Was Sanchez our worst ever transfer?

sillwuka

Full Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2013
Messages
3,013
Location
Reddish, Stockport
I might have terrible memory but wasn't Sanchez deployed up front rotating with Giroud at Arsenal?

He might have stood a chance if we played him there or as a support striker.
 

wolvored

Full Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
9,932
For the money we paid him and the amount of time he played then thats as big yes
 

OldTrevil

Full Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
2,875
No doubt. Followed closely by Lukaku given the outrageous amounts we spent on them. I'm not one for tattoos but if I was I'd be considering one of Inter right now
 

mitchmouse

loves to hate United.
Joined
Oct 8, 2014
Messages
17,486
You can't stop a loanee facing his parent club in Europe (Tibo vs us, Jovic vs Benfica) so he'd have been available to face you regardless.
you could if you'd put it in the contract - no idea if we ever thought of doing so...
 

Maticmaker

Full Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
4,663
Peter Davenport (late 80's) and Ted MacDougall (early 70's); whilst both hardworking lads they looked like fish out of water at United, so maybe they would give Sanchez a run for 'worst transfer' title
 

Ali Dia

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
14,302
Location
Souness's Super Sub/George Weahs Talented Cousin
Another season of the same and DDGs contract starts looking like a similar deal. Hearing Henderson is going to be on huge money on his new deal too. Whoever is pricing these deals is doing them from a purely financial standpoint. For me It feels like projected ability isn’t really being taken into account seriously enough. We pay more than any other club.
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
53,004
I love the way the Sanchez exit was initially reported as no cost to us, and a 13m transfer fee.
Then it became, no fee, but no cost to us.

Now it's we shipped 9m to get him out.

Wonder what the real truth is. Suspect the third one!
 
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
13,122
I love the way the Sanchez exit was initially reported as no cost to us, and a 13m transfer fee.
Then it became, no fee, but no cost to us.

Now it's we shipped 9m to get him out.

Wonder what the real truth is. Suspect the third one!
Does it matter. The most important thing is that he’s someone else’s problem now.
 

flappyjay

Full Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2016
Messages
5,932
What matters is that we have gotten a good solution out of this, better than we would have hoped for. Look at Bale and madrid now that's real bad. Arsenal it's even worse since it plays an even bigger part on their transfers than United and Madrid.
 

cyril C

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
2,643
I love the way the Sanchez exit was initially reported as no cost to us, and a 13m transfer fee.
Then it became, no fee, but no cost to us.

Now it's we shipped 9m to get him out.

Wonder what the real truth is. Suspect the third one!
MY suspect, is that they are all true.

The only untrue news was that Sanchez is accepting a pay cut to 8-9m p.a. (which equate to 140K p.w, imagine that) involving cutting his wages by 70%. Will you take a pay cut like that? If Bale takes a 70% pay cut even Villa can afford him....

So, my take on the transfer saga, is that Inter pays 13-15m transfer fee for Sanchez, but only willing to pay him 9m Euro on wage. MU will pass the transfer fee back to Inter/Sanchez to subsidise for his wage. I believe we need to top up that subsidise in order to facilitate a 3 year deal for Sanchez at around 300k pw, hence the last story about MU paying 9m to get him off the book.
 

Eugenius

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
3,932
Location
Behind You
I posted this almost two years ago, and quite frankly it's all still true:

Lots of people have been sticking the knife in on him. Honestly, when you consider all of the factors involved it's hard not to conclude this isn't the worst transfer in our history:

1) We're paying him ridiculous wages, which will probably mean our wage structure creeps even further upwards. Is it inconceivable that DDG and Pogba lump on 50k a week to their next contract demand?

2) We wrote off a £25-30m asset in Mhki to get him, when we could have got him on a free transfer in the summer. We're still paying him as if we did actually sign him for 'free'.

3) He literally has zero resale value. If we assume someone else would pay him £250k a week (already a massive amount) over the rest of his contract (until he is almost 34), that would require us to subsidise his wages by £7m a year for the next 4 years. I can't see anyone taking on those wages and paying us a transfer fee, so we could have to give him £30m to bugger off.

4) We obviously needed a RW, and his signing has taken up the resources we could have put towards it.

5) He's been massively detrimental to the development of Rashford and Martial.

6) He's been genuinely rubbish.

On a personal note, he's not all that likeable. He's only here to line his pockets, and is also a big moaner.

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/alexis-sánchez-2018-19-performances.440062/post-23092401
 

Mr. MUJAC

Manchester United Youth Historian
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
6,263
Location
Walter Crickmer started it all...
For the cost, wages, profile of the player and expectation levels, then I would say, he probably is the worst/least successful transfer we have made in my time. Notable mentions to Taibi, Bebe, Prunier and Veron.
Prunier was on trial and not a signing. There were no wages involved. Secondly, he had a good first game and in his second the whole team was dire that day at Spurs and Prunier was made the scapegoat. Then it turned into a myth and now its a fact.

Veron splits views. I liked him and thought he was quality...I'd never have in my worst transfers of all time category.

Taibi and Bebe were flops but hardly cost us a lot of money.
 

MrMarcello

In a well-ordered universe...
Joined
Dec 26, 2000
Messages
52,689
Location
On a pale blue dot in space
Gotta be Sanchez.

I've seen Milne's name mentioned in the past... how bad was that transfer in the end?

Nowhere near the cost and wages in today's market but at the time 170K wasn't chump change.
 

Buster15

Go on Didier
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
13,431
Location
Bristol
Supports
Bristol Rovers
For the money we paid him and the amount of time he played then thats as big yes
Agree.
Terrible value for money.
But. Let's not forget that many were delighted when we signed him and not City.
 

LoneStar

Full Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2017
Messages
3,558
Yes, from a monetary standpoint it’s no question. Extremely high wages, massive expectations and a transfer fee (we would have got some money for Mikhi)

While Di Maria came with sky high expectations, there was always a question mark whether he would adapt to the league and the system. And we recouped most of his transfer fee as well. And he at least had some memorable performances initially.

Sánchez for me came with even higher expectations. PL proven, top class (easily top 3 in the PL in his peak). Really thought he would push us to the next level and be Jose’s main man. How wrong we were. Massive flop.

I just hope the club has learnt a lesson here, regardless of how great a player is, we should never pay obscene wages to anyone. Would ruin the harmony in the squad, and also make it nearly impossible to get rid of (even more true for older players)
 

MrMarcello

In a well-ordered universe...
Joined
Dec 26, 2000
Messages
52,689
Location
On a pale blue dot in space
Agree.
Terrible value for money.
But. Let's not forget that many were delighted when we signed him and not City.
I was. He was a match-winner at Arsenal, figured that would transfer over with. Figured he could be that one player to take a side to higher realms.

Mahrez was the better choice at the time as he would have slotted into the RW slot badly needed, perhaps why City went for him over Sanchez. Not sure if that would have worked out far better but surely not worse.
 

Lennon7

nipple flasher and door destroyer
Joined
May 8, 2013
Messages
10,475
Location
M5
Nah. Maybe up there for disappointment but he was only 30 mil or so. Someone like Di Maria has to be worse - double the money, didn’t want to be here and was generally dog shit
 

zizou81

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
91
I’d probably put it as:
1. Sánchez
2. Di Maria (although much of this fee was recouped)
3. Schweinsteiger

Honourable mentions to Depay, Falcao, Veron.
Schweinsteiger didnt have a poor performance for us. He suffered from poor tactics. He was more underutilised in my opinion.

Unfortunately he was more of a scapegoat for van gaal.
 

IRELANDUNITED

Full Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2014
Messages
2,307
Veron was absolutely not a flop, a tad disappointing maybe but not a flop. Sanchez definitely is our worst ever.
 

MikeKing

Full Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2017
Messages
5,125
Supports
Bournemouth
Very bad transfer. That said, I'm happy these comes far and few between. Some clubs have these types of transfers happen more regularly than we do and never seem to get out of the habbit. At least we're on the right path again, both in terms of football performances, but also image and transfers.
 

Thaila-X

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 23, 2019
Messages
65
Location
Manchester
The financial side of it make it hard to look past. We paid for Pavarotti and ended up with Paul Potts.
 

Denis' cuff

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
7,771
Location
here
Birtles the worst. Striker. Cost the Equiv of 100m and didnt score once in his first season. Played regularly, full 90 mins

Jones. Cba doing the maths but project his cost over 9/10 years per minutes played
 

arthurka

Full Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
18,715
Location
Rectum
Peter Davenport (late 80's) and Ted MacDougall (early 70's); whilst both hardworking lads they looked like fish out of water at United, so maybe they would give Sanchez a run for 'worst transfer' title
When you take cost and wages into it Sanchez is in a league of his own really.
 

Red Royal

Full Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
3,038
Location
Planet Earth
Wow, just reading he has another thigh injury in his 1st game as a signed player for Inter. How fortunate are we that we gave got rid... even if it has cost us, it must be great not having him around. Really lucky that Inter are picking up our deadwood that no one else sees value in.
 

JB7

Full Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
8,841
I’d probably put it as:
1. Sánchez
2. Di Maria (although much of this fee was recouped)
3. Schweinsteiger

Honourable mentions to Depay, Falcao, Veron.
Ah yes, the 3 worst transfers in our entire 142 year history have all come in the last 6 years. Seems totally legit. :rolleyes:
 

el3mel

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2016
Messages
43,735
Location
Egypt
Did we really need another thread to discuss something that was discussed to death previously and most people agree he's ?
 

CG1010

Full Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
3,687
Ah yes, the 3 worst transfers in our entire 142 year history have all come in the last 6 years. Seems totally legit. :rolleyes:
I am sure you can enlighten all of us about some really bad transfers made 120 years ago
 

SadlerMUFC

Thinks for himself
Joined
Dec 7, 2017
Messages
5,746
Location
Niagara Falls, Canada
DiMaria wasn't as bad as many make him out to be. First off, he was played out of position. I remember at one point LVG complaining about how we didn't have a 20+ goal scorer on the team, meanwhile he had gotten rid of RVP, Chicharito, and Nani, and was playing Rooney as a holding midfielder and DiMaria as a striker. LVG was a real piece of work.

But before being played out of position, DiMaria was playing on the wing and doing well. He got a bunch of assists and a few goals. Then he had the worst game ever against Arsenal where he wasn't just the donkey of the match, but he also got red carded. Fell out of favour that night and never came back.

But to call him one of our worst signings is off the mark. I regret having him here as he doesn't deserve to have ever worn our shirt, but his signing was nowhere near as much of a disaster as Sanchez.

First off, the signing made absolutely no sense at all. At the time Martial was playing on the left wing and in really good form, with Rashford competing for the same position. The last thing we needed was another left winger. But then he started playing and disrupted any chemistry we were developing. Sanchez is definitely the worst signing we have ever made, and it's not even close....
 

meamth

New Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2017
Messages
5,946
Location
Malaysia
This seems like the worst, but weirdly enough I didn't cringe like Andy Carroll, Shevchenko, or Morata.
 

Relfy

Full Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2014
Messages
803
Prunier was on trial and not a signing. There were no wages involved. Secondly, he had a good first game and in his second the whole team was dire that day at Spurs and Prunier was made the scapegoat. Then it turned into a myth and now its a fact.

Veron splits views. I liked him and thought he was quality...I'd never have in my worst transfers of all time category.

Taibi and Bebe were flops but hardly cost us a lot of money.
My mistake, I didn't realise Prunier was only on trial at the club.

On Veron, he showed glimpses of his quality but overall he disappointed. For near 30m at the time, along with his reputation, he didn't deliver during his time with us which saw him sold at 50% of what we initially paid for him. Could and should have been a great for us. His assist for Forlan against Chelsea was my personal highlight from him.
 

Rolaholic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2016
Messages
11,161

The absolute cheek of this clown :lol: :houllier:

Didn't think we could have another expensive transfer go down in flames as much as Di Maria but here we are. They both stole a lot of money during their time here
 
Last edited:

el3mel

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2016
Messages
43,735
Location
Egypt

The absolute cheek of this clown :lol: :houllier:

Didn't think we could have another expensive transfer go down in flames as much as Di Maria but here we are. They both stole a lot of money during their time here
Not surprised about this. He really seemed to hate being here and was in for the money from the start.