Danny Roberts
Full Member
Blah blah blah
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?So I was on the tube, and saw at least 3 papers describing the Sanchez transfer as monstrous, taking his salary into account, agents fees when none of this shit ever gets mentioned with other transfers.
- Neymar - £200m + £660K a week (Pre tax) on 5 Year contract = £200m +172m in wages = £372m overall
- Coutinho - £140m + £240K a week (Pre Tax) on 5 year contract = £200m +63m = £263m Overall
- Dembele = £135.5m + 220K a week (Pre tax) on 5 year contract = 135.5m + 57m = £192.5m overall
- Pogba = £89.3m + 200K a week (pre tax) on a 5 year contract = £89.3m + 52m = £141m overall
- Van Dijk - £75m + 180K a week (Pre tax) on 5 year contract = £75m + 47m = £122m overall
- Sanchez = £0 + £10m signing on fee, £15m to agent, £350k a week wages on a 4.5 year contract = 25m + 82m = £107m overall
So putting his transfer into context.. I haven't even put it into context such as the fact we save money on Mkhi's wages, nor have I been able to locate exact details relating to agent's fees etc for these other transfers or other bonuses but feel free to make amends to the figures used in my OP. Neymar's overall transfer was touted to be in region of £450m - but I am not sure how they reached this figure for example.. need more info.
But the bottom line is, signing a genuine star in Sanchez, a guy who will be the jewel in our attack and our main man for the money we did - is for my money, considering that he is playing for a historically ferocious rival for the money we did.. is an absolute bargain.
The narrative in the media about the fee is a fecking joke it really is. Sanchez salary is a touch overpriced, but does he deserve more wages than a Coutinho? feck yes, he's a main attacker for a side not just a playmaker support act. Secondly he's a sure thing, not a risk or a developing player like a Dembele and you're getting him on a free transfer effectively and you're trying to beat a rival like City to his signature. I'd say taking that all into account £300k would probably be a very fair price in this current inflated market.
Anyway feel free to add any further details, comparisons, thoughts.
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.How many player's get their image rights referred to when we are trying to work out what they are paid..
Not saying that money shouldn't be included, but if we are including these figures for Sanchez, we need to do it across the board too.
Okay, maybe not facts, but other guesswork that doesn't support the narrative of Sanchez being less than super expensive.Facts? None of the numbers (except one or two published transfer fee)on this thread are facts, everything is guess work. Not a thread to talk about facts.
Also don't think extra 30-35 million over 4.5 years would change whether deal was good or very good for us.
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.Okay, maybe not facts, but other guesswork that doesn't support the narrative of Sanchez being less than super expensive.
30m is always significant.
Sanchez was valued at around £35 million by Arsenal and seemed to be the fee agreed between them and CityWho is going to buy 28 years old player who can't even get into our match day squad for 40m ? Name me a team
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.Either way he's the highest paid pl player ever, so whatever it is, it's stupid money.
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.And if Sanchez contributes to United's success in the league and Champions League, then it's entirely worth it.
United are one of very few clubs in the world that can absorb the cost of such deals.
Every transfer presents some element of risk.
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.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.
Sanchez is not super expensive considering how good he is.Okay, maybe not facts, but other guesswork that doesn't support the narrative of Sanchez being less than super expensive.
30m is always significant.
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.Okay, £35m... £30m...£25m..whatever is that amount needs to be added. Sanchez wasn't a gift.
Except Sanchez himself put that lazy claim to bed, when he didn't have to address it at all.It's not rocket science to think if city matched everything united offered Sanchez that he'd duly choose them
We’ve effectively swapped Miki for Sanchez so deducting Miki’s cost from Sanchez makes sense.It would be a fairer comparison to view it by year so you are comparing the same metric.
Also, those saying you need to subtract Mikhis wages, you don't.. we are looking at cost of Sanchez not the implication to Man United wages as a whole..
No, it's not stupid at all.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.
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 flopSanchez 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 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.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.
Another good point.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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!
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.So I was on the tube, and saw at least 3 papers describing the Sanchez transfer as monstrous, taking his salary into account, agents fees when none of this shit ever gets mentioned with other transfers.
- Neymar - £200m + £660K a week (Pre tax) on 5 Year contract = £200m +172m in wages = £372m overall
- Coutinho - £140m + £240K a week (Pre Tax) on 5 year contract = £200m +63m = £263m Overall
- Dembele = £135.5m + 220K a week (Pre tax) on 5 year contract = 135.5m + 57m = £192.5m overall
- Pogba = £89.3m + 200K a week (pre tax) on a 5 year contract = £89.3m + 52m = £141m overall
- Van Dijk - £75m + 180K a week (Pre tax) on 5 year contract = £75m + 47m = £122m overall
- Sanchez = £0 + £10m signing on fee, £15m to agent, £350k a week wages on a 4.5 year contract = 25m + 82m = £107m overall
So putting his transfer into context.. I haven't even put it into context such as the fact we save money on Mkhi's wages, nor have I been able to locate exact details relating to agent's fees etc for these other transfers or other bonuses but feel free to make amends to the figures used in my OP. Neymar's overall transfer was touted to be in region of £450m - but I am not sure how they reached this figure for example.. need more info.
But the bottom line is, signing a genuine star in Sanchez, a guy who will be the jewel in our attack and our main man for the money we did - is for my money, considering that he is playing for a historically ferocious rival for the money we did.. is an absolute bargain.
The narrative in the media about the fee is a fecking joke it really is. Sanchez salary is a touch overpriced, but does he deserve more wages than a Coutinho? feck yes, he's a main attacker for a side not just a playmaker support act. Secondly he's a sure thing, not a risk or a developing player like a Dembele and you're getting him on a free transfer effectively and you're trying to beat a rival like City to his signature. I'd say taking that all into account £300k would probably be a very fair price in this current inflated market.
Anyway feel free to add any further details, comparisons, thoughts.
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?You need to add the transfer fee. Mkhi with 3 years remaining on his contract would have gone for at least 40m in the summer under the current market conditions.
Also, all those are young players with a resale value. Don't think Sanchez would have much value when his contract finishes.
Agree with this (apart from the hoping Liverpool do well next year). Good post.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.
This.Actually, the cost of Sanchez is even lower.
You need to deduct Mihki's wages for 3(?) years off sanchez his wages.
(I think mikhi had like 3 years left no?)
Thought he was on 165k according to football leaks?Pogba is not on 200k pre tax. He's on 290k all in.
Also where did you get 15M agent fee?