumption” about the reduced salary and length of contract is pretty universally accepted as the case and Ten Hag himself has essentially implied that in his own interviews. Hardly rocket science.

Anyway, it’s pretty obvious that our preferred option is for him to re-sign and that is, as you rightly said, because they are looking to manage the budget and ideally make this a positive net spend situation. Probably so we can make an extra signing elsewhere in the squad for depth.

I expect we’ve offered him a contract that is probably the same salary we would be offering someone like Costa (anything between £100-150k, which is market rate for a top prem/CL club) and have been very transparent with De Gea about our intentions to sign a younger keeper this summer to compete with him.This way we sell Henderson for £25-30m and sign someone like Verbruggen for £15-20m, making a £10m net profit of the situation.

If De Gea doesn’t sign we would likely have to splash out more in this area on a Costa or Onana, and either promote Kovar to second choice or get a Dubravka/Butland-type on a free or loan again. So with Henderson going we’re looking at between a £10-30m net spend in this scenario.

My view is that it is the wrong decision as De Gea’s presence will continue to limit and restrict our play.

That being said, I would love to be proven wrong and see a Verbruggen surprise everyone and take the mantle from De Gea pretty quickly, meaning we’ve sorted the GK position out for 1/3 of the price of Onana/Costa AND then managed add another addition to the team this summer.

P.S. sorry for the sass at the start.

 

[lex talionis]

Yeah I think the numbers have to work for us to bring in a new keeper. Getting a top range one this summer doesn't quite work - we simply don't have the wiggle room to do it.

I believe ETH would get a new keeper IF he was given a blank cheque. But at the same time, he's looking at other areas and thinking we don't have a forward that plays his style of football, or we don't have that midfielder that plays his style etc etc. The crux of it is he's taken a look at our team and gone

we keep a lot of clean sheets
We don't score enough goals
Eriksen can't start as many games as he has

And hence why he's decided on the priorities that he has.

You need to post more often, Tango.

We all want to bring in one of the greatest keepers in the world (so we can get rid of De Gea), but to do so it would cost us at least 75m. If we had unlimited funds, then it's a no-brainer to spend that kind of money. But there is no reason to believe that we'll have unlimited funds, or even 400m, or even 300m. Maybe we'll have 200m to spend...maybe.

I have read more than a few posts here directly blaming De Gea for our poor finishing this season. But if it is true that De Gea is to blame the poor play of Martial, Antony, Sancho and -- hey, why not? -- Maguire and McTominay (after all, De Gea was flogged here for Maguire's mishandling of the pass from De Gea v Sevilla), then of course we must spend whatever it takes to bring in a top keeper so that we get rid of De Gea once and for all.

 

[tombombadil]

I´m not quoting the previous post, as to not bring someone back from bed. Wish you the best of night tombombadil. Been busy putting my own kids to bed and doing chores around the house for a bit. But, if you should come back and read this at a later time, please note;
Several of us say that Sifu36 has indeed answered your reservations regarding the statistics and analysis provided, and also admitted it has its limitations, as well as what they are. He has answered your reservations with regards to FFP, with very reasonable valuations of both our own players(Henderson transfer sum by using rumoured transfer sums) and to my understandings the mentioned possible targets transfer value. The MAIN point with regards to FFP though, is that our current GK´s have an unreasonably high wage. Even if you take into consideration that DDG would sign a new contract with a strongly reduced wage (one of those assumptions you dislike, here with the margins in your favour), the wages would still be considerably higher, than a newly signed GK with the prospect of being #2. The difference in wages affects our FFP directly. More so than a relatively small transfer fee. Again, this was explained to you in a previous post. Sifu even detailed out (admittedly using those assumptions you dislike) how this sums out in the end with regards to our FFP (but if you want to make your own assumptions for transfer fees or wages, feel free to use those in a counterargument).

Now, to finish off, you say you think its to much of a change to change both Henderson and DDG in one summer. The FFP reservations were answered by me above, and more detailed by Sifu in an earlier reply to you.
If you´re thinking more in a squad stability sense that it is a bad plan to change 2 GK´s in one window, we´ll simply have to disagree. That reservation has also been adressed before, simply we think that it is WAY more important to have GK´s fitting the team style of play, than having stability in the squad per se.

Lets thank DDG for his service over the years. Especially for the years he was our saviour, putting himself in the «best GK in the world» discussion. But its time to move on.

Why thank you for being considerate.

Regarding FFP, no it has not been addressed because other than "we will somehow sell all the players at the price that we want, and that will somehow fit at least 5 players into our transfer budget." That just means more assumptions. We hear that story literally every season.

As for changing both keepers at the same time, if you insist that is a good idea, especially when considering we have at least 3 other first choice positions to fill, when we already have a proven GK on the bench already, then you obviously haven't learned a thing from the Chelsea debacle last season. Will just have to agree to disagree.

Thank you both for reiterating what I’m trying to convey and doing so in a cogent manner.

A couple of things to add. The first is the rumoured 100 million budget is nonsense. It was the same thing last summer and we spent more than double that.

We have saleable assets this summer, with specific clubs linked - McTominay to Newcastle, Henderson to Forest, Fred to Fulham and Maguire to Spurs/West Ham. Unlike previous windows, our deadwood actually have potential Premier League takers and as such we will be raising a decent amount (at least 50m) from sales. I guess we’ll see how that goes. The maths and the rules around this from an FFP standpoint are pretty clear. Doing so would allow us to spend at least what we did last summer.

Secondly, if one accepts a starting goalkeeper is to be brought in, extending De Gea is worse than signing a backup from an FFP standpoint. His annual wages exceed the wages and amortised transfer fee of any reasonable candidate for backup. We could sign someone for 20m and put them on a 100k weekly salary (4m amortisation and 5m in salary) and it would still be less than the rumoured terms of De Gea’s extension, 200k a week, or 10m a year from an FFP standpoint. Signing a backup goalkeeper on these terms is unnecessary but it demonstrates the foolishness of extending De Gea from a financial standpoint.

It would also make negotiating terms with a new goalkeeper harder. How do you tell Costa he’s getting 150k a week (the same as Alisson who is probably the second highest paid goalkeeper in the world) when the guy he’s supposed to be replacing is on a third more?

Finally, how is the team’s play style supposed to evolve if we’re flitting between a goalkeeper who plays the game we want to and another who’s incapable of it?

If calling rumored transfer budget of 100m nonsense is acceptable, then I can also call the rumored DDG contract 200k per week nonsense and it'll be less.

If all the stars align for you, then sure I can accept your proposition. But, like I said, it is a large sequence of assumptions. And even then, we gotta hope not only do the numbers fit, but both players are good and the drop off from first choice to second choice is not big.

As I said before, it's not a matter of what we want or don't want. It is a matter of if we can or cannot. I don't necessarily dislike your idea or choice of player. Heck I might even support Costa to replace Henderson and challenge DDG. The question is whether we can make 2 GK fit in one season. And even if we make it fit, will both GKs work? Will they have elite mentality, especially the cheaper keeper? So why do it over one season? Why make things more difficult? Why take so many risks knowing we still have at least 3 huge slots to fill elsewhere and a proven GK sitting on the bench already? If Costa is as good as you claim, he'll be playing most of the time anyways. DDG will be sidelined within a month or two. So why take the risk? Why not spread it over 2 to 3 seasons?

 

[cybertej29]

Were De Gea's metrics any better during those years when he was considered the best keeper in the league, probably the world? That would probably validate the importance of these stats.

 

[sifi36]

Why thank you for being considerate.

Regarding FFP, no it has not been addressed because other than "we will somehow sell all the players at the price that we want, and that will somehow fit at least 5 players into our transfer budget." That just means more assumptions. We hear that story literally every season.

As for changing both keepers at the same time, if you insist that is a good idea, especially when considering we have at least 3 other first choice positions to fill, when we already have a proven GK on the bench already, then you obviously haven't learned a thing from the Chelsea debacle last season. Will just have to agree to disagree.


If calling rumored transfer budget of 100m nonsense is acceptable, then I can also call the rumored DDG contract 200k per week nonsense and it'll be less.

If all the stars align for you, then sure I can accept your proposition. But, like I said, it is a large sequence of assumptions. And even then, we gotta hope not only do the numbers fit, but both players are good and the drop off from first choice to second choice is not big.

As I said before, it's not a matter of what we want or don't want. It is a matter of if we can or cannot. I don't necessarily dislike your idea or choice of player. Heck I might even support Costa to replace Henderson and challenge DDG. The question is whether we can make 2 GK fit in one season. And even if we make it fit, will both GKs work? Will they have elite mentality, especially the cheaper keeper? So why do it over one season? Why make things more difficult? Why take so many risks knowing we still have at least 3 huge slots to fill elsewhere and a proven GK sitting on the bench already? If Costa is as good as you claim, he'll be playing most of the time anyways. DDG will be sidelined within a month or two. So why take the risk? Why not spread it over 2 to 3 seasons?

I think our fundamental disagreement lies on your belief that De Gea is proven and mine that he has regressed badly and is also wholly unsuited to the way we want to play.

If the reason to replace him is to transform our style of play, keeping him as backup would see our playing style regress every time he’s brought back in, either due to a lack of form for the new guy or cup rotation. Having a like-for-like backup allows us to maintain our growth towards the goal (to increase our control over games) in either of the two scenarios that result in the new starting goalkeeper not playing.

I also can’t agree with the point that a new keeper may not handle the pressure of playing for United well and as a result might make mistakes and it is for this reason that De Gea should be kept around to be able to step back in. De Gea is already failing to clear that bar judging by the number of errors he’s made over the last few years and in particular this season. A new backup and starter would at worst make errors like De Gea is doing already so the risk is low.

 

[jesperjaap]

Don’t think what you’ve said there is much different to what I’ve said above to be honest. So it’s a bit of a strange reply.

I think your “presumption” about the reduced salary and length of contract is pretty universally accepted as the case and Ten Hag himself has essentially implied that in his own interviews. Hardly rocket science.

Anyway, it’s pretty obvious that our preferred option is for him to re-sign and that is, as you rightly said, because they are looking to manage the budget and ideally make this a positive net spend situation. Probably so we can make an extra signing elsewhere in the squad for depth.

I expect we’ve offered him a contract that is probably the same salary we would be offering someone like Costa (anything between £100-150k, which is market rate for a top prem/CL club) and have been very transparent with De Gea about our intentions to sign a younger keeper this summer to compete with him.This way we sell Henderson for £25-30m and sign someone like Verbruggen for £15-20m, making a £10m net profit of the situation.

If De Gea doesn’t sign we would likely have to splash out more in this area on a Costa or Onana, and either promote Kovar to second choice or get a Dubravka/Butland-type on a free or loan again. So with Henderson going we’re looking at between a £10-30m net spend in this scenario.

My view is that it is the wrong decision as De Gea’s presence will continue to limit and restrict our play.

That being said, I would love to be proven wrong and see a Verbruggen surprise everyone and take the mantle from De Gea pretty quickly, meaning we’ve sorted the GK position out for 1/3 of the price of Onana/Costa AND then managed add another addition to the team this summer.

P.S. sorry for the sass at the start.

Yes sorry I read your post wrong. Read i as we sign one keeper a big one if he leaves and not so big if he stays. It seems a lot of people feeling if eh goes we sign Costa and that is the situation solved when we would need a second signing, thougth you were saying similar

 

[GwilDor]

Why thank you for being considerate.

Regarding FFP, no it has not been addressed because other than "we will somehow sell all the players at the price that we want, and that will somehow fit at least 5 players into our transfer budget." That just means more assumptions. We hear that story literally every season.

As for changing both keepers at the same time, if you insist that is a good idea, especially when considering we have at least 3 other first choice positions to fill, when we already have a proven GK on the bench already, then you obviously haven't learned a thing from the Chelsea debacle last season. Will just have to agree to disagree.

like Sifu also said in his reply, i think the main reason of our differing viewpoints is that you largely consider DDG fit to be our #1 keeper, while we don’t. That along with your argument that it is more important to have «a known quantity» as a part of our GK squad, than the GK’s to both suit our style of play. Like you say, i think we’ll have to agree to disagree, which of course is fine. Will be interesting to see, regardless, what we end up doing in the GK position over the summer.

 

[ROFLUTION]

God, Goalkeeper stats are really mindbending sometimes.

While I do think we should replace De Gea then statements backed by stats about how he's mediocre at shotstopping and no longer elite are also a bit meh for me. He had 17 clean sheets so you could also just look at that output and bend it that way. Not saying any of them are better than the other, just that stats can only tell that much.

Or with Maignan you can find plenty of interesting stats, but then again - they're all from fecking Serie A where Zlatan could keep up with the pace by walking.

Some common sense and a lot of eye-test / scouting is required by our transfer-team. A lot of people also wanted Sanchez for a good while, and then came in Steele who's much better with his feet.

 

[daba]

Yes sorry I read your post wrong. Read i as we sign one keeper a big one if he leaves and not so big if he stays. It seems a lot of people feeling if eh goes we sign Costa and that is the situation solved when we would need a second signing, thougth you were saying similar

Aye, all is forgiven

 

[sifi36]

God, Goalkeeper stats are really mindbending sometimes.

While I do think we should replace De Gea then statements backed by stats about how he's mediocre at shotstopping and no longer elite are also a bit meh for me. He had 17 clean sheets so you could also just look at that output and bend it that way. Not saying any of them are better than the other, just that stats can only tell that much.

Or with Maignan you can find plenty of interesting stats, but then again - they're all from fecking Serie A where Zlatan could keep up with the pace by walking.

Some common sense and a lot of eye-test / scouting is required by our transfer-team. A lot of people also wanted Sanchez for a good while, and then came in Steele who's much better with his feet.

The clean sheets argument again. As mentioned earlier in the thread by @King Azaz the Unabridged , in 2005 we kept 19 clean sheets with a combination of Carrol and Howard, both of whom were deemed to not be good enough. Ederson has more golden gloves than De Gea and in half the time, is he a better shot-stopper than De Gea?

Preventing shots is way more important for goals conceded and thus clean sheets than a goalkeeper's shot-stopping ability. The old adage that "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take" has a counterpoint for defensive players: "you save 100% of the shots the opposition doesn't take"

In the 17 games we kept clean sheets:

• Averaged 2.59 shots on target faced
• Had 12 games where Dave had to make 3 saves or fewer
• Gave up 0.46 post-shot xG on average with 9 being 0.5 or below. This implies that an average goalkeeper would keep a clean sheet more than half the time in those 9 fixtures. In these games it was the defence that kept the clean sheet, not the goalkeeper.
• The only game we gave up more than one post-shot xG and still kept a clean sheet is the Leicester home game, where he pulled out the save of the season in my opinion as well as one other very good one. This is the one game I would say he earned a clean sheet that the defence did not deserve. He did this three times in 2017-18 by the way, back when he was still elite.
• That leaves 7 clean sheets where he faced post-shot xG of between 0.5 and 1, these are a joint effort between the goalkeeper and the defence

In the remaining 21 games:

• Averaged 4.67 shots on target against, so getting on for double
• Dave made around the same number of saves as he did in the clean sheets

A team that prevents shots will concede fewer goals and have more clean sheets than a team that concedes more with a better goalkeeper.

 

[tombombadil]

I think our fundamental disagreement lies on your belief that De Gea is proven and mine that he has regressed badly and is also wholly unsuited to the way we want to play.

If the reason to replace him is to transform our style of play, keeping him as backup would see our playing style regress every time he’s brought back in, either due to a lack of form for the new guy or cup rotation. Having a like-for-like backup allows us to maintain our growth towards the goal (to increase our control over games) in either of the two scenarios that result in the new starting goalkeeper not playing.

I also can’t agree with the point that a new keeper may not handle the pressure of playing for United well and as a result might make mistakes and it is for this reason that De Gea should be kept around to be able to step back in. De Gea is already failing to clear that bar judging by the number of errors he’s made over the last few years and in particular this season. A new backup and starter would at worst make errors like De Gea is doing already so the risk is low.

Yes, I think one of the main things we differ on is that I think DDG is proven. Whereas you dont think he is good enough to even be a backup keeper due to concerns about affecting the team cohesion/style of play. I obviously disagree with that, because i think if he can do a job last season as first choice, he can do a job next season at least as back up.

You are also far more aggressive and willing to revamp everything while I am more conservative and pragmatic and would rather prioritize key areas and play things safer. If you think DDG is error prone, you need to watch the era before Edwin van der Sar. That batch of keepers were special. They were good keepers and they tried their best, but there were far too many errors. Maybe the pressure got to them.

I fully am aware of the current manager trend to sweeper keepers and that includes EtH. And i also do think the next keeper we find to challenge DDG and eventually take his mantle should be that type of keeper. But as of now, that search is still open. Everything else is just assumption until it actually happens.

like Sifu also said in his reply, i think the main reason of our differing viewpoints is that you largely consider DDG fit to be our #1 keeper, while we don’t. That along with your argument that it is more important to have «a known quantity» as a part of our GK squad, than the GK’s to both suit our style of play. Like you say, i think we’ll have to agree to disagree, which of course is fine. Will be interesting to see, regardless, what we end up doing in the GK position over the summer.

Slight correction. I do acknowledge he is in decline. He is 32 years old after all. I just don't think he's so bad that he cannot even be our back up keeper. I'm also a pragmatic person. DDG was first choice last season and we got third. I think he'll do a job competing against another keeper, whether he is Costa or someone else. And if all goes well, that new keeper can cement his place and we can start planning a transition away from DDG over the next 2 - 3 seasons. Just in time for DDG's new contract to expire where he can decide if he wants to retire or go to a smaller club. Either way, he leaves a legend.

 

[sifi36]

Yes, I think one of the main things we differ on is that I think DDG is proven. Whereas you dont think he is good enough to even be a backup keeper due to concerns about affecting the team cohesion/style of play. I obviously disagree with that, because i think if he can do a job last season as first choice, he can do a job next season at least as back up.

You are also far more aggressive and willing to revamp everything while I am more conservative and pragmatic and would rather prioritize key areas and play things safer. If you think DDG is error prone, you need to watch the era before Edwin van der Sar. That batch of keepers were special. They were good keepers and they tried their best, but there were far too many errors. Maybe the pressure got to them.

I fully am aware of the current manager trend to sweeper keepers and that includes EtH. And i also do think the next keeper we find to challenge DDG and eventually take his mantle should be that type of keeper. But as of now, that search is still open. Everything else is just assumption until it actually happens.


Slight correction. I do acknowledge he is in decline. He is 32 years old after all. I just don't think he's so bad that he cannot even be our back up keeper. I'm also a pragmatic person. DDG was first choice last season and we got third. I think he'll do a job competing against another keeper, whether he is Costa or someone else. And if all goes well, that new keeper can cement his place and we can start planning a transition away from DDG over the next 2 - 3 seasons. Just in time for DDG's new contract to expire where he can decide if he wants to retire or go to a smaller club. Either way, he leaves a legend.

That seems like a decent summary of both of our positions. I remember the inter-Schmeichel-VdS era well. The errors were about as regular as the current rate as far as I can recall.

On the willingness to be aggressive, our opponents have and are been super aggressive, see City in Pep’s first few windows and Chelsea currently. Arsenal and Liverpool haven’t been, but they can’t afford to, we can.