Andrey Santos

[Uncle Mainoo]

I agree. And also why are we helping Chelsea to raise fun by giving them 50m but they still get the chance to keep their starting XI midfielders? Even if Santos will become top class, you don't spend 50m for a player that the club doesn't even start regularly.

If they need 50m, they should give us Palmer or Caicedo.

Well don’t moan then if it cost us £85 plus million for an Alex Scott or £100m for a Felix Nmecha.

The fact Viviel spotted him and is still keen on him, should count for something.

We always say we want the Caicedo’s before their £100m and the player from Ligue 1 who Brighton will pick up for £30m..

Well here we go.

 

[WeePat]

He played nearly 1600 minutes last season, and his competition are Caicedo and Enzo Fernandez. Should he play ahead of those two?

He played almost 2500 mins in all comps, with around half that in the prem.

 

[Trigestis]

He played almost 2500 mins in all comps, with around half that in the prem.

Ah, my bad, I only included PL and CL. That's even better!

 

[Apokalips]

If we get him, let's hope he is a KDB, Salah mistake from Chelsea. It is not beyond the realms of possibility.

 

[Apokalips]

Again, the issue from the past 13 years isn't "oh we overpaid for players". It's that we scouted poorly, had 0 cohesive direction on targets and how we wanted a team to fit together, and THEN were worst in class at negotiating and valuing players properly.

Too many are sticking on the fee part of any deal (again, fees have doubled in the past 10 years but people's brains haven't caught up yet), without understanding that the real issue was that we were mostly buying crap players/poor fits for these fees as well which points more towards a transfer directive/scouting/decision maker issue than just "overpaying". Then we'd be far too slow to move on once it was evident that these players couldn't hack it, and their value would be run into the ground and we'd sell for pennies.

We are Manchester United. We SHOULD be topping the lists for most expensive fees paid, that's what the biggest clubs in the world do. It's not some badge of honor to never be buying the best and most expensive players. I'd rather buy Olise for 150m than pay 60m for 3 different mediocre players that are instantly not good enough within a year and become difficult to sell. Obviously the hope is to scout perfectly and buy any elite player when they still cost pennies and have them erupt here but that's not a realistic strategy for a huge club looking to contend for titles. You can pull those signings off as supplemental signings but we'll always go into every window looking for upgrades on existing starters.

We scouted many great players over that time, scouting wasn't the issue. The issue was our insistence on listening to managers over anyone else and our decision makers not listening to the scouts, whose job it is to actually intensely watch and research players.

Our scouts made it clear Antony was a 25m player, our scouts made it clear Maguire wasn't worth the 60m Jose wanted him for, our scouts found Amad and were also pushing players like Alvarez, Enzo, Caicedo, amongst others but our management did not push through with those. Our managers cancelled deals that were wrapped up for Thiago and Kroos. We let LVG chase out huge numbers of people and sign Rojo off the back of watching a game or 2 at a World Cup. The problem has not been scouting or the scouts.

 

[Orange Tree]

I like that he seems to know what to do with the ball immediately after receiving. That's a very positive trait in a midfielder.

50mil is a steep price, but I wouldn't be against this deal.

 

[JE-0801]

Well don’t moan then if it cost us £85 plus million for an Alex Scott or £100m for a Felix Nmecha.

The fact Viviel spotted him and is still keen on him, should count for something.

We always say we want the Caicedo’s before their £100m and the player from Ligue 1 who Brighton will pick up for £30m..

Well here we go.

You are missing the point.

I can understand why some players cost expensive if they are the club’s starting XI player which means the clubs will demand big money so they can make profit and signing replacement. Non starting XI players should not be cost big money. We did the same mistake last time spending big money like 50m on Ugarte who was their bench warmer under Enrique, which doesn’t make sense and then PSG were happily using the cash to sign Joao Neves. Imagine doing the same thing giving chelsea who are not a selling club a big money like 50m to buy their non-starting XI player so they can use the fund to improve their starting XI player. It makes zero sense. If we want to buy their bench warmer, it should be for far cheaper price than 50m.

 

[Crimson King]

You are missing the point.

I can understand why some players cost expensive if they are the club’s starting XI player which means the clubs will demand big money so they can make profit and signing replacement. Non starting XI players should not be cost big money. We did the same mistake last time spending big money like 50m on Ugarte who was their bench warmer under Enrique, which doesn’t make sense and then PSG were happily using the cash to sign Joao Neves. Imagine doing the same thing giving chelsea who are not a selling club a big money like 50m to buy their non-starting XI player so they can use the fund to improve their starting XI player. It makes zero sense. If we want to buy their bench warmer, it should be for far cheaper price than 50m.

£50m is just the price tag Chelsea sources have quoted. It'll probably be less than that, but with add ons and a sell on, or something.

 

[Bastian]

Best non-PSG CM in Ligue 1 in 24/25 at 20 years-old. Still only 21. This could be a 'Anderson before he moved from Newcastle to Forest' type thing, albeit for a higher fee.

People on here complain about not signing players before they break out and become stars, but once that happens they're less likely to be available.

He's better than what you're making out and if we can get him for £40m then he'd be a solid signing.

He breaks up play, reads the game well, solid passing range off both feet and comes up with goals when arriving from midfield to the opposition box.

Type of player that at £40m and a solid season, becomes an £80m easily, especially if we get CL again.

First of all we will not be paying a 50 for him, it will be closer to 40, then it's a great signing, because he's also on very low wages, so it's a great addition. He's definitely a talented player of the profile we need too, good casemiro replacement with more legs and overal he'd slot very well as a 6/CDM, he's productive too when pushed forward. He's got brasilian flair, so it's not liek he's only a destroyer.

And what's difficult to understand that he simply didnt feature much behind Caiceido and Enzo? He's joined as a 19year old, also alter being one of the best young players in French league. So yes he didnt show anything in Cherlsea because he's been loaned out to France. Maybe at least check his stats first before making judgement.

In today's market where Fernandes and Scott can go for 85 or 80m it's a steal and I would even say that he's at least as good as Scott who has a lot more to polish in his game and Fernandes only had a slightly better season because he played for WHU where he could getinto midfield easily and only had a breakthrough season. The next one can be his breakthrough and we should take the chance, unless our plan is different, i.e. Tchouameni. In that case we can pass because we need a more flair attacking player in midfield as well in addition to more defensive minded players which would be Tchouameni, Ederson, Mainoo...

Fair enough if he's the real deal. Do you people not find it odd that they bought him for 17m or whatever and we are quoted three times the money they paid? I hold my hands up with regards to not having observed his career. But giving them 50m for Mount still stings, with a shitty year left on his deal (and that ludicrous contract and #7 shirt).

I'm just amazed, quite frankly, that we have all this operation, all these scouts, and yet we cannot unearth some major prospects before they cost a ridiculous amount. What is the point of that whole structure then?

 

[JE-0801]

£50m is just the price tag Chelsea sources have quoted. It'll probably be less than that, but with add ons and a sell on, or something.

However, it will be stupid if we choose to pay total of 50m including adds on. That’s just way too expensive value for non-starter player.

 

[Crimson King]

Fair enough if he's the real deal. Do you people not find it odd that they bought him for 17m or whatever and we are quoted three times the money they paid? I hold my hands up with regards to not having observed his career. But giving them 50m for Mount still stings, with a shitty year left on his deal (and that ludicrous contract and #7 shirt).

I'm just amazed, quite frankly, that we have all this operation, all these scouts, and yet we cannot unearth some major prospects before they cost a ridiculous amount. What is the point of that whole structure then?

You talk like United operate in a vacuum. It's not the 90s anymore, with the internet and data analysts the best young players in the world are known by everyone. There's no such thing as a 'hidden gem '. You barely find turn on Football Manager these days. It's more a matter of who decides to take the plunge on a young player that still hasn't proven themselves.

We have plenty of evidence that the structure United have is fine, but there's often been an unwillingness from the owners to splash a few million here or there for these kids. We supposedly could have signed Haaland from Molde for about €4m, Sesko from his home club for about €2m when he was 16, and we were close to signing Caicedo before Brighton swooped and used their better South American contacts to get it done.

You then also have to remember that a lot of these kids would rather go somewhere they can develop without the spotlight on them. Coming to United as a vaunted wonderkid can't be easy when you see how impatient they online fan base can be

 

[Crimson King]

However, it will be stupid if we choose to pay total of 50m including adds on. That’s just way too expensive value for non-starter player.

If the add ons are based on his and the team's success then it might not be. It will have meant he's a success and probably worth a lot more than that by then

 

[JE-0801]

If the add ons are based on his and the team's success then it might not be. It will have meant he's a success and probably worth a lot more than that by then

I disagree. Even if the player becomes top class in the future, it is stupid to pay total of 50m fees for player who is not their starting XI. The point is that we need to take advantage of the circumstance. The circumstance is that chelsea have too many players now in their squad and need to sell some of their players (which ideally would be their non starting XI players) as they don’t have European comp means we have the bargaining chip.

It’s similar circumstance with Ugarte at PSG. We had the bargaining chip because Enrique didn’t rate Ugarte and didn’t fit to Enrique system which makes PSG want to sell him but we still chose to pay 50m, which was stupid value for a player that PSG wanted to sell.

 

[Pickle85]

I disagree. Even if the player becomes top class in the future, it is stupid to pay total of 50m fees for player who is not their starting XI. The point is that we need to take advantage of the circumstance. The circumstance is that chelsea have too many players now in their squad and need to sell some of their players (which ideally would be their non starting XI players) as they don’t have European comp means we have the bargaining chip.

It’s similar circumstance with Ugarte at PSG. We had the bargaining chip because Enrique didn’t rate Ugarte and didn’t fit to Enrique system which makes PSG want to sell him but we still chose to pay 50m.

If you want the player, you need to pay what the selling club is willing to sell him for. Otherwise they won't sell him. Him not starting doesn't automatically drop his value to 30 million. This is bizarre logic.

 

[elmo]

Fair enough if he's the real deal. Do you people not find it odd that they bought him for 17m or whatever and we are quoted three times the money they paid? I hold my hands up with regards to not having observed his career. But giving them 50m for Mount still stings, with a shitty year left on his deal (and that ludicrous contract and #7 shirt).

I'm just amazed, quite frankly, that we have all this operation, all these scouts, and yet we cannot unearth some major prospects before they cost a ridiculous amount. What is the point of that whole structure then?

They don’t want to sell him hence the price quoted.

 

[Herschel Krustofsky]

Good to see we’re at the “what are our scouts doing” stage of the window!

 

[JE-0801]

If you want the player, you need to pay what the selling club is willing to sell him for. Otherwise they won't sell him. Him not starting doesn't automatically drop his value to 30 million. This is bizarre logic.

We didn’t pay what west ham wanted an 85m up front fees. The logic of ‘’if you want the player, you need to pay what the selling club is willing to sell him for’’ did not apply to Man United’s situation with Mateus Fernandes.

 

[OverratedOpinion]

Good to see we’re at the “what are our scouts doing” stage of the window!

Are scouts actually doing anything at this time of year? I genuinely don't know.

I'd imagine they have already given their reports on hundreds of players and it's over to those at top now.

 

[Pickle85]

We didn’t pay what west ham wanted an 85m up front fees. The logic of ‘’if you want the player, you need to pay what the selling club is willing to sell him for’’ did not apply to Man United’s situation with Mateus Fernandes.

And we didn't get the player, Spurs did, because they thought he was worth it and paid what the selling club was willing to sell him for. I'm not sure what your argument is here. If we think the player is worth 50 million and Chelsea are willing to sell him for 50 million, then we'll buy him (assuming we're not gazzumped and he wants to come). You seem to be saying that a player that isn't starting for his club can't be worth 50 million.

IEven if the player becomes top class in the future, it is stupid to pay total of 50m fees for player who is not their starting XI.

This makes no sense to me.

 

[Crimson King]

We didn’t pay what west ham wanted an 85m up front fees. The logic of ‘’if you want the player, you need to pay what the selling club is willing to sell him for’’ did not apply to Man United’s situation with Mateus Fernandes.

Eh? Of course it did, they chose not to pay it and didn't get the player

 

[ron86]

I disagree. Even if the player becomes top class in the future, it is stupid to pay total of 50m fees for player who is not their starting XI. The point is that we need to take advantage of the circumstance. The circumstance is that chelsea have too many players now in their squad and need to sell some of their players (which ideally would be their non starting XI players) as they don’t have European comp means we have the bargaining chip.

It’s similar circumstance with Ugarte at PSG. We had the bargaining chip because Enrique didn’t rate Ugarte and didn’t fit to Enrique system which makes PSG want to sell him but we still chose to pay 50m, which was stupid value for a player that PSG wanted to sell.

Then Chelsea don't sell him to us. It's the selling club who decide his worth, not us

 

[ron86]

We didn’t pay what west ham wanted an 85m up front fees. The logic of ‘’if you want the player, you need to pay what the selling club is willing to sell him for’’ did not apply to Man United’s situation with Mateus Fernandes.

It did though? West ham decided on a price, we wouldn't pay so didn't get him. The club who did, got him

 

[cpresc]

--------------- Bruno ---------
Mainoo -------------- Tchou


--------------- Mount ---------
Ederson --------------- Santos


That'll be the midfield sorted then!

 

[JE-0801]

And we didn't get the player. I'm not sure what your argument is here. If we think the player is worth 50 million and Chelsea are willing to sell him for 50 million, then we'll buy him (assuming we're not gazzumped and he wants to come). You seem to be saying that a player that isn't starting for his club can't be worth 50 million.

The argument is that we have bargaining chip to negotiate for cheaper fees than 50m because Andrey Santos wants to leave for more minutes, chelsea need to sell as they already have 4 midfielders in the squad without European competition, and Andrey Santos is their non-starting player.

This makes no sense to me.

Even if there is 5 years old kid who is in the future will become world class, you don’t spend 5m on that 5 years old kid. Players have their valuation depending on the circumstances.

 

[Pickle85]

The argument is that we have bargaining chip to negotiate for cheaper fees than 50m because Andrey Santos wants to leave for more minutes, chelsea need to sell as they already have 4 midfielders in the squad without European competition, and Andrey Santos is their non-starting player.


Even if there is 5 years old kid who is in the future will become world class, you don’t spend 5m on 5 years old kid. Players have their valuation depending on the circumstances.

But this all ignores the point that the selling club will have a value under which they won't accept. We may well get him for less than 50 million but it's completely arbitrary to say 'he's not a starting player so he's not worth 50 million'. What is your price ceiling for a player that isn't starting? 40? 35? It's just plucking random numbers out of the air.

And I agree that players have their valuation depending on the circumstances, but the selling club is the one that sets that valuation.

 

[JE-0801]

Eh? Of course it did, they chose not to pay it and didn't get the player

But we wanted the player.

 

[Bastian]

You talk like United operate in a vacuum. It's not the 90s anymore, with the internet and data analysts the best young players in the world are known by everyone. There's no such thing as a 'hidden gem '. You barely find turn on Football Manager these days. It's more a matter of who decides to take the plunge on a young player that still hasn't proven themselves.

We have plenty of evidence that the structure United have is fine, but there's often been an unwillingness from the owners to splash a few million here or there for these kids. We supposedly could have signed Haaland from Molde for about €4m, Sesko from his home club for about €2m when he was 16, and we were close to signing Caicedo before Brighton swooped and used their better South American contacts to get it done.

You then also have to remember that a lot of these kids would rather go somewhere they can develop without the spotlight on them. Coming to United as a vaunted wonderkid can't be easy when you see how impatient they online fan base can be

I accept all that, and yet I think we could do so much better when it comes to 20-21 year olds. And also, we do have that Lausanne partnership (we could even use Nice) for younger players coming through.

I don't think the staff are the problem, I'm sure plenty of scouts and analysts are pushing for us to sign various top potential players (whom are known, like you say, by pretty much most clubs) but for whatever reason, we're not doing it.

 

[Red Comet]

We didn’t pay what west ham wanted an 85m up front fees. The logic of ‘’if you want the player, you need to pay what the selling club is willing to sell him for’’ did not apply to Man United’s situation with Mateus Fernandes.

Well, that’s why we did not sign Fernandes isn’t it? West Ham still got the 85m they want from Tottenham.

 

[Bastian]

They don’t want to sell him hence the price quoted.

I get the feeling that they're fine with selling him, but they are posturing so they can demand a top fee.

 

[Pickle85]

But we wanted the player.

Not enough to pay the money. But another club did.

 

[JE-0801]

But this all ignores the point that the selling club will have a value under which they won't accept. We may well get him for less than 50 million but it's completely arbitrary to say 'he's not a starting player so he's not worth 50 million'. What is your price ceiling for a player that isn't starting? 40? 35? It's just plucking random numbers out of the air.

And I agree that players have their valuation depending on the circumstances, but the selling club is the one that sets that valuation.

The selling club will have and set a value but doesn’t mean the value is right for us to proceed. Hence why I said it’s stupid to proceed to pay 50m.

 

[JE-0801]

Not enough to pay the money. But another club did.

Exactly, hence why I said it did not apply to Man United’s situation with Mateus Fernandes. I never say it did not apply to Tottenham’s situation with Mateus Fernandes.

 

[Pickle85]

The selling club will have and set a value but doesn’t mean the value is right for us to proceed. Hence why I said it’s stupid to proceed to pay 50m.

No, you're moving the goalposts. You said:

Non starting XI players should not be cost big money.

If a non-starting player is worth big money, then they're worth big money. Obviously if the player isn't worth the money then we shouldn't pay it.

 

[ron86]

The selling club will have and set a value but doesn’t mean the value is right for us to proceed. Hence why I said it’s stupid to proceed to pay 50m.

I agree we should only proceed at the right price for us. We need to be realistic with the market though, otherwise we could say everyone is overpriced and end up with no one decent

 

[Ahmer Baig]

--------------- Bruno ---------
Mainoo -------------- Tchou


--------------- Mount ---------
Ederson --------------- Santos


That'll be the midfield sorted then!

If only Mount can play for full 90 minutes.

 

[Uncle Mainoo]

The argument is that we have bargaining chip to negotiate for cheaper fees than 50m because Andrey Santos wants to leave for more minutes, chelsea need to sell as they already have 4 midfielders in the squad without European competition, and Andrey Santos is their non-starting player.


Even if there is 5 years old kid who is in the future will become world class, you don’t spend 5m on 5 years old kid. Players have their valuation depending on the circumstances.

You sound like the posters in the Fernandes thread when West Ham was about to be relegated.

You know it’s not going to workout like this. So save yourself the trouble and disappointment.

The quote is £50m. It may go up now that we are mentioned. It might go down if negotiations go well. But Noway are we getting him for £30m. Madueke went for £50m and he was a rotational player.

 

[JE-0801]

No, you're moving the goalposts. You said:


If a non-starting player is worth big money, then they're worth big money. Obviously if the player isn't worth the money then we shouldn't pay it.

Nope I am not moving the goalpost, you just didn’t understand the argument. My goalpost still stands that we shouldn’t proceed to pay total of 50m for Santos as it’s big money for numerous reasons and we have the bargaining chip to get him cheaper for the same reasons I have mentioned multiple times that Santos is not chelsea starting XI, Santos wants to leave for more minutes, and chelsea need to sell as they already have 4 midfielders in the squad without European competition.

 

[JE-0801]

You sound like the posters in the Fernandes thread when West Ham was about to be relegated.

You know it’s not going to workout like this. So save yourself the trouble and disappointment.

The quote is £50m. It may go up now that we are mentioned. It might go down if negotiations go well. But Noway are we getting him for £30m. Madueke went for £50m and he was a rotational player.

The valuation should have reasons. Madueke had 47 PL starting XI appearances. I guess that’s why arsenal was willing to pay 50m while someone with only 13 PL starting XI apperances should have cost less than that.

 

[Pickle85]

Nope I am not moving the goalpost, you just didn’t understand the argument. My goalpost still stands that we shouldn’t proceed to pay total of 50m for Santos as it’s big money for numerous reasons and we have the bargaining chip to get him cheaper for the same reasons I have mentioned multiple times that Santos is not chelsea starting XI, Santos wants to leave for more minutes, and chelsea need to sell as they already have 4 midfielders in the squad without European competition.

You didn't express it clearly, if that was what you were arguing. You said 'Non starting XI players should not cost big money.' which is different from 'we shouldn’t proceed to pay total of 50m for Santos'.

Anyway, we're going right in circles. Try taking your 'he doesn't start so can we have him for cheap' argument to Chelsea and see what they say.

 

[JE-0801]

You didn't express it clearly, if that was what you were arguing. You said 'Non starting XI players should not cost big money.' which is different from 'we shouldn’t proceed to pay total of 50m for Santos'.

Anyway, we're going right in circles. Try taking your 'he doesn't start so can we have him for cheap' argument to Chelsea and see what they say.

I did. I actually copied pasted it from my other post. You just didn’t read throughly my other posts.