Yeah as is the Amrabat one as well
Rasmus Højlund | Signed for United
- Thread starter Zoo
- Start date
- Status
Bloody hell, you feeling alright mate, not used to this level of positivity.
Ashes has finally exhausted me of negativity
How dare you.
Croady is the eternal ‘are we there yet’… kid on a car journey.
Not negative, just anxious and overinvested. Bless him.
I can understand that.Lack of patience
you must've mistaken me with somebody else. I have very little interest in this transfer and won't blink twice if this falls through. I actually hope this is a smoke screen for something bigger. It's not looking likely though. All eggs into one basket and such.PSV needed to sell, Atalanta don't. Hojlund is also a good few years younger so you're paying for the potential.
In a strikers market where a Nunez cost 100m Højlund is absolutely worth 50-60m.
Liverpool signed Darwin for £64m plus add ons after a season where he scored 26 league goals in 28 games.
Paying £60m for Højlund after he’s scored 9 goals is crackers - again, I’m not saying don’t sign him, I’m just saying that is way too much for what this lad has achieved thus far.
The point is there aren't any strikers available and you will need to massively overpay just to get one.
You have to take into the equation that PSV was desperate for money and basically sold their chances for the Dutch title by selling Gakpo and Madueke.
I hear what you're saying, but Nunez is also 24 right now, Højlund hasn't had as much time to prove himself. He also scored those goals for Atalanta, whereas Nunez was playing for arguably the best side in Portugal.
There's a lot of ways to spin this, and most of them all point back to the fact you're paying for potential and the idea he'll be worth way more than £60m one day.
Nunez may still well come good as a ST for Liverpool, it was only his first season in the EPL. If they end up paying all those add ons then he'll probably have been worth every penny at that point.
Then overpay for one who is a sure bet to definitely deliver as your only CF.
I get it, the market’s fecked, FFP etc, but surely that means that you take LESS gambles?
Who?
£60m for a 20 year old striker who would be priced at £90m if he explodes this season, gamble we have to take in my view, the addons taking it up to£60 meaning he would have been a success. If he has the traits Erik is looking for then you have to do it, just like Liverpool took a punt on Nunez (who incidentally is 3.5 yrs older).
The striker market is its own market, it's bonkers but you can't kneecap your entire season by relying on Martial.
The striker market is its own market, it's bonkers but you can't kneecap your entire season by relying on Martial.
I like the look of Hojlund and hope we sign him I do agree with the sentiment that £50m + is a lot to pay but I think this is an indication of the lack of strikers out there at present, cannot think of too many who would be worth signing sub £50m and those who are worth signing are significantly more than £50m in general, with strikers it is very much a sellers market, think if we want a striker this window, we either sign a cheap prospect and hope, promote a kid, or pay big money, Hojlund is probably the cheapest/safest bet of all of the options
Exactly...but people just believe what they want to, no matter how factually incorrect they might be.
A quick google and Arsenal started bidding around the 4th June and signed Rice around the 15th July...but lets forget that completely and just moan about United being slow compared to Arsenal who were rapid (apparently) and spend 6 weeks to sign Rice!!!
As much as it pains me to say it, Michael Owen was well up there. Fabregas too was a great teenager.
I don’t disagree with some of what you’ve said. But when you say we have spent enough, it doesn’t tell the whole story. We haven’t spent enough to win. Before the Glazers, the club wasn’t in huge debt. Now it is. That affects the investment into the club and the transfer budgets.
I also think it is part of the reason we end up overpaying for players. As far back as Fellaini when we refused to pay his release clause figure and ended up paying £4m more. (We also refused to pay Herrera’s release clause and he ended up buying himself out.) We brought in several crocked pensioners on Free Transfers (some did okay but were all short term “fixes”, kicking the problem down the street). We spent a lot of money but by trying to do everything on the cheap we ended up wasting a lot.
At the moment we do seem to be fighting the fight as well as we can with one arm behind our back and, on some level that is encouraging. I get as excited by Hoj as I would by Kane, I think, but it is a sign of the market we are shopping in that Hoj is even on our list.
I hear you when you talk about oil money etc distorting the market. That’s only going to get worse.
In this case, it's Atalanta's fault. They're not budging enough from their stupidly high €100m valuation.
We can either sign a player quickly for an un-negotiated fee, or we can drag it out in the hope of paying a little bit less. It was Ed Woodward who somehow always seemed to drag it out and still pay huge amounts.
To the credit of Murtough and Arnold, we got Onana and Mount done fairly quickly (about 6 weeks each). So I think we may have turned the corner with the current lot. But Hojlund is always going to take longer because of the selling club's negotiators more so than ours.
He’s not negative! He’s just level-headed. Perhaps a touch cynical.
(And he keeps his posts short and sweet so we never hear a long-winded moan from him!!).
The problems you are describing relate to spending money poorly, and not necessarily not having enough money. Go to transfermarkt and see our transfer spend since the Glazers came. Each season individually and spanning across multiple years. We are consistently top spenders. We just spend poorly and then mismanage the assets we've purchased.
As for Hojlund/Kane, I am in the minority here too but I don't want 30 year old strikers who cost £100m. Regardless of how much money we have. Just doesn't make sense to me.
£60M is insane for what is essentially a youth player who will be thrown in the first team and might be completely out of his depth.
For me, £35M is about right for a player who might not make it.
He is a young player and has a lot to prove even at his current club.
He's not essentially a youth player. Kobbie Mainoo is a youth player. Barely played competitive fixtures.
Hojlund has a season of top flight Serie A football under his belt, a handful of international appearences and some appearences in minor European leagues, which is still senior football.
Kane would give us instant impact, from game 1.
Another striker would need time to bed into the team.
Hojlund would probably need about 3 years to adapt to the EPL and MUFC.
60m could be 50m + 10m performance related addons …. I hope
We won't get Kane unless on a free in 2024
For every Van Persie there's an Alexis Sanchez. Don't forget that.
Also, I'm never willing to focus on today at the expense of tomorrow.
the trouble these posters have is they believe all the nonsense transfer journalists write like "monitoring the situation", "preparing a bid" as if thats real life and not what some knob-head made up for clicks
Yeah that sounds about right
So I guess this is a done dealeo and we’re just waiting for Atlanta to sort out his replacement?
Can’t say I’ve seen much of him. Interested to watch him and see how he performs under ETH.
Can’t say I’ve seen much of him. Interested to watch him and see how he performs under ETH.
Wise words.
They already have done
Come on, Kane’s the real deal. He’s a PL great and a bonafide goal machine.
If people are willing to believe that Højlund is worth £60m, then Kane is an absolute bargain at £100m.
Last edited:
Why are we even negotiating with the likes of Atlanta, Atalanta, what was it? For a piffling 100mil? Just pay them and damn their impudence.
Hojlund wouldn’t be our starting striker, it will be Sancho
This deserves white text
What does it matter? If the economics aren't there to even put in that bid and pay the player, which may or may not be enough to convince the club then it's irrelevant who the best "value" is. Totally and utterly irrelevant. We have to go for the deal which we can actually make.
I’m guessing because their club is leaking a higher price to their press to get a higher transfer fee through anchoring
- Status