I for one don't think he's very good. He's perhaps a footballer at Everton's level but i can't see him playing regularly for them as the season progresses. Everton will get someone better and he won't be in the team anymore. Ten Hag willingness to sell him also probably means he doesn't rate Garner as highly as the Caf
James Garner (out)
- Thread starter Marcus
- Start date
- Status
Ha! They were sold for cheaper than what we bought them.
Lukaku was bought for 76m and sold for 67m. A few years later Inter sold him to Chelsea for 100m
Schneiderlin was bought for 30 and sold for 25m, another loss.
Di Maria was bought for 67m and sold for 45m.
So you can pick out 3 in 10 years which we made a loss on all as we have improved
It's not an argument. Nor do I have a clue about who has the better facilities.
I'm genuinely asking the question to someone who knows City have better youth development facilities.
Specifically what facilities do thay have that we don't have at Carrington that produces better young players?
The fee is not very good. I am not so sure he was good enough for us so am cool with selling him but would have liked to see above £12m and I am sure someone would have paid that.
Considering how poor those players were for us, we did well to recoup almost 75-80 percent of what we paid for them. When we are signing any top player, we're taking a huge gamble on them being somewhat successful and being a guaranteed starter. If they fail then we have no leverage as a selling club as we'd be stuck with a player who can't get into our starting XI earning wages only 5-6 clubs in the world are willing to pay and those clubs are not going to buy Man Utd flops because they already have starting XI better than us.Ha! They were sold for cheaper than what we bought them.
Lukaku was bought for 76m and sold for 67m. A few years later Inter sold him to Chelsea for 100m
Schneiderlin was bought for 30 and sold for 25m, another loss.
Di Maria was bought for 67m and sold for 45m.
So you can pick out 3 in 10 years which we made a loss on all as we have improved
I think you’re right overall, but don’t forget he was injured for most of pre-season. We can’t be certain, but I’m pretty sure he’d have got a decent amount of game time if he hadn’t been. So much of young players’ progression is down to being in the right place at the right time, and if you miss your opportunity you might not get another, sadly.
Or we are very helpful in making sure players like Garner gets to play at the next level. I am sure James is happy united didn't ask for some deal breaking price
That’s the same like saying, Haaland was available for 60m and we bought Antony for 100m. It’s not that Forrest did not want him.
You’re not the brightest star in the sky are you?Ha! They were sold for cheaper than what we bought them.
Lukaku was bought for 76m and sold for 67m. A few years later Inter sold him to Chelsea for 100m
Schneiderlin was bought for 30 and sold for 25m, another loss.
Di Maria was bought for 67m and sold for 45m.
So you can pick out 3 in 10 years which we made a loss on all as we have improved
When a player doesn’t do well you tend to find their value drops. United did well at recouping what they did for those high profile players.
Add a few more green smilies though. You’ll get there in the end.
Its clearly not the same.
1. Garner had played for Forest for over a season.
2. Garner would have gone back to Forrest, Haaland wouldn't have come to United
3. Haaland went to City, the PL champions, Garner is going to Everton
4. Antony is a RW and Haaland is a ST.
5. Garner is a CM - Forest bought Frueler for 8m, O'Brien for 8m, Mangala for 11m. They bought 3 CM's and did not even look at Garner who had been on loan.
Clearly its different.
We weren’t selling Garner nor loaning him out. Forrest made other plans. It’s not the situation some of you are trying to paint. Like most things it’s a total feck up in planning from the club.
Oh Ofcourse, you are the clever one.
So does this mechanism only work at United? Or is it a a general one?
Because Solanke done so well at Liverpool he got a £30m fee
Because Ibe done so well he got £15m fee
Sane was sold for more
Tomori, Abrhaman were sold for over 30m
But ofcourse you're too bright to see it.
Ofcourse its not the same situation.
Its like Ajax were handing out Lisandro and Antony right? Thats why we signed those players?
If a club wants a player, they make a big or show interest, none of that was there for Garner.
We werent selling or loaning Garner, look forward to seing him in the United squad next season then.
I think you have now forgot the age of human beings.
Not everyone goes and blows their budget on players that the seller will only sell if you overpay, that’s also called planning and reasonable spending.
By forcing Ajax into selling those 2 we ended our chances in bringing additional CM, ST and RB, but who cares right “it’s not our money”.
And selling him for 9m is hardly something to gloat about.
£15m? (heard add ons not too onerous, could be wrong)
everything else aside, 25 for Schneiderlin was solid business!Ha! They were sold for cheaper than what we bought them.
Lukaku was bought for 76m and sold for 67m. A few years later Inter sold him to Chelsea for 100m
Schneiderlin was bought for 30 and sold for 25m, another loss.
Di Maria was bought for 67m and sold for 45m.
So you can pick out 3 in 10 years which we made a loss on all as we have improved
With add ons can reach 15 I think it wrote. Irrelevant since I think we could have sold him in June for double of what we got now.
Nottingham Forest bought Gibbs white for £42m but okay.
Also, no one saying to Forest had to blow their budget, they didn't even enquire about Garner suggests that they dont rate him.
No one is gloating for selling for £9m, the point is he is gone for that much because that is his quality.
Assuming that the sell-on clause is 20%, if we ever go back in and buy him off Everton, does it mean we get 20% off the market valuation?
If true, that’s in essence a pseudo buyback clause. Top plan
If true, that’s in essence a pseudo buyback clause. Top plan
Really bad deal for us. Garner will be worth over £10 million for his delivery into the box alone. And 20% of the profits on for example 30 million if he went for that in a couple of years is just 3.1 million. So even if they pay all the bonuses, and then sell him on for £30 million in a couple of seasons we'd still be looking at less than £20 million paid to us for him. Imo £20 million is what he's worth now, so cheap investment for Everton and great business for them
Garner-Onana
Garnana are going to be a very good CM pairing for Everton I think. Onana is very physical so that'll help Garner
Garner-Onana
Garnana are going to be a very good CM pairing for Everton I think. Onana is very physical so that'll help Garner
Its 20% of the profits. So 20% of any extra money over the £15.5 million they pay us. So even if the fee is doubled we'd get like £3.5 million... or £3.5 million off the price. Its nothingAssuming that the sell-on clause is 20%, if we ever go back in and buy him off Everton, does it mean we get 20% off the market valuation?
If true, that’s in essence a pseudo buyback clause. Top plan
How warped football has made everyone about money. You’re saying a £18.5 MILLION fee for a player who most think is average at best and cost us £0 is ‘nothing’.
I just think he's got way too many flaws to go to Everton and immediately make a big impact in the PL. He's nothing more than a project for them at this moment in time, and maybe not even a starter yet. I think that reflects in the fee. I do think we lost out on a few million potentially.
His influence in games seems quite low. So either there is a lack of positional understanding or confidence that needs work. He doesn't really turn with the ball, carry the ball that well. He's fairly one dimensional in that what he is going to do is get the ball and play within himself with his passing.
He does however hold his own defensively and put in a decent set piece. Reasonable passing.
Maybe we've got it wrong in not putting in a buy back, but I think that shows that the coaching don't have much faith.
His influence in games seems quite low. So either there is a lack of positional understanding or confidence that needs work. He doesn't really turn with the ball, carry the ball that well. He's fairly one dimensional in that what he is going to do is get the ball and play within himself with his passing.
He does however hold his own defensively and put in a decent set piece. Reasonable passing.
Maybe we've got it wrong in not putting in a buy back, but I think that shows that the coaching don't have much faith.
I'm saying the 20% of the profits is nothing. How warped some posters who cant capitalize names are when they can't even read properly.
This doesn't make sense. I don't know what you are trying to say.
That was the point. You cant read
I guess you know what the clauses are.
Clearly because it isn't reported, any other enquiries for players we have had, have been reported.
He’s only worth that now if anybody is willing to pay it. There is no queue of teams waiting to pay that fee for him. And ultimately if he’s a £30m player after a few years of playing regularly then he would never have proven good enough for United. The alternative was him remaining on the bench only losing further value.
Oh dear
Thats right, IMO players that havent break through at least as a substitute by the time theyre 21 will most likely not make it. Of course there could be an extension here and there bust most will likely end up like Pereira, Tuanzebe and company.
Must have been extremely poor in training to not get some game time, especially so when you consider McTom has been a starter.
Fee for Billy Gimour is £9m by the way.
Was about to post this. If Gilmour is 9m, I think 15 for Garner is probably reasonable.
Garner hasn’t done anything over Gilmour, Gilmour had great performances at Euro 2020 and started most games for their WC qualification run.
This overrating of a championship season is beyond weird at this point.
Somewhat undermining your credibility when you make a point of stating one fee by including every potential add on in the price and then quote Garner's price without any add ons at all. Your earlier posts referencing fees paid and received in previous deals including some interesting math too. Not even saying your point is necessarily wrong but your facts should be accurate if you are going to use them to make your case.
Confirmed.
Take your scouser back
- Status