Blah blah blah
Putting the Sanchez transfer fee into context (financial comparisons)
- Thread starter Raees
- Start date
I like how only United's transfers have sign-on fees and agent fees rolled into the total cost. As if PSG did not have to pay some obscene fees to Neymar's dad for the transfer and the player received no sign-on bonus. It was only the £200m buy out clause and the salary, right?
No I agree. It should be noted, but not included in the wages Sanchez earns. It only started spreading because of City's briefing to save face.
Okay, maybe not facts, but other guesswork that doesn't support the narrative of Sanchez being less than super expensive.
30m is always significant.
I can conclusively conclude we've no idea what Sanchez cost.
Which is infuriating as we can't challenge the £600k a week that people are making up.
Which is infuriating as we can't challenge the £600k a week that people are making up.
Sanchez was not super expensive, he was actually almost free in terms of transfer fee and his salary isn't that bad at all considering how good he is.
We got a bargain and the only reason people think we didn't is because City told everyone so.
Pointless to compare the total costs I am afraid.
We don't know the full details of these transfers, agent fees, sign on fees, under the table fees, bonuses, before/after tax, agent goodwill etc.etc.
The real value of the deal will be measured by the success, or lack of, Sanchez brings on the field.
We don't know the full details of these transfers, agent fees, sign on fees, under the table fees, bonuses, before/after tax, agent goodwill etc.etc.
The real value of the deal will be measured by the success, or lack of, Sanchez brings on the field.
Sanchez was valued at around £35 million by Arsenal and seemed to be the fee agreed between them and City
So it's fair to say Arsenal values Mkhi at around the same price as that £35 million since it was a swap deal
It isn't though. Companies around the world pay top dollar for top talent, so why shouldn't United? Additionally, different companies have different wage structures, and that impacts remuneration packages. I'm going to earn more working for Amazon or Google in Silicon Valley than I am doing a similar job at 'Barb's Internet Shoppe' in Yeovil.
United still spends the least amount of money in the league on player wages relative to revenue generated.
Not stupid money at all.
This from the Indie:
While United were willing to pay agents’ fees that City (and clubs like Chelsea and Bayern Munich wouldn’t), sources close to the Old Trafford hierarchy dispute some ideas about the figures. They say Sanchez will be paid on par with Paul Pogba at around £300,000 week, for obvious diplomatic reasons, and that the signing-on fee was not £20m.
While United were willing to pay agents’ fees that City (and clubs like Chelsea and Bayern Munich wouldn’t), sources close to the Old Trafford hierarchy dispute some ideas about the figures. They say Sanchez will be paid on par with Paul Pogba at around £300,000 week, for obvious diplomatic reasons, and that the signing-on fee was not £20m.
I meant in terms of what clubs can offer. There were a lot of posters here laughing at arsenal for being unable to keep him but based on figures being touted about then we had no chance from the start. There are only 4-5 clubs in the world that can pay that and one of them decided it wasn't worth matching uniteds offer.
It's not rocket science to think if city matched everything united offered Sanchez that he'd duly choose them.
You're actually saying any thoughts contrary to your viewpoint of Sanchez being cheap have just been shaped by what City have said...? Wow. That's kinda insulting, and a stupid thing to say.
Mkhi has a value, let's say 30m. Paying the equivalent of 30m plus massive fees to Sanchez and his agent, is far from "almost free", especially considering he had 5 months left on his contract. No-one has ever paid close to that for a player in his contract position before.
It's not a bad deal, but it's also far from a bargain. Gotta keep in mind he's 29 and will have zero resale value, too.
Sanchez is not super expensive considering how good he is.
The problem is. We know about as much as everybody else, and I include the media in that. No one will really know the intricacies of the deal.
On the surface, it was a swap deal. But in reality it's much more complicated than that.
Not to mention, no one will care how much he costs if he contributes to winning some trophies
Except Sanchez himself put that lazy claim to bed, when he didn't have to address it at all.
We’ve effectively swapped Miki for Sanchez so deducting Miki’s cost from Sanchez makes sense.
Either way, massive upgrade and a great deal in the context of today’s transfer market.
Anybody knows( is it reported anywhere) true numbers of this transfer? 15 mil to agent? I don't think so.
And that image rights? Are they included in pogba's 290k or is it 290 plus that? Also goes on sanchez. 350 plus image rights or 350 with image rights?
And that image rights? Are they included in pogba's 290k or is it 290 plus that? Also goes on sanchez. 350 plus image rights or 350 with image rights?
I love how United are the only clubs that pay signing on fee, and agent fees. We are so rich that we do that just because of our goodwill.
Neymar, a known money-hungry person, whose transfer to Barcelona had likely the biggest signing on fee/agent fee in the history of the sports (both to his father), somehow didn't get any money when he went to PSG. Yeah, sure.
To be totally correct, I think that we need to add on Sanchez's fee 35m transfer because of Mhiki, but at the same time to deduct Mhiki's wages, in which case we have to add 10-15m or so in total and so the transfer becomes 120m pounds. Which isn't that bad, around 30m pounds for year. If Sanchez's give 3 seasons at his best, it would be a fantastic transfer.
About the other players (bar Van Diijk), we need to consider that they will have resale value (unlike Sanchez). They cost more than Sanchez (and bar Neymar, each of them are worse players than Sanchez), but the buying club can get some/all of their money back if they sell him in 2-3 years.
Anyway, I honestly don't care that much. We have the lowest wage to revenue ratio in the entire football (counting the clubs in top leagues), so if we pay to Sanchez 20m yearly wage, it won't make a difference at all. Him helping us just to reach UCL (or win UCL/league during his contract) is all that matters.
Neymar, a known money-hungry person, whose transfer to Barcelona had likely the biggest signing on fee/agent fee in the history of the sports (both to his father), somehow didn't get any money when he went to PSG. Yeah, sure.
To be totally correct, I think that we need to add on Sanchez's fee 35m transfer because of Mhiki, but at the same time to deduct Mhiki's wages, in which case we have to add 10-15m or so in total and so the transfer becomes 120m pounds. Which isn't that bad, around 30m pounds for year. If Sanchez's give 3 seasons at his best, it would be a fantastic transfer.
About the other players (bar Van Diijk), we need to consider that they will have resale value (unlike Sanchez). They cost more than Sanchez (and bar Neymar, each of them are worse players than Sanchez), but the buying club can get some/all of their money back if they sell him in 2-3 years.
Anyway, I honestly don't care that much. We have the lowest wage to revenue ratio in the entire football (counting the clubs in top leagues), so if we pay to Sanchez 20m yearly wage, it won't make a difference at all. Him helping us just to reach UCL (or win UCL/league during his contract) is all that matters.
No, it's not stupid at all.
Resale value is something big clubs should never care about much when it comes to players who you can be almost certain will succeed. Real Madrid did not care Figo, Zidane or Ronaldo would not have resale value when they broke records to buy them because they knew they would never sell them in their prime and would not recoup the money they paid for them. It's not in big club's interest to sell their best players to generate revenue, you buy them for a period of time you think they are going to be good for and not care what you will get afterwards. In Sanchez case the expectation is probably to have him carry our attack for 3-4 years.
A player like Sanchez is worth £70m minimum in open market. We did not pay a fee to get him, we offered a player that was surplus to requirements here and worth maybe £20m or £25m. Even if we paid his agent £10m or so, it's still a very good total of £30m or £40m which was only possible for us because of his contract status. Bear in mind that agents provision and signing on fee is something you would have paid even if you had paid full fee for him too, and they were very likely pretty standard for a world class player.
We got a very good opportunity to sign a world class player well below his market value, and the total outlay for him will be much lower than a typical cost of similar player in the market. City propaganda has somehow convinced people that the cost is going to be extreme and media have lapped it up but truth is we got a very good deal here that you wouldn't normally be able to get.
Last edited:
This is where everyone wrong , why did people using Sanchez value to estimate mkhi value ? They don't have the same value mate , one is +20 goals & assist combined every season the other one is our flop
The only reason arsenal agreed with swap deal is because Alexis is running out contract
rather than losing him for free & have to spend +90m to replace him , they accepted our offer
Arsenal wouldn't want to pay 35m for mkhi if it in cash , mkhi will be overlooked by top club & we might end up selling him for less than 20m in next summer due to his wage demand
Last edited:
How did the wages go up again? Didn't the report yesterday say that he's earning the same as Pogba which would put him at £290,000 per week before tax?
It doesn't make sense. I understand your logic and why you are saying it should be but it's what the club save on wages, it isn't part of what Alexis is costing us, it's that simple.
In terms of value, I agree it looks to be great value assuming he plays as we know he is capable of.
Funniest part about this is that United essentially made a profit on Mkhi since it was a no cash swap for Sanchez and Arsenal had valued him at 35m.
Another good point.
If we were to sell Sanchez this Summer we would get 80-100 miliion. We have a much bigger asset now than Miki would ever have been. So yes, he is free. Great business from the club.
That's actually a good point. Even if we were to sell him a year from now we would get £60m or more considering an almost 32-year old Dzeko is supposedly worth £30m to Chelsea, a 30-year old Sanchez would be double that minimum.
At the end of his contract, when he's almost 34, he won't be worth that much anymore but if he's good here for 4 and a half years then I doubt anyone will care that he has no resale value. Van Persie only really excelled here for a year, and then had good performance every now and again for the next two, and he was still an excellent buy at £24m.
Does anyone genuinely care about the financial aspects? You (United) have got a genuine world class player and game changer. So it's 100m over his contract or 500m it really doesn't matter. United can afford it no matter what. Put into context, he'll probably cost about as much as Mata does if you add wages and transfer fee up, or Fellaini, Darmian and Blind combined. I'd happily let all 4 of them go on a free to West brom if it meant keeping a Sanchez.
Too many people are fixated on the money nowadays, if the clubs can afford it, don't sweat it. It isn't coming out of your pay packet like N.I and council tax so just be happy you've got one of the best players in his position on the planet no matter the cost, cos he'll probably recoup that over his time with results that'd otherwise gone another way. I don't factor in Shirt sales as you don't get that money, the sponsor does, but the sponsor pays the money hoping to sell vastly overpriced t-shirts, Sanchez will sell a boatload. Win/win
Congrats on getting him anyway, nice to see City can't buy all the shiny things in the shop and I for one didn't wanna see them dominating a one horse race, if United, Chelsea (possibly) and Liverpool hopefully can keep on their coattails that's all the better for the league. I'd hate to see the Prem go the way of Germany or France and have one team just walking it. They might do it this year but next season should be closer as Sanchez will undoubtedly improve United, and I hope Keita is the missing link for Liverpool. Chelsea are bound to go buy a few players as well cos I can't see Conte still being there and a new manager will want funds to buy better players than Drinkwater and Barkley.
Too many people are fixated on the money nowadays, if the clubs can afford it, don't sweat it. It isn't coming out of your pay packet like N.I and council tax so just be happy you've got one of the best players in his position on the planet no matter the cost, cos he'll probably recoup that over his time with results that'd otherwise gone another way. I don't factor in Shirt sales as you don't get that money, the sponsor does, but the sponsor pays the money hoping to sell vastly overpriced t-shirts, Sanchez will sell a boatload. Win/win
Congrats on getting him anyway, nice to see City can't buy all the shiny things in the shop and I for one didn't wanna see them dominating a one horse race, if United, Chelsea (possibly) and Liverpool hopefully can keep on their coattails that's all the better for the league. I'd hate to see the Prem go the way of Germany or France and have one team just walking it. They might do it this year but next season should be closer as Sanchez will undoubtedly improve United, and I hope Keita is the missing link for Liverpool. Chelsea are bound to go buy a few players as well cos I can't see Conte still being there and a new manager will want funds to buy better players than Drinkwater and Barkley.
Only one life? ehHe's 3 years younger than me and has probably already made more money than i'll make in my life.
I understand your logic too, of looking at the Sanchez cost in isolation. It’s just that, to me, as it was a swap deal it makes sense to look at the bigger picture.
The figures being banded around in the media are mostly exaggerated rubbish. Quite annoying. But I’m just happy to have got a top quality player in!
I think the only direct financial benifit of Micky swap was to save on VAT tax. Lets assume the value of Micky in current market 35m £ , with 20% VAT, this will result in 7m £ saving . As logic dictate , this is the only number we can substract from Sanchez deal.
Not quite as putting him in the shop window would highlight a serious issue to other clubs hence his price plummeting. Probably around 40m. Anyway there is no point talking about how much he would cost now to others as it's a moot point since by time he leaves you he'll be past it.
Who gives a shit? We have financial experts running the club who ensure we pay what we can afford whilst still making a profit. Whether we pay Sanchez £300k or £500k makes no difference to any of us. The only reason for this modern day obsession with finances is to claim a moral victory over rival fans. I mean who the hell gets excited about discussing finances in their spare time for any other reason? Besides, if anyone's winning such a sad and pointless moral spending pissing war it's United; we're the richest club in the world and our spending is sustainable because we're globally massive. So to any envious Spurs, Liverpool, and Arsenal fans reading this, when you attempt to mock us for spending vast sums of money, we all know you'd love for your club to do the same, so give it a rest.
About time the money obsession died. It consumes every discussion regarding transfers and is boring as feck.
About time the money obsession died. It consumes every discussion regarding transfers and is boring as feck.
there's not really a bigger picture though, we would've sold Mkhi anyway and got his wages back and the transfer fee for it. You can't subtract his wages from Sanchez and ignore his potential transfer fee just because it makes the numbers look better.
We can't tell is Sanchez is value for money until he plays for us.
Mkhi didn't have a value? If we sold him to someone else we would have gotten 25-30 million for sure so saying how we paid zero for Sanchez makes no sense. Real value isn't 107 million but close to 140.
He is a great player who most definitely improves your squad. Congrats on signing him. Not sure why so many care about exactly how much he cost. Don't think we will ever know, nor does it matter. I think the last couple windows pundits have become obsessed with the financials of deals instead of what the signings represent in footballing terms and fans have been caught up with it as well. It's all inconsequential what matters is the football.
Except that his current form and his wage meant we're getting peanut. He didn't earn his gametime (there are others who deserved). How can you sell a player like that for more than his initial fee?
A motivated Alexis with few months left can help Arsenal to achieve CL qualification which tens of mil. Arsenal and Wenger failed to get him to perform to that level so it's similar to Mkhi situation where the player holds no real value to the team anymore. The value is determined by the buyer. The value is determined by the sellers, and not the market rate in this case, which as explained liability for the clubs the way they performed and their wage
Last edited:
Agree with this (apart from the hoping Liverpool do well next year
). Good post.This.
Because of the swap, the total Sanchez cost is the upfront bonus and the difference in wages between Alexis and Mkhi.
Thought he was on 165k according to football leaks?