Fecking Raiola, he's making a living to say the least.
Putting the Sanchez transfer fee into context (financial comparisons)
- Thread starter Raees
- Start date
Mike Schatner
Devil's advocnut
Why do fans get so wound up about transfer fees and player salaries?
The market is what it is and the players will squeeze as much as possible out of a team. The main thing is in United case is the spending and wage bill is inline with our turnover and profits. What the club pays in fees and salaries has very little impact on any of our lives.
Just be bloody happy we have added some great talent recently and hope they gel on the field.
The market is what it is and the players will squeeze as much as possible out of a team. The main thing is in United case is the spending and wage bill is inline with our turnover and profits. What the club pays in fees and salaries has very little impact on any of our lives.
Just be bloody happy we have added some great talent recently and hope they gel on the field.
This straight deal is definitely better than selling Miki to another club and use the money to sign Sanchez. As far what I can remember Arsenal wanted 35m fees for Sanchez, not sure how did you get that 20m value.Do none of you understand that Mkhitaryan had a market value, would it have been easier to understand had we sold him to another club and then paid that fee to Arsenal? Also the signing on fee was £20m. Go listen to Duncan Castle’s podcast and he backs up Matt Law’s original claim that Sanchez’s agent asked for the money city were saving this jan compared the last summer to be paid to himself and his client in the form of a greater signing on fee and wages.
And think about it, The best teams that Miki can only go is probably a team like Inter, Dortmund or Napoli. Miki's market value might be around 30m, but I doubt those clubs are willing to pay 35m on Miki. We bought him from Dortmund about 26m and Dortmund is surely not stupid enough to buy him back for more than we paid him before. At the end of the day selling 29 y.o. Miki for 35m will be a tough task and I think we can only get him for 20m-25m at best.
@Raees
Rumour says Sanchez's wages is about the same with Pogba which is 290k or 300k per week. Potentially might even be less than that 107m. And also I thought contract usually end in the summer so that means van Dijk is supposed to be 5.5 years not 5 years, that means van Dijk might cost more than 122m.
Rumour says Sanchez's wages is about the same with Pogba which is 290k or 300k per week. Potentially might even be less than that 107m. And also I thought contract usually end in the summer so that means van Dijk is supposed to be 5.5 years not 5 years, that means van Dijk might cost more than 122m.
DdeGoat
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2017
- Messages
- 468
Arsenal exchanged him for a player they values at £35m, there is one.Who is going to buy 28 years old player who can't even get into our match day squad for 40m ? Name me a team
Inter were interested in him on an initial loan with an option to buy in the summer. That's two.
Juventus were linked with him too. That's three
I am sure there will be other teams interested in him too.
Inter asked for £50m for a player older than him and not as accomplished. Chelsea were able to sell Cuadrado and Schrulle at good prices, two players not half as talented. The market is crazy. Good players are not dime a dozen.
Also, funny that age of the player is an issue in this thread when the forum erupts with bland "he is 29, that's closer to 35" or similar jokes every time the age of a player we want to buy is mentioned.
This is actually a stupid thread as the OP had no intention of discussing the actual value of the deals. The purpose was to some feel better about an already excellent buy for us. My bad, sorry, that I entered the thread with my logic.
Pacificgi
Full Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2017
- Messages
- 628
Given what other players have gone for we've got sanchez for peanuts altogether. Footballers wages shouldnt really bother us at this point. We've got one of the best players in the world for up to 4 years partly thanks to city deciding an extra 10-15 million is too much even though theyve spent 30million on a full back in danilo who doesnt even play
TheReligion
Abusive
You're just making things up here to suit your agenda.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.
It's very silly.
TheReligion
Abusive
I think alot of people are missing a big point here.
What would your value Mkhi at?
What would you value Alexis at?
United have swapped one for the other with ZERO fee.
United have killed it here whatever way you look at it. Taking all other factors off the table, and looking at them player for player, Alexis is a huge asset. Miki isn't.
What would your value Mkhi at?
What would you value Alexis at?
United have swapped one for the other with ZERO fee.
United have killed it here whatever way you look at it. Taking all other factors off the table, and looking at them player for player, Alexis is a huge asset. Miki isn't.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2015
- Messages
- 343
- Supports
- Arsenal
In hindsight this whole thread is silly. OP looks like he tried to use some other transfers to make himself feel better about this one, but truth is you are paying a pretty penny here. Regardless if you can afford it then fair enough.You're just making things up here to suit your agenda.
It's very silly.
Just a couple of points.
Value: Alexis is a multi-functional player able to play in 4 positions to a very high standard. This will have likely saved United having another expensive player to fill one of those positions on the books. Mkhi was being paid for being a squad player (150k?). The club has saved this money by passing this cost by selling to Arsenal. I personally think we would have had to subsidise Mkhi's salary or sell at a substantially reduced price had we kept him much longer, such was his form.
Fans Perspective: Would any football fan rather watch a talented player playing for your club or prefer having a money in the bank, or with the owners? As long as the club is working within its means I know what I prefer.
Value: Alexis is a multi-functional player able to play in 4 positions to a very high standard. This will have likely saved United having another expensive player to fill one of those positions on the books. Mkhi was being paid for being a squad player (150k?). The club has saved this money by passing this cost by selling to Arsenal. I personally think we would have had to subsidise Mkhi's salary or sell at a substantially reduced price had we kept him much longer, such was his form.
Fans Perspective: Would any football fan rather watch a talented player playing for your club or prefer having a money in the bank, or with the owners? As long as the club is working within its means I know what I prefer.
Ish
Lights on for Luke
Were the 10 and 15m signing and agent fees confirmed?
I don't think we should be even discussing this. We have just signed one of the best in the league. Why do we care how much our club pays him. Let the butthurt media and rival fans make up their own numbers and cry over it. We should just be enjoying the fact that we have a fantastic player in our hands.