Elliot Anderson | City agree fee up to £130m

Status
Not open for further replies.
Anyone else who would rather move Ugarte on and take a chance on Tyler Fletcher as the 4th choice CM?

Anderson, Mainoo, Ederson all have decent injury records touch wood, then we have Mount or Bruno who could fill in if needed, and Tyler Fletcher.
 
Bobby_2024 said:
Seems Jim really fancies him, various reports saying he is driving this and ok with fees and wage demands as he believes it will be compensated in long term just like Arsenal deal for Rice.

Co-owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe is willing to satisfy the wage demands of Nottingham Forest midfielder Elliot Anderson, 23, in order to bring him to Manchester United

Anderson and Fernandez could be a block buster summer
Click to expand...
Let's go. Ol' Jim about to go all in.

Sign Anderson, then focus on other positions first. If Ugarte goes, sign a third one. I'm on board.
 
Dubai said:
Anyone else who would rather move Ugarte on and take a chance on Tyler Fletcher as the 4th choice CM?

Anderson, Mainoo, Ederson all have decent injury records touch wood, then we have Mount or Bruno who could fill in if needed, and Tyler Fletcher.
Click to expand...
I’d happily have Fletcher as the fourth option if it meant getting Anderson as I honestly think he would massively elevate the entire team.
 
lex talionis said:
All true. Most of us are in shock at how quickly things -- fuel, groceries or whatever -- are getting more expensive every month in our own lives. With the exception of a few things like electronics (think televisions and laptops), cost pressure is a one-way ratchet and we're very unlikely to see deflation in our lives.
Click to expand...

Agree. Prices are going one way.

lex talionis said:
We really need to think about the future when it comes to the present in terms of transfer valuations, as well as the club's projected revenue growth...and in this case, whether Anderson at 100 gets us that much closer to trophy hauls than someone, such as M. Fernandes, else at 60m. If yes, that 100m will seem like pennies in returns for the revenue he would help generate, which is how any business needs to think about employees.
Click to expand...

Agree. And i think that is why Arsenal, for example, went in for Rice. Yes, they were futher ahead in their cycle having finished second the season before, but they took a longer term view.

lex talionis said:
But here's the thing...is there any midfielder in the market who's 90% of the player Anderson is that would cost 50% of Anderson's valuation? I have no idea, but if there is "the next Anderson" out there who can be had for 40/50/60 million and would allow us to bring in that one extra player for insurance against the long and grueling season that awaits us, maybe we go there.
Click to expand...

I dont know one either, but im not seeing Fernandes as being 90% of the player that Anderson is. I think he is rough around the edges. Anderson is not far from the complete player, in my opinion and controls games for Forest.

I think these signings are about a risk mitigation too. If we signed Anderson, i think most would be extremely confident that we had just bought a central midfielder that will be a starter for at least 6 years. With Fernandes, im not so sure. Good player no doubt, but would he need to be replaced in a couple of years time if United were ready to make a title challenge? In the same way Rice replaced Granit Xhaka at Arsenal for them to try and take the next step. I don't see Fernandes at this time being a PL winning midfielder - maybe he would develop into one in time. I see Anderson as being a plug and play, ready to go player, capable of winning a title in the right team.

But as you say, if there is player that is 90% the player that Anderson is, at half the price, that may be the smart decision.
 
gaffs said:
Agree. Prices are going one way.



Agree. And i think that is why Arsenal, for example, went in for Rice. Yes, they were futher ahead in their cycle having finished second the season before, but they took a longer term view.



I dont know one either, but im not seeing Fernandes as being 90% of the player that Anderson is. I think he is rough around the edges. Anderson is not far from the complete player, in my opinion and controls games for Forest.

I think these signings are about a risk mitigation too. If we signed Anderson, i think most would be extremely confident that we had just bought a central midfielder that will be a starter for at least 6 years. With Fernandes, im not so sure. Good player no doubt, but would he need to be replaced in a couple of years time if United were ready to make a title challenge? In the same way Rice replaced Granit Xhaka at Arsenal for them to try and take the next step. I don't see Fernandes at this time being a PL winning midfielder - maybe he would develop into one in time. I see Anderson as being a plug and play, ready to go player, capable of winning a title in the right team.

But as you say, if there is player that is 90% the player that Anderson is, at half the price, that may be the smart decision.
Click to expand...
Yeah he's definitely a plug and play ready to go player, however whether we can find someone on the continent with the same metrics is another question
 
Bobby_2024 said:
Not sure about toe to toe fight with city for Maguire and Alexis but I think this one is worth it, we can get 10 years of solid midfield foundation.

Logically it is doable,

Anderson (100)/Fernandez(65)/Ederson(35)/Hall(50)=250M and we could get close to 150M on Rashy/Zirkzee/Rasmus/Onana/Ugarte/Greenwood, means the net spend of 100M we could fix our first team and then adding any others as a bonus...

Blueprint for next 10 years success.
Click to expand...

Agree. And this is what i have been saying.

No signing is guaranteed, but of all players I can think of in recent years, Anderson must rank as being as close to a blue chip, guaranteed to be successful signing as there can be. We can all see him being a fixture in the team for years to come.

It feels like Rice to Arsenal, Shearer to Newcastle, Rio to United. All big fees, but felt like there was little risk in them being a success.

So many people have been saying "oh, there have been so many failures of 100m+ players". Sure, but if you look at those players, they still had a big risk element - and that is not hindsight talking. There was always doubts about Grealish adapting to Pep's more structured system. Isak was always an injury risk. Enzo Fernández has been pretty good, but a massive risk to bring in a young player with no PL experience.
 
gaffs said:
Agree. And this is what i have been saying.

No signing is guaranteed, but of all players I can think of in recent years, Anderson must rank as being as close to a blue chip, guaranteed to be successful signing as there can be. We can all see him being a fixture in the team for years to come.

It feels like Rice to Arsenal, Shearer to Newcastle, Rio to United. All big fees, but felt like there was little risk in them being a success.

So many people have been saying "oh, there have been so many failures of 100m+ players". Sure, but if you look at those players, they still had a big risk element - and that is not hindsight talking. There was always doubts about Grealish adapting to Pep's more structured system. Isak was always an injury risk. Enzo Fernández has been pretty good, but a massive risk to bring in a young player with no PL experience.
Click to expand...
Yeah £100m does sound like a huge transfer fee, however like you said he could quite easily be a fixture in Utd midfield for next decade. So INEOS need to be looking at it as a great long term investment, also believe there is scope to offer a wage package that gives opportunities to earn more too but we may not ever get that far.
 
gaffs said:
Agree. Prices are going one way.



Agree. And i think that is why Arsenal, for example, went in for Rice. Yes, they were futher ahead in their cycle having finished second the season before, but they took a longer term view.



I dont know one either, but im not seeing Fernandes as being 90% of the player that Anderson is. I think he is rough around the edges. Anderson is not far from the complete player, in my opinion and controls games for Forest.

I think these signings are about a risk mitigation too. If we signed Anderson, i think most would be extremely confident that we had just bought a central midfielder that will be a starter for at least 6 years. With Fernandes, im not so sure. Good player no doubt, but would he need to be replaced in a couple of years time if United were ready to make a title challenge? In the same way Rice replaced Granit Xhaka at Arsenal for them to try and take the next step. I don't see Fernandes at this time being a PL winning midfielder - maybe he would develop into one in time. I see Anderson as being a plug and play, ready to go player, capable of winning a title in the right team.

But as you say, if there is player that is 90% the player that Anderson is, at half the price, that may be the smart decision.
Click to expand...

I also don't Fernandes as being 90% of the player Anderson is -- I think more like 75% but if that's too generous certainly no worse than 60%. For me, the push has to be for Anderson, that is if he's truly open to United.

The problem with going with Anderson is that given the transfer fee it would take to bring him that undoubtedly means one less player to bring in for depth. But that's a problem I'm willing to deal with. We've just brought in Ederson, we already have Mount and I'm happy to give Collyer and Thwaites a proper shot at making the first team. This assumes we sell Ugarte and I'm sure we will.

But back to Fernandes. If Anderson has his heart set on City I'll disappointed (in Anderson as a human being, among other things) but I won't be disappointed if we bring in Fernandes. He's not the physical specimen and natural leader Anderson is but his read of the game, technical ability and relentless workrate would be a fantastic addition to the squad. But he's at best 75% of the player Anderson is and if AI mockups are anything to go by, Anderson looks much better in a United short than Fernandes.
 
I'm not actually convinced United need to bring in 3 midfielders personally so IMO they'd be much better served getting a nailed-on upgrade to the starting XI with Anderson than bringing two cheaper bodies in. I know they're looking at around 55 games next year accounting for relatively successful CL and cup runs, but Anderson's a machine with a great injury record who should be able to start ~45 games, Mainoo should be pushing towards 30-35 starts to be honest if he's to build towards being a key player in this side going forward, and Ederson too is physicality very fit and should be able to start 25-30 games at a consistent level.

Essentially without long-term injuries you're barely looking at the 4th midfielder playing any significant minutes, so is a £40m+ player really needed here? Early in the cups, CL group stage, minutes off the bench in PL games with solid leads if you need to rest those 3 you can probably just get away with Ugarte plus an academy player like Tyler Fletcher or Thwaites here. They aren't going to offer much, but against lesser competition or in positive game-states you don't need a whole lot.

Arsenal for example play very physically demanding football as we know and managed to essentially do this successfully with Rice and Zubimendi starting, Merino as the rotation and Norgaard/MLS covering about 10 starts between them across all comps (mostly non-PL). Of course it's a risk but do you blow big amounts of transfer budget on the off-chance players get injured? Any 4th choice midfielder they bring in for £30m+ is going to want a guarantee of minutes that they can't offer...

EDIT: Also a bit of a statement is it not if you can poach him from City?
 
Last edited:
DannyCAFC said:
I'm not actually convinced United need to bring in 3 midfielders personally so IMO they'd be much better served getting a nailed-on upgrade to the starting XI with Anderson than bringing two cheaper bodies in. I know they're looking at around 55 games next year accounting for relatively successful CL and cup runs, but Anderson's a machine with a great injury record who should be able to start ~45 games, Mainoo should be pushing towards 30-35 starts to be honest if he's to build towards being a key player in this side going forward, and Ederson too is physicality very fit and should be able to start 25-30 games at a consistent level.

Essentially without long-term injuries you're barely looking at the 4th midfielder playing any significant minutes, so is a £40m+ player really needed here? Early in the cups, CL group stage, minutes off the bench in PL games with solid leads if you need to rest those 3 you can probably just get away with Ugarte plus an academy player like Tyler Fletcher or Thwaites here. They aren't going to offer much, but against lesser competition or in positive game-states you don't need a whole lot.

Arsenal for example play very physically demanding football as we know and managed to essentially do this successfully with Rice and Zubimendi starting, Merino as the rotation and Norgaard/MLS covering about 10 starts between them across all comps (mostly non-PL). Of course it's a risk but do you blow big amounts of transfer budget on the off-chance players get injured? Any 4th choice midfielder they bring in for £30m+ is going to want a guarantee of minutes that they can't offer...

EDIT: Also a bit of a statement is it not if you can poach him from City?
Click to expand...
I do agree with this, Danny. The thing that worries me is if we buy three in one go, Carrick will have a VERY difficult job keeping all 4 happy and integrating them such that it works like clockwork. We should never have put ourselves in a position where we needed to sign three players for the same part of the pitch in one window and I don't think we should do it. Anderson and Ederson would be fine for me. Go all out for Anderson and get a proper left back and proper striker in, not some crappy 25m job. I also think we should get another centre half over a left winger. So 1 solid backup signing in Ederson, An elite signing in Ederson and a really good left back, striker and centre half, all for about 50 million each should take us to high 200Ks.
 
feck it I’m back aboard for this one seeing as Ratcliffe is apparently the driving force for wanting Anderson in as it’s obviously a big desired statement signing and to be fair Anderson along with Tchouameni are the two best possible options.
 
davidmichael said:
feck it I’m back aboard for this one seeing as Ratcliffe is apparently the driving force for wanting Anderson in as it’s obviously a big desired statement signing and to be fair Anderson along with Tchouameni are the two best possible options.
Click to expand...
Yeah they are by far the standout options, however obviously have different midfield profiles. Like you say signing this guy over City would be a huge statement of intent from Ratcliffe but still feel the transfer fee and wages will unfortunately prove too problematic.
 
I think there's some serious underrating of Anderson going on from a few. I dare say if it didn't look like he was going to city there would be a very different tune
 
ron86 said:
I think there's some serious underrating of Anderson going on from a few. I dare say if it didn't look like he was going to city there would be a very different tune
Click to expand...
The only player I would rate over him is Tchouameni, however he's definitely got the best all around game of the other PL midfield targets that's for certain.
 
ron86 said:
I think there's some serious underrating of Anderson going on from a few. I dare say if it didn't look like he was going to city there would be a very different tune
Click to expand...

I've missed all that underrating. What I see is post after post jizzing for the real Anderson (we had one before who was decent but not that great) but lamenting that he's inevitably off to City. We're even debating whether 120m is a fair price for him or whether he's worth 100m tops.
 
lex talionis said:
I also don't Fernandes as being 90% of the player Anderson is -- I think more like 75% but if that's too generous certainly no worse than 60%. For me, the push has to be for Anderson, that is if he's truly open to United.

The problem with going with Anderson is that given the transfer fee it would take to bring him that undoubtedly means one less player to bring in for depth. But that's a problem I'm willing to deal with. We've just brought in Ederson, we already have Mount and I'm happy to give Collyer and Thwaites a proper shot at making the first team. This assumes we sell Ugarte and I'm sure we will.
Click to expand...

Im with you. I consider Anderson a special talent. One that go get if there is an opportunity, as there may not be as good of a talent next summer (and maybe not for a while). And that may mean that we dont have the depth we want going into a longer campaign.

If we go into next seaason with one less player because we spent big on Anderson, i think its fine. And it doesnt neceserally mean we are are then short in midfiled. It may mean we dont get a left back, for example. But i think we will be fine with that.

We have fecked about in the midfield department for long enough with speculative buys or with players who were past their prime.

lex talionis said:
But back to Fernandes. If Anderson has his heart set on City I'll disappointed (in Anderson as a human being, among other things) but I won't be disappointed if we bring in Fernandes. He's not the physical specimen and natural leader Anderson is but his read of the game, technical ability and relentless workrate would be a fantastic addition to the squad. But he's at best 75% of the player Anderson is and if AI mockups are anything to go by, Anderson looks much better in a United short than Fernandes.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of talk, but i dont see anything that indicates that Anderson has set his heart on City. If that what the case, those stories start to come out because its adventagious for the player and help the buying club because the other competition is eliminated. Like Mbeumo did to help us out. But i could be very wrong and i may be wish casting!

We need to be in for him and if we get rejected, so be it.

I agree on the Fernandes v Anderson comparisons. And i like Fernandes, but just not confident he would be a starter for the next 6 to 8 years. As they say, buy cheap buy twice.
 
Why do I have a feeling that we’re gonna be chasing him for weeks only for him to choose City while our other targets such as Fernandes and Scott go elsewhere and then we’re left overpaying for Baleba?
 
Dubai said:
Anyone else who would rather move Ugarte on and take a chance on Tyler Fletcher as the 4th choice CM?

Anderson, Mainoo, Ederson all have decent injury records touch wood, then we have Mount or Bruno who could fill in if needed, and Tyler Fletcher.
Click to expand...
No he's shown he's not close to ready as yet.
 
lex talionis said:
I've missed all that underrating. What I see is post after post jizzing for the real Anderson (we had one before who was decent but not that great) but lamenting that he's inevitably off to City. We're even debating whether 120m is a fair price for him or whether he's worth 100m tops.
Click to expand...
Mainly in the Baleba, tonali and fernandes threads. I'm torn on cost, I keep thinking he's not worth that much but then again that's what a top class pl mf costs these days. Especially as he's english
 
Has Ugarte?
pcaming said:
No he's shown he's not close to ready as yet.
Click to expand...
I'd rather get money and wages out the door and give 5th/6th choice than keep an unhappy £30-40million transfer value player on £80k a week as 5th choice for another year.
 
Can't Ratcliffe influence Anderson's decision personally? Old, mean billionaire, has some chemical plants...just take Anderson on a tour in one of them.
 
Adamsk7 said:
Why do I have a feeling that we’re gonna be chasing him for weeks only for him to choose City while our other targets such as Fernandes and Scott go elsewhere and then we’re left overpaying for Baleba?
Click to expand...
See it probably get resolved before World Cup, however unfortunately it will be in City's favour. Now Luckhurst has basically parroted that in Sun article
 
Last edited:
croadyman said:
See it probably get resolved before World Cup, however unfortunately it will be in City's favour. Now Luckhurst has basically parroted that in Sun article
Click to expand...
Manchester Evening News ( I know) said in transfer roundup this am that City is preparing a second bid to exceed the 80 million of the initial bid. First time I had seen a non 100 ish number anywhere. Only reason I’m mentioning this.
 
gaffs said:
Im with you. I consider Anderson a special talent. One that go get if there is an opportunity, as there may not be as good of a talent next summer (and maybe not for a while). And that may mean that we dont have the depth we want going into a longer campaign.

If we go into next seaason with one less player because we spent big on Anderson, i think its fine. And it doesnt neceserally mean we are are then short in midfiled. It may mean we dont get a left back, for example. But i think we will be fine with that.

We have fecked about in the midfield department for long enough with speculative buys or with players who were past their prime.



There is a lot of talk, but i dont see anything that indicates that Anderson has set his heart on City. If that what the case, those stories start to come out because its adventagious for the player and help the buying club because the other competition is eliminated. Like Mbeumo did to help us out. But i could be very wrong and i may be wish casting!

We need to be in for him and if we get rejected, so be it.

I agree on the Fernandes v Anderson comparisons. And i like Fernandes, but just not confident he would be a starter for the next 6 to 8 years. As they say, buy cheap buy twice.
Click to expand...
Yeah at the end of the day he's our top target and if he ends up rejecting us then take it on the chin. I just want us to at least have the ambition to try and sign him
 
Assuming he goes to Manchester City, the news about the sanctions Come in shortly after the World Cup(he won't sign by then, that sort of stuff takes away from your preparation), what then? Exodus? Nottingham don't get paid anymore?

I say that in the sense that it won't be upfront cash, it'll be installments.
 
Harry190 said:
Assuming he goes to Manchester City, the news about the sanctions Come in shortly after the World Cup(he won't sign by then, that sort of stuff takes away from your preparation), what then? Exodus? Nottingham don't get paid anymore?

I say that in the sense that it won't be upfront cash, it'll be installments.
Click to expand...
They know full well they are safe from serious sanctions
 
No fresh talks meaning City have walked away?

I wonder could we offer 3 installments of 41.75 million and see if they bite.
 
We're hopefully for a 115 ruling and they're bidding £120m for Elliot Anderson :lol: game is cooked
 
Status
Not open for further replies.