Is Jadon Sancho really worth the 100 plus million fee?

Nickelodeon

Full Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Messages
1,016
There's no point raising this topic in the Sancho thread as every second post is a 'Happy Sancho Day' one and don't necessarily feel that a rational discussion can be covered there. Here's my thought process around the whole Sancho saga. Initially, I was a bit skeptical around the 100 million numbers being quoted and was relatively confident that we'll get him for figures quoted for Havertz i.e. 90 million including add-ons.

The more the saga has went on, the more people seem to be convinced that Sancho is absolutely worth it and is the answer to all our problems. In my opinion, Sancho was never going to be the only missing piece and we had to sign 2-3 first team quality players to get near challenging. With the pressure rising on the board, there's a good chance that we might succumb and pay the full fee (assuming Dortmund accept) which would leave us in a precarious position towards other weaker positions. Similar to when Pogba was signed, I expect Sancho to be a good player in the short term without having the groundbreaking impact that suddenly makes us challengers. I don't think even the most ardent advocate of Sancho's signing would disagree with this. Naturally, we can't just consider the short term as he might be a longer term signing. There arises another of my doubts considering that we need short term improvements as well. Now let me point out some facts which outline my skepticism:
  • A potential 100 million player is still not first choice for England and hasn't really sparkled when given the chance
  • His stats are exceptional but Bundesliga stats can go the Mkhitaryan way or the Aubameyang way. But the element of uncertainty still persists
  • There are disciplinary issues which led him to being dropped last year
  • In general, 100 plus million players have rarely been particularly successful signings for anyone
Some other points raised in other threads include a lack of options for RW apart from Sancho. I refuse to buy this argument because if Sancho is the only option in the world then why do we have scouts. A 10 year old playing FIFA could tell us who to sign.

I know that there are advocates of buy one world class 100 million than 3 average 30 million player arguments are there and I'm one of them too. I just don't think that Sancho should be worth this much and if we were to sign him, I could already visualize the extra scrutiny that would be there on him and how journalists would be dying to declare him a flop. A start like Havertz for him would be fodder for clickbaits all through the season.

Maybe I'm being overly pessimistic and he might turn out to be the world beater he's made out to be. I'm just not sold on the risk associated with it and the impact it will have on the player fees for our future prospects. I think being financially prudent and successful in the market aren't mutually exclusive and we should try to find cheaper alternatives. Currently, even if we find a decent rotation option for Greenwood/Rashford in the range of sub-50 million, we should be good.

TL;DR: Not convinced that we should spend 100 million on Sancho. Cheaper alternatives should be looked at.
 

kouroux

45k posts to finally achieve this tagline
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
79,172
Location
Djibouti (La terre des braves)
It's not for us fans, to judge if x or y player are worth that money because honestly we focus on football mostly and clubs looks at other parameters at the same time. It's always a gamble
 

laughtersassassin

Full Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2014
Messages
1,969
Based off performances statistics and comparable transfers yes Dormtmund are correct to want 120 million if not more.

In his age group he is only second to Mbappe.

He completely outperforms KDBs Bundesliga stats at a younger age and in much less minutes which can only be a good thing.

Sancho is the real deal. We will regret not getting him for sure. This will be our next Hazard or Aguero I suspect.
 

CG1010

Full Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
2,673
Happy Sancho day
 

Drainy

Full Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
10,030
Location
Dissin' Your Flygirl
Is a Lamborghini worth the money?

Do you have the money?
What are you using it for?

If we want to challenge for the league and have the money £108m is the going price for him and its around what you would expect for a player like him.
 

sugar_kane

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
1,810
Regardless of what he is worth, if we’re on a limited budget we should be making that money go further than one player, given the lack of depth in the squad.

A left footed right winger of reasonable talent is essential for us but rather than scouting for affordable alternatives we’ve pinned all our hopes on the big one and it’s screwed us.
 

Nickelodeon

Full Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Messages
1,016
Based off performances statistics and comparable transfers yes Dormtmund are correct to want 120 million if not more.

In his age group he is only second to Mbappe.

He completely outperforms KDBs Bundesliga stats at a younger age and in much less minutes which can only be a good thing.

Sancho is the real deal. We will regret not getting him for sure. This will be our next Hazard or Aguero I suspect.
I do understand this. My concern with Bundesliga stats is that for every KdB or Aubameyang, there's a Mkhitaryan, Kagawa, Haller, Luka Jovic. Stats are wonderful but can't be the only justification for us to spend 100 million. Are we confident that he can immediately become the best player in his position in the league? That's my expectation of a 100 million player.
 

Annihilate Now!

...or later, I'm not fussy
Scout
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
38,888
Location
W.Yorks
No idea - but personally I would rather spend that money on 2 or 3 players then just one.
 

Nickelodeon

Full Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Messages
1,016
Is a Lamborghini worth the money?

Do you have the money?
What are you using it for?

If we want to challenge for the league and have the money £108m is the going price for him and its around what you would expect for a player like him.
Will he single handedly make us challengers? Are you confident about it? I'm genuinely not sure that Sancho is the only missing piece.
 

Johnson Yip

Full Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2001
Messages
142
Location
Hong Kong
It's not a matter of how much Sancho worths - if we don't trust he is worthy, or if we couldn't afford him, then move on and go find the next best one. Crying out loud (for too expensive) in front of the candy shop wouldn't help!
 

dove

Full Member
Joined
May 15, 2013
Messages
5,402
Depends how you look at it. If you take into account how much we paid for mediocre players like Maguire, then Sancho is worth the fee. Otherwise he clearly isn't.
 

Deery

Full Member
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
3,746
I’ve never been overly impressed when I’ve seen him play in the Champions League, good player but 120m or whatever it is seems a lot of money for a player that might not do it against better opponents.

When the likes of Salah and Mane were bought for 30m it seems a huge risk to pay 4 times that much on a player that isn’t as good as them.
That been said we all want a number 7 and it would be nice to see him and Rashford together, guess it all depends on if the club see value in him. He might hold down a position for next 9 years which could be seen as money well spent, but it is a bit of a gamble.
Haaland seems a better option he is genuine world class...
 

amolbhatia50k

Sneaky bum time
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
76,566
Location
india
For us he is.

Elite talent - dribbling, acceleration, balance, end product, he's got it all
RIGHT WINGER
English

For me, he's much better and more talented than Havertz who just went to Chelsea for big money. He will have a much bigger influence than the proven Pogba who we spent a world record fee on. Sometimes, the fee cannot be broken into experience, England caps, CL goals etc. He is one of the best young footballers on the planet and fits this team /club perfectly.

Of course we arent' signing him now so doesnt matter anyway.
 

reelworld

Full Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2001
Messages
7,674
Location
Mexico City, Mexico
There's no point raising this topic in the Sancho thread as every second post is a 'Happy Sancho Day' one and don't necessarily feel that a rational discussion can be covered there. Here's my thought process around the whole Sancho saga. Initially, I was a bit skeptical around the 100 million numbers being quoted and was relatively confident that we'll get him for figures quoted for Havertz i.e. 90 million including add-ons.

The more the saga has went on, the more people seem to be convinced that Sancho is absolutely worth it and is the answer to all our problems. In my opinion, Sancho was never going to be the only missing piece and we had to sign 2-3 first team quality players to get near challenging. With the pressure rising on the board, there's a good chance that we might succumb and pay the full fee (assuming Dortmund accept) which would leave us in a precarious position towards other weaker positions. Similar to when Pogba was signed, I expect Sancho to be a good player in the short term without having the groundbreaking impact that suddenly makes us challengers. I don't think even the most ardent advocate of Sancho's signing would disagree with this. Naturally, we can't just consider the short term as he might be a longer term signing. There arises another of my doubts considering that we need short term improvements as well. Now let me point out some facts which outline my skepticism:
  • A potential 100 million player is still not first choice for England and hasn't really sparkled when given the chance
  • His stats are exceptional but Bundesliga stats can go the Mkhitaryan way or the Aubameyang way. But the element of uncertainty still persists
  • There are disciplinary issues which led him to being dropped last year
  • In general, 100 plus million players have rarely been particularly successful signings for anyone
Some other points raised in other threads include a lack of options for RW apart from Sancho. I refuse to buy this argument because if Sancho is the only option in the world then why do we have scouts. A 10 year old playing FIFA could tell us who to sign.

I know that there are advocates of buy one world class 100 million than 3 average 30 million player arguments are there and I'm one of them too. I just don't think that Sancho should be worth this much and if we were to sign him, I could already visualize the extra scrutiny that would be there on him and how journalists would be dying to declare him a flop. A start like Havertz for him would be fodder for clickbaits all through the season.

Maybe I'm being overly pessimistic and he might turn out to be the world beater he's made out to be. I'm just not sold on the risk associated with it and the impact it will have on the player fees for our future prospects. I think being financially prudent and successful in the market aren't mutually exclusive and we should try to find cheaper alternatives. Currently, even if we find a decent rotation option for Greenwood/Rashford in the range of sub-50 million, we should be good.

TL;DR: Not convinced that we should spend 100 million on Sancho. Cheaper alternatives should be looked at.
I agree with this.

Which is why I'm not really fussed about getting him or not. I think Sancho would be excellent if United is already a good team, wanting to be great. He absolutely could take us a level or two if that's the case. But United at that moment is an average to good team trying to find it's footing. He would not be the impact that everyone hope and will be slaughtered for it.
United have some gaping hole in centreback and left back. I would prefer that United to fix those problem first, established what and how they want to play their football before getting a Sancho like player.
 

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
8,331
Location
Germany
To be honest I would expect him to disappoint if United were to sign him. He's a high quality player and given his output, passport and age someone would probably pay €120m for him in a non-Covid market, however it's not like he beats teams by himself. A lot of his quality is that he does the seemingly little dribblings, passes and shots really well and consistently, which is turning great at Dortmund where there's sufficient movement and support of his team mates, but United don't have that attacking commitment and cohesion, so his England performances might be the closer benchmark. On the other hand that's an issue of coaching and strategic planning that no single player can fix and while I think 3 €30m players could help United more in theory, seeing how United has been spending money in that price bracket going big might be the better option after all.
 

Slevs

likes to play with penises
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
22,549
Location
Boyo
I raised this topic in the transfer thread like a month back and was basically hounded out of the thread for spoiling the fun.
 

Nickelodeon

Full Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Messages
1,016
I genuinely feel that we're obsessed by what he could become than what he actually is.
 

Drainy

Full Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
10,030
Location
Dissin' Your Flygirl
Will he single handedly make us challengers? Are you confident about it? I'm genuinely not sure that Sancho is the only missing piece.
In 2 or 3 years time with Rashford Martial and him approaching their prime with Greenwood at 21yo and hopefully an improved defence he would be a key component of a title challenging side, yes.

Having a balanced attack with depth of quality is key for us since we struggle against the defensive sides and over commit forward to make up for the lack of quality making us easy prey for a counter.
 

SteveW

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
7,155
He's easily worth it given his age and talent. A ridiculously intelligent schemer of a footballer in the body of an explosive winger.

If we let this slip we'll regret it for a decade imo.
 

hasanejaz88

Full Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
2,834
Location
Munich
Supports
Germany
More proven in a better league and on the world stage. Still worth more than half of Sancho.
Which world stage? He wasn't selected for the WC in 2018 and his German national team career has been underwhelming atleast (as improved in the last year though).

Sane had 1 year left and firmly stated he was not going to sign a new contract. Sancho has 3 years left and has said he is happy to stay atleast one more year. Clear difference in the two situations that shows why Bayern managed to get him for 50 ME and Dortmund want 120 ME.

For the record, Bayern bid above 100 mil last season for Sane but City rejected the offer. So if you look at contract situations Sane and Sanchos value is pretty similar.
 

RedDevilUnited369

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 26, 2015
Messages
854
Potentially you sign him for the next 10 years so you are paying for the fact he could become an elite player based on his stats so far.

It’s always a gamble.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fortitude

Gordon S

Full Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Messages
1,202
It certainly warrants the discussion. As good as Sancho is, is he a clear cut upgrade to what Greenwood does give us in that position? If we don`t see him as a pure rw, is he a clear cut upgrade to any of Rashford, Martial or Bruno? He just might be that good, but it is hard to tell now. How much could 2-3 very good players in other positions improve us? Our defence and midfield is not fantastic by any stretch.
 

The Man Himself

asked for a tagline change and all I got was this.
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
22,106
Sane went for half that, Sancho isn't twice as good, so it's a no from me....
Andy Carroll went for 35M, 2 years later Van Persie went for 24M. Eden Hazard in last year of contract went for 100M+, Sane 50. Hazard also is not twice the player. Hundreds more such example we can give.
Transfer fee and player ability, especially when comparing different transfers have absolutely no relation. I have no idea why we get comments like these. Players transfer value depends on how hot player is in transfer market, his contract length, negotiating power selling club holds, buying club's desperation, buying club's financial status and some more factors. Player's ability is just 1 factor.
 

Jev

Full Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
5,460
Location
Denmark
I completely understand why the club is reluctant to spend more than 100 million on one player who likely will be, but currently isn't, one of the best players in the world.

What I don't understand is why we've spent all summer trying to haggle with Dortmund when they're clearly not budging. We should have given up on Sancho a long time ago and gone for Zaha/Traoré/Bale/Dembelé/Torres/whoever.
 

Red_toad

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
8,085
Location
DownUnder
Which world stage? He wasn't selected for the WC in 2018 and his German national team career has been underwhelming atleast (as improved in the last year though).

Sane had 1 year left and firmly stated he was not going to sign a new contract. Sancho has 3 years left and has said he is happy to stay atleast one more year. Clear difference in the two situations that shows why Bayern managed to get him for 50 ME and Dortmund want 120 ME.

For the record, Bayern bid above 100 mil last season for Sane but City rejected the offer. So if you look at contract situations Sane and Sanchos value is pretty similar.
Still isn't worth twice as much, regardless of how you spin it. Clubs all suffering from affected revenues, so have less money. Sane went for less than half when revenues were normal. Sancho won't be worth 100 million next summer either.
United should be exploring other avenues, as he's currently not worth his clubs valuation.