Any player in our squad you won’t sell for 100m?

[waza7111]

It also depends on if you mean pounds or euros.

100 million euros is 85 million pounds and 100 million pounds is 116 million euros.

I don't think any player in our squad is worth £100 million one or two might be worth £85 million.

 

[Bondi77]

None, because we would get rinsed for more money buying a replacement that is an inferior player.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Both Saka and Kane are brilliant players but they don’t play for Manchester United.

That’s news to me

 

[AbusementPark]

Any bid for Rashford would be rejected. I'd imagine no United manager would be allowed to sell him even if he wanted to and Rashford probably isn't terribly interested in doing it anyways.

I’d say the Glazers would over ride the manager if a massive bid arrived for Rashford. A bid of £150m arrives they are accepting it, if the money was re invested back into the team then brilliant, we could actual do a lot with the money and sort out the issues throughout the team.

 

[K Stand Knut]

I don’t think there is a single player I wouldn’t sell for £100m.

The main issue is us replacing any of the players. We’ve got a 10-year track record of signing players are either aren’t good enough or aren’t suitable. Or both.

we’d end up selling Rashford and loaning Lukaku back

 

[K Stand Knut]

I’d say the Glazers would over ride the manager if a massive bid arrived for Rashford. A bid of £150m arrives they are accepting it, if the money was re invested back into the team then brilliant, we could actual do a lot with the money and sort out the issues throughout the team.

I think Rashford is probably safest.

He is an easy way to keep our ‘youth player in a match day squad’ record without the fans losing their shit

 

[hobbers]

All of them except Rashford. Would happily sell him for ~£140m though.

 

[the_cliff]

Would sell all of them at that price.

 

[massey]

None, because we would get rinsed for more money buying a replacement that is an inferior player.

Exactly that we would then waste it on even worse players.

 

[flappyjay]

I don’t think there is a single player I wouldn’t sell for £100m.

The main issue is us replacing any of the players. We’ve got a 10-year track record of signing players are either aren’t good enough or aren’t suitable. Or both.

we’d end up selling Rashford and loaning Lukaku back

We would spend whatever money we get like Barcelona with their Neymar money.

 

[KikiDaKats]

That’s news to me

I wasn’t being a dick. It was in reference to club profile and how much of an impact it has on the value of a player. As awful a club we are being our franchise player carries some weight.

 

[Cassidy]

Anyone can get it. Actually no I'd keep Onana and I'd demand more for Rashford, otherwise they can all go for 100m

 

[kouroux]

If it were at the start of the window, there wouldn't be a player to big not too be sold, right now finding a good replacement would be impossible

 

[TopDog]

With the Salah news my friend and I got in a debate. If a saudi club was to make a 100m bid for any of our players, who would you not sell?

city: half their squad esp haaland
Arsenal: saka
Liverpool: let’s find out

the rest of the league pretty much everyone’s going at that price ?

You think Arsenal would sell Declan Rice who they just signed for £105m for £100m?

No chance they sell Saliba for that either considering he has just signed a new long deal. Also Martinelli and Odegaard would be that sort of money. Saka would obviously be way more.

City would be Rodri, Haaland, Foden, Gvardiol probably.

I don't think any from Utd or Liverpool currently, possibly Rashford at a push and Salah (Saudi bid only). Chelsea have 2 or 3 £100m+.

 

[kouroux]

He's too young and has too much potential to sell at 100M. At this stage of his career it would take 200M to buy him and it's not because of what he is now.

Lay off the drugs, this is an absurd take

 

[CloneMC16]

I don't think any player in the squad is worth that. Rashford possibly is, but not completely from actual ability. Marketability is a big factor.

I think I'd be hesitant to sell Martinez and Onana. I certainty do not expect the club to buy good replacements for them.

 

[Baneofthegame]

Onana
Martinez
Shaw
Rashford

 

[K Stand Knut]

Onana
Martinez
Shaw
Rashford

Good one!!

Shaw for £100m. I’ve heard it all now.

 

[RyRy11]

Possibly Bruno and Rashford. If we had a good recruitment structure I would be happy selling them for around £100m each as I don't think they allow us to play in a way that would let us challenge in Europe.

 

[Adisa]

None for me. Surprised by the number of people saying Bruno.

 

[MackRobinson]

Lay off the drugs, this is an absurd take

If Garnacho, had a release clause what would it be?

I'd rather have your dealer.

 

[daveskimufc]

Nope. Not a single one. There are players ld prefer to keep - Martinez, garnacho, Onana, but no, a £100m bid for any of these and I'd drive them myself

 

[elmo]

If we’re being honest, none of our players are worth more than 50m based on their actual performance.

They can have their fecking pick at 100m.

 

[RedRonaldo]

Mainoo.

I mean, he might not worth anything near that value, but he could also be huge in future.

 

[kouroux]

If Garnacho, had a release clause what would it be?

I'd rather have your dealer.

This confirmed me all I needed to know. Thanks for the laugh. 200m for Garnacho would be the dumbest ever transfer recorded

 

[swissgenius]

No one in our squad is worth close that figure.

Oh come on, Rashford isn't worth close to 100m?

So tell me what would be fair money for him, 60, 70m? Please give me a list of players we could realistically buy to replace him for that.
Hint: No one, not even close. We just signed an unproven 20yo for that money.

 

[MackRobinson]

This confirmed me all I needed to know. Thanks for the laugh. 200m for Garnacho would be the dumbest ever transfer recorded

I can't help it if you are that dense. Nobody said someone would pay 200m for him. The point is he is young, has probably the most potential at a big club, and is under contract until 2028. Due to all of those points, he is not for sale so it would take an astronomical bid to get United to sell.

 

[kouroux]

I can't help it if you are that dense. Nobody said someone would pay 200m for him. The point is he is young, has probably the most potential at a big club, and is under contract until 2028. Due to all of those points, he is not for sale so it would take an astronomical bid to get United to sell.

You know what I can accept it because I confused Rash and Garnacho in the original post (if that's who you were initially talking about). 200m for Rashford would still be mad IMO.

 

[groovyalbert]

Just Rashford. But that's more due to the state of the market for attacking players/goal scorers.

 

[fallengt]

Martinez.
Rashford's already hit his ceilling and is inconsistent. Not enough to carry United forward. Would sell.

 

[Fanatic 00237]

It's not only about taking the money due to the player's worth in your eyes though, it's more importantly about using it to buy a competent alternative who fit in the team for the same amount or less. Maybe when you look at it from this angle, the suggestions of Bruno, Rashford, Martinez, Onana or Shaw become a lot less laughable. Who would you get realistically for 100M or less to replace them in this market?

 

[Lee565]

Considering how bad we are at selling, I would happily sell any of our players for that amount

 

[dinostar77]

Everyone is expendable at £100mil a pop.

 

[Shez]

You think Arsenal would sell Declan Rice who they just signed for £105m for £100m?

No chance they sell Saliba for that either considering he has just signed a new long deal. Also Martinelli and Odegaard would be that sort of money. Saka would obviously be way more.

City would be Rodri, Haaland, Foden, Gvardiol probably.

I don't think any from Utd or Liverpool currently, possibly Rashford at a push and Salah (Saudi bid only). Chelsea have 2 or 3 £100m+.

Obviously wasn’t counting Rice. But the rest I could see going for 100 - saka and ode aside

 

[AjaxCunian]

My thoughts exactly, and maybe also Shaw. I’d take £100m for anyone bar those players in a heartbeat.

I'd easily take 100 million for Shaw, probably even like 60 million. Think there's much better LB's out there, just probably not gettable.

 

[Andersons Dietician]

I mean every time I play FIFA career mode and pick United the first thing I do is pretty much sell everyone so if they are offering me 100 mil for each player them punks is gone.

 

[oreon]

100 mil isn't that much these days. For example Rashford, a really good player but not world class. If you sell for a 100 mill, his replacement would likely cost as much. And the player you get back may not be world class level. Sancho and Antony cost 70 - 80 mil, and they're not world class players.
A better number would be 150 or 200 mill. Then you can get 2 really good players in place of one, or a world class talent. Vvictor Osimhen would cost around 150 mil

 

[LochGormanAbú]

With the Salah news my friend and I got in a debate. If a saudi club was to make a 100m bid for any of our players, who would you not sell?

city: half their squad esp haaland
Arsenal: saka
Liverpool: let’s find out

the rest of the league pretty much everyone’s going at that price ?

The way I always see it , who does the money benefit? not me, so I'll always want to keep the player if is important to the team. Likewise I really don't care how much the club pays for a player if they improve it

 

[peridigm]

100 mil isn't that much these days. For example Rashford, a really good player but not world class. If you sell for a 100 mill, his replacement would likely cost as much. And the player you get back may not be world class level. Sancho and Antony cost 70 - 80 mil, and they're not world class players.
A better number would be 150 or 200 mill. Then you can get 2 really good players in place of one, or a world class talent. Vvictor Osimhen would cost around 150 mil

Pretty sure Sancho and Antony would still be at their respective clubs had United not splashed the cash.

 

[Shez]

The way I always see it , who does the money benefit? not me, so I'll always want to keep the player if is important to the team. Likewise I really don't care how much the club pays for a player if they improve it

True - the hypothesis we were using (or as I understood) was that we sell and have 100% of the funds available - so I guess who would we sell for 100mil and then probably fail to properly replace when we spend 100 (in a world where our recruitment is par for the course of normal clubs success rates)