Jadon Sancho | Dortmund interest?

Vidooq said:
We should copy the new Chelsea structure in terms of wages, but not contract duration. Palmer, Enzo, Caicedo are on 130-180k per week max.

I'm mentioning Caicedo and Enzo on purpose because there seems to be quite a few posters here that belive that huge transfer fee = very high salary from the start. Chelsea have disproved that. What Chelsea has done is very smart. If the players proves himself over the course of the first 2 years, you are free to negotiate a new improved contract. By then, you have seen the player first hand, his habits, performances and you can estimate if he will drop down few levels in case he gets increased wages.

If the player does not work out in the first 2 years, he is still on wages where you can loan him out or sell him. But it's practically impossible to move a player like Sterling on 350k. Chelsea have figured that out and they have put a stop on it. We, on the other hand have few Sterlings in the mould of Sancho and Rashford. Casemiro was useful in Europa League, I'm not sure how well he will fare vs Premier League clubs. Cunha on 165-170k base seems like somewhat normal wage for United. Same for Mbeumo, I hope.

But we should never, ever give such contracts to young players from the get go. I don't mind us paying 300-350k for prime Kane. But young players, leave a bit of room to protect yourself.
Click to expand...
This is the whole point of Chelsea’s structure, really. If people are u set the impression they will never again pay someone larger wages they are mistaken. But they have learned from their initial missteps from guys like Sterling.

Those big contracts will come from players within the structure of the team.. maybe Caicedo? Palmer? Colwill? Who knows, but it will happen. The cycle of young players moving through to compete for spots will hit an equilibrium and there will be more balance.

Playing with the lengths of contracts as a tool is just smart. We do it all the time in the US to get around salary caps and the like. And if someone wants a Chelsea player they will have to come at us directly. None of this “wind down the last two years and we’ll be waiting for you! Don’t sign an extension” that’s going around. If you want to sell a player they can sign him to whatever length deal they want, so it literally doesn’t matter.

We didn’t pay a Loan fee for Sancho… now THAT is mad. 5 million and half wages is a perfectly fair loan deal. I would do it again this year if I was Chelsea, then see what Sancho is actually willing to sign for as a free agent. Hes a really good option for the last 25 mins of a game especially. It wouldn’t shock me if the idea of: why pay 25 when he could come for free next year? It’s likely enough that it’s worth a gamble. If you have to settle for a loan, how many teams are going to step up for another 5 million plus 150k/wk for Jadon?

HE knows if he collects large wages for another year that he can choose to go wherever, and that improves his chance of getting at least a decent deal (not what he currently makes, but maybe the 150 or so Chelsea was paying last year plus incentives?)
 
I am not being gaslit into believing anything about Chelsea’s last four years in the transfer market is anything other than a complete shit show.
 
Highlyevolved said:
That wasn’t the question I was posing. You seem to be going off track here. My original point was how to protect the club from behaviour like this in future, then I’ve given examples of US sports contracts, and some examples you asked for. How many do you need, 10 isn’t enough, but 128k seems a bit much, I’ve got a life outside of this forum thread.

Getting back to the main point. Today it’s being reported Sancho, getting paid £300k per week by United, is reportedly stating he will refuse to play for United.

Happy with that? Do you think when US Sports teams have better constructed contracts to protect franchises from this behaviour we can’t learn from it to protect ourselves in future?
Click to expand...
You’re chasing your tail on this one. All contracts in football are in accordance with this

https://www.icsspe.org/system/files/FIFA - Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players_0.pdf

Football contracts in the US have no choice but to abide abide by FIFA directives around players contracts. So how are their contracts constructed differently?

Sports like baseball and American football I guess don’t have 200+ legal jurisdictions to pander to so no doubt have it easier than football clubs.

You are quoting a report in the media as being gospel. Somehow doubt it is 100% accurate . But let’s just suppose it is fact that Sancho has indeed said he won’t play for Utd again then the rules, his contract, FIFA directives all tell us he can be “ sacked” for gross misconduct. So we know the rules are there to support the club when they tear up the contract . So will they ?
Think we know the answer to that. They simply won’t write off the asset value.

Cantona and Ferdinand almost certainly gave grounds for Utd to sack them but that didn’t happen did it.As did Ashley Cole and possibly John Terry.

The point remains that contracts can be cancelled for a variety of reasons but you won’t find many examples of players being dismissed for gross misconduct . In France when Vikash Dhorasoo was dismissed for gross misconduct he was the first professional footballer sacked in France for 33 years.
 
Last edited:
duffer said:
I don't know if I'm a "naysayer" but these situations can be handled better by the manager and the player meeting up and talking to each other. How many 1 on 1 meetings do you think Sancho and ten Hag had after the incident with the press conference (and the players tweet about it}? How many meetings or even conversations do you think Sancho and Anorim have had?

If Sancho doesn't want to meet ten Hag or Anorim? Fine him.
Click to expand...
Seems when he went on loan to Dortmund it wasn’t an issue

https://bvbbuzz.com/posts/hans-joachim-watzke-jadon-sancho-disciplinary-issues
 
giorno said:
Don't think so, most likely the working hours are spcecified in the contract
Click to expand...
I believe that the wording or shall I say the requirements area something along the lines to train at any reasonable place as directed by the club. I wouldn’t want to try and argue that Carrington at 1.00am was reasonable
 
I feel like he would do well in Italy. Surely Juve have 15m kicking around?
 
daba said:
I feel like he would do well in Italy. Surely Juve have 15m kicking around?
Click to expand...
That was my first thought. But he may be so unprofessional personality that he will never make it anywhere. You won't make it in top level if you have lazy attitude. At least as long as you are not Best/Dinho level talent. Balotelli vol2.

e. Dele Alli is another good example. Destroyed his own career and Sancho will do exactly the same.
 
Last edited:
The development they're waiting for is us once again giving up selling the useless prick and accepting another loan with his wages heavily subsidised.
 
Vidooq said:
Yeah, it's not like we hold all the cards here, even though I would like to have one over them.
Click to expand...

We hold some cards.

Ultimately if their offer is to take say 100k of his wages that's £5m.

We can afford to stand firm in that circumstance to push them to actually sign him. If they are offering to take all of his wages off our hands for his last year then we may need to take that.
 
golden_blunder said:
Click to expand...


I hate that. What does that mean?

Dortmund: "Hey, uh, can you keep us up to date on developments on Sancho, please?"
United: "Why, do you want him?"
Dortmund: "Uh, just let us know if anything happens"
United: "Okay?"

Weeks later

United: "Oh hey, Leverkusen has made a bid for Sancho. Just letting you know"
Dortmund: "Oh, thanks."
United: "Right"

Months later

United: "So, were you ever intending to make a bid for Sancho?"
Dortmund: "Oh yeah, did you sell him?"
United: "You know we didn't! What was the point of asking for updates on developments if you weren't going to do anything?"
Dortmund: "Yeah, sorry about that."
 
If Bayern don't want to buy him then I wouldn't deal with them at this point. Pay up for once or feck off. When it comes to selling they fleece you so they can show us some money for once.
 
I don’t see how he is sold. Why would anyone pay money for a fee right now when he wants the outrageous sum of his final year in wages? Teams also know you won’t extend him. United should be looking for a team to take him on that last, final loan.

Again, the list of teams that would fork out even the 150 or so Chelsea was last year isn’t terribly long. Dortmund might sign him back as a free agent, if he negotiates to a reasonable contract.

I’m all for Chelsea doing another loan then trying to come to a better free agent contract after next year.

Buying him now seems unlikely just due to his insistence on the wages. If he isn’t willing to re negotiate until he gets those full funds … what would be the point?
 
I wonder how many have to reject Al-Hilal until they reach Sancho and Rashford for their list of targets? :lol:
 
Dortmund basically saying if you can’t get rid of him let them know and they’ll take him on loan for peanuts later in the summer.
 
Antisocial said:
I wonder how many have to reject Al-Hilal until they reach Sancho and Rashford for their list of targets? :lol:
Click to expand...
I’m kind of surprised they aren’t interested given the media attention they both seem to get. I know most of that boils down to their connection to Manchester United but still. From a brand perspective you’d think someone in PR over there would be eyeing these two as value adds for a tin pot league in need of name recognizable players.
 
This is good for Sancho.
If Chelsea agrees a fee with BVB on Gittens, Sancho will go to BVB, otherwise he will probably back to Chelsea.
 
ThierryHenry14 said:
This is good for Sancho.
If Chelsea agrees a fee with BVB on Gittens, Sancho will go to BVB, otherwise he will probably back to Chelsea.
Click to expand...

I wonder how much we'll take for Sancho. We still owe 17M for Sancho to Dortmund still. I think if they waive that payment, we'll happily send Sancho their way.
 
Can we sneakily throw in a free Sancho with one of our other sales? Buy Rashford get another sulk free?
 
Wumminator said:
I am not being gaslit into believing anything about Chelsea’s last four years in the transfer market is anything other than a complete shit show.
Click to expand...
Why though? They seem to have multiple options for all positions now (except maybe GK?), have a really young squad with most having high resale value, have enough room to buy even more, and are really good at selling too. Seems like a really good place to be in.
 
Bluelion7 said:
I don’t see how he is sold. Why would anyone pay money for a fee right now when he wants the outrageous sum of his final year in wages? Teams also know you won’t extend him. United should be looking for a team to take him on that last, final loan.

Again, the list of teams that would fork out even the 150 or so Chelsea was last year isn’t terribly long. Dortmund might sign him back as a free agent, if he negotiates to a reasonable contract.

I’m all for Chelsea doing another loan then trying to come to a better free agent contract after next year.

Buying him now seems unlikely just due to his insistence on the wages. If he isn’t willing to re negotiate until he gets those full funds … what would be the point?
Click to expand...

United's stance with Sancho (and to a lesser degree Rashford), should be that we aren't entertaining loans. It should be clear that it's a binary choice between reducing their wage expectations to secure a permanent move, or spending a year in the reserves.

I'd argue the precedent would be worth the cost for a year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.