Would you sell Jadon Sancho this summer? And do you think he will be sold?

justsomebloke said:
Surely his negative impact on FFP will be greater if we don't sell him?
Click to expand...

I am by no means an expert on the details of FFP, but from what I’ve read that isn’t the case. It does seem weird that you’d be punished more by FFP for selling a player for a loss than just keeping an underperforming player you paid big money for. That being said, if there aren’t negative ramifications to FFP, and we get a decent offer, I’d have no objections to the club selling him. I don’t think he’s the finished product yet, and I do believe he is talented, so I would also be ok keeping him for another year to see if there is any growth under Ten Hag if we don’t get any decent offers (which I would not expect to get anyway).
 
Redbandito said:
I am by no means an expert on the details of FFP, but from what I’ve read that isn’t the case. It does seem weird that you’d be punished more by FFP for selling a player for a loss than just keeping an underperforming player you paid big money for. That being said, if there aren’t negative ramifications to FFP, and we get a decent offer, I’d have no objections to the club selling him. I don’t think he’s the finished product yet, and I do believe he is talented, so I would also be ok keeping him for another year to see if there is any growth under Ten Hag if we don’t get any decent offers (which I would not expect to get anyway).
Click to expand...


The (financial) reason we won't sell him is because no other team would pay him close to the astronomical wage he is reportedly on. It's not to do with FFP.

It seems people are getting confused about the negative FFP implications of selling him because they're only considering his transfer fee, and ignoring his wages. If you ignore his wages, we'd need to sell him for about £44m to avoid making a loss in the 23-24 accounts. However, once you account for the fact that you'd save his wage cost if you sell him, we'd only need to sell him for around £26m to avoid making a loss. £26m would be reasonable.

However, this assumes that we don't buy a replacement for him.
 
How many better attacking players do we have..?
Rashford of course, but then?
Martial is certainly not better, Antony is on par with Sancho. Elanga, Pellistri and Weghorst are not good enough for this level. I would sell Martial Elanga Pellistri long before i`d sell Sancho tbh.
 
If it was down to me I'd sell him in a heartbeat.

Do I think the club will sell him? No, sadly.

In my opinion he's nowhere near good enough for us and from my observations over the years I cant ever remember a player coming good after just 1 year of anonymous/mediocre performances, certainly not after 2 years.
 
Why on earth would we want to sell? He's 23 and talented. The potential is there. People give up to quick.

Unless he wants out himself I see absolutely no reason to sell.
 
Sancho is the biggest blunder along with Sanchez by Woodward’s era pay scale.
Sell him right away if we could get half of the fee.

Paying big contract to player who don’t perform will only cause wage issues in squad. Players won’t accept performance related wage if players like Sancho are in high wages without it. No wonder Rashford is not signing contract yet.
 
Devil You Know said:
Yes, sell him. He's not good enough. We need to get away from keeping players for years and years in the hope that they'll eventually come good. All the while, they're gradually losing transfer value and contributing to the dressing culture of entitlement, unearned wealth and the false sense that they've "made it".

It might end up being a mistake. I doubt it, but that's always the risk. Either way, it's a risk we need to take more often because United will get it right more than they get it wrong. Under Woodward, it was the opposite.
Click to expand...

I think one of our problems is how lacksadisical we have been to address problems like this.
Sancho has been poor in his time with us, his performances have not been up to scratch.
Would you expect a top team to persist with a player who hasn't shown anything in two seasons? no

People seem to have a false perception of what we are as a club. Fergie didn't give players offering nothing time. A poor performer was usually flogged off after a season of poor performances. Veron wasn't a poor performer, Forlan wasn't a poor performer, Anderson wasn't a poor performer. They played well, but were not as good as expected. Someone like Antony hasn't been a poor performer, just not good, but still contributing. Sancho has been terrible, and us giving him time, given how horrible our attack was this season, shows our problem.

As a club, we're too lenient with poor performances. The questions that needs to be asked are:
1. Can he be a dominant performer for either flank based on performances - No
2. Can you trust him to have a good performance against poor to average opposition - No
3. Is he impactful off the bench - No

Then why is he here?
 
Big Ben Foster said:
Normally I'd say yes. Two years is more than enough time to evaluate a player and make a call on his future.

The only reason I'd hold off on selling him this summer is due to the FFP ramifications. Unless we get a large fee (unlikely), getting rid of him would make our spending constraints even worse as we'd have to write down his book value.

Best case scenario would be a loan with wages paid by the receiving club, with an obligation to buy next summer. Don't think that'll realistically happen though.
Click to expand...
For this reason I’d say no because no one is going to give us our money back on him
 
tjb said:
I think one of our problems is how lacksadisical we have been to address problems like this.
Would you expect a top team to persist with a player who hasn't shown anything in two seasons? no
Click to expand...
You actually see it quite a lot. There are loads of disappointing signings hanging around at clubs because either they are not that big of an issue to the team/moral, selling is difficult or they just aren't causing enough of a problem to take a financial hit to get rid of them.

I'll use more extreme examples of big signings who relatively recent signings who had at least 2 disappointing seasons at a club and still found themselves still at the club in season 3 (not out on loan).

Atletico Madrid: Felix, Lemar
Real Madrid: Hazard
Chelsea: Kepa, Havertz
Arsenal: Pepe
Bayern: Sane
Liverpool: Keita

There are probably more too but it's not that uncommon to see, especially for younger player and ones that aren't deemed as bad for the dressing room they stay in the hope they will improve or at worst clubs would rather not take a financial hit to get rid like we have seen with Ozil and Auba at Arsenal and Sanchez at United. Probably the most extreme example Bale was hanging around at Madrid for ages despite him basically offering nothing for years.
 
1988 said:
Why on earth would we want to sell? He's 23 and talented. The potential is there. People give up to quick.

Unless he wants out himself I see absolutely no reason to sell.
Click to expand...

He’s 23 and we haven’t seen anywhere near the form he showed at Dortmund, he has only played in a lesser league, Pep reminds me of SAF in the way in which he got rid as soon as he knew a player simply was not good enough, and Pep didnt fight to keep him. Keeping players in the hope that they will improve has cost us m over the years, we can’t keep waiting for him on a return in our investment.
 
I don’t think we would get a reasonable offer from any team who could afford his wages so absolutely keep…

He follows instructions well, tracks back has an amazing touch and very adaptable position wise.

He often starts moves quite quickly from defensive positions…you can see some nervousness when he gets to the box but he is getting his confidence back.

I think he will come good.
 
tjb said:
I think one of our problems is how lacksadisical we have been to address problems like this.
Sancho has been poor in his time with us, his performances have not been up to scratch.
Would you expect a top team to persist with a player who hasn't shown anything in two seasons? no

People seem to have a false perception of what we are as a club. Fergie didn't give players offering nothing time. A poor performer was usually flogged off after a season of poor performances. Veron wasn't a poor performer, Forlan wasn't a poor performer, Anderson wasn't a poor performer. They played well, but were not as good as expected. Someone like Antony hasn't been a poor performer, just not good, but still contributing. Sancho has been terrible, and us giving him time, given how horrible our attack was this season, shows our problem.

As a club, we're too lenient with poor performances. The questions that needs to be asked are:
1. Can he be a dominant performer for either flank based on performances - No
2. Can you trust him to have a good performance against poor to average opposition - No
3. Is he impactful off the bench - No

Then why is he here?
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with the general sentiment - but that is predicated on 'good judgement' on a player's upside vs downside risk. It might not be the fairest comparison, but Chelsea were quick to get rid of KDB and Salah, and even United didn't persist with Forlan - you could argue those are instances in which clubs could have benefited from more patience or better judgement of a player's potential to contribute in the medium term.

With regards to Sancho, my personal feelings are that he has enough credit in the bank (mostly from his Dortmund performances, but even flashes at United) that suggest that he is not a definite bust. While he seems to have good technique and footwork, his lack of physical attributes like speed and strength means he isn't actually the best in 1 on 1 attacking situations - instead, I think his best attribute is his attacking intelligence and weight of pass, which does make him more reliant on having intelligent runners around him (not just attackers but in the fullback position as well), which is an area I think we've really struggled with, but is also an area I believe ETH is building towards. Given his fit for such a system, I would prefer if we showed him more patience.
 
Was interesting to see how Garnacho played when he came on. No fear, take the player on, be brave. Kind of reminded of a certain Jadon Sancho at Dortmund a few years back. I would give him another full season see if he can improve and take heed like Rashford did. If after 12 months he still isn't cutting it then time to move on. Be interested to see if his output is improved with a proper number 9 who stays fit for most of the season.
 
Corey said:
The (financial) reason we won't sell him is because no other team would pay him close to the astronomical wage he is reportedly on. It's not to do with FFP.

It seems people are getting confused about the negative FFP implications of selling him because they're only considering his transfer fee, and ignoring his wages. If you ignore his wages, we'd need to sell him for about £44m to avoid making a loss in the 23-24 accounts. However, once you account for the fact that you'd save his wage cost if you sell him, we'd only need to sell him for around £26m to avoid making a loss. £26m would be reasonable.

However, this assumes that we don't buy a replacement for him.
Click to expand...

That is not entirely accurate. The transfer fee is amoritized over the length of the contract so basically if we buy someone for 50M on a 5 year deal they count 10M per year for the life of the contract as transfer spend. If you sell that player after 2 years the remaining 30M of the original transfer fee is due and has to process on that years accounts and so you need a hefty fee to make that into a net gain even allowing for saved wages. In the case of Sancho I believe the amount that would be due is closer to 50M if he is sold this summer so we would need to sell for significantly more than 26M just to break even let alone generate any kind of revenue that could be used to fund a replacement. @Messier1994 could explain this far more precisely than I.
 
Gandalf said:
That is not entirely accurate. The transfer fee is amoritized over the length of the contract so basically if we buy someone for 50M on a 5 year deal they count 10M per year for the life of the contract as transfer spend. If you sell that player after 2 years the remaining 30M of the original transfer fee is due and has to process on that years accounts and so you need a hefty fee to make that into a net gain even allowing for saved wages. In the case of Sancho I believe the amount that would be due is closer to 50M if he is sold this summer so we would need to sell for significantly more than 26M just to break even let alone generate any kind of revenue that could be used to fund a replacement. @Messier1994 could explain this far more precisely than I.
Click to expand...


Sancho's transfer fee has been reported as £73m and his contract length is 5 years. So after two years 2/5ths of the transfer fee (£29m ) will have been amortised, and the remaining 3/5ths (£44m) will be his net book value.

Therefore, if we sell him for less than £44m it will be recorded in the accounts as a loss on the sale of an asset. Suppose we sold him for £26m, then this would be an £18m loss.

However, Sancho's wages are reportedly around £18m per season. So if we sell him then it will reduce our salary cost, and hence boost our annual profit/reduce our annual loss by £18m.

Hence £26m is the rough breakeven figure if we were to sell Sancho this Summer.
 
sirAlexsglasses said:
He’s 23 and we haven’t seen anywhere near the form he showed at Dortmund, he has only played in a lesser league, Pep reminds me of SAF in the way in which he got rid as soon as he knew a player simply was not good enough, and Pep didnt fight to keep him. Keeping players in the hope that they will improve has cost us m over the years, we can’t keep waiting for him on a return in our investment.
Click to expand...
What a load of nonsense! Pep didn’t ‘let Sancho go’ and reports were that City desperately wanted to keep him! He was a very talented 17 year old kid and one of the highest rated teenagers in the world. I suspect he’d actually look very good if he were playing in City’s side right now!
 
It's interesting all the people saying sell when the stats put him only behind Bruno as our most creative forward.
 
Not unless we get a good offer well in excess of book value.

I'm not particularly enthusiastic about his chances of making it, but it's probably better gambling on that than taking 30 million or something silly. The problem is not many people come in for big fees, suck for 2 years then suddenly become great. History probably isn't on his side.

Realistically his worth on the market probably can't shrink that far beyond currently, he's a couple years in with very few performances so we'd get pretty close to the bottom price for him.

Can we loan him? Maybe if there's an appealing offer and destination. It depends on what we're doing with Diallo, I think.

I think there might be a bit of a sign ETH still has some belief in him because it would have been fairly easy to start Garnacho last night. But he doesn't. He goes for Sancho. So it's either that or he's putting him in the shop window but that feels a bit cynical and unlikely for me - ETH is business first, he wants to win matches and wouldn't compromise that if he didn't believe in his selection.
 
Corey said:
Sancho's transfer fee has been reported as £73m and his contract length is 5 years. So after two years 2/5ths of the transfer fee (£29m ) will have been amortised, and the remaining 3/5ths (£44m) will be his net book value.
Hence £26m is the rough breakeven figure if we were to sell Sancho this Summer.
Click to expand...
They way I read it is £73m 5 year contract leaves £43.8m left. Yearly cost (£18.2 wages + Amort £14.6m ) total 32.8m so the way i read it anything north of £9m and it shows as a Net gain in the balance sheet. I may be wrong.
 
sirAlexsglasses said:
He’s 23 and we haven’t seen anywhere near the form he showed at Dortmund, he has only played in a lesser league, Pep reminds me of SAF in the way in which he got rid as soon as he knew a player simply was not good enough, and Pep didnt fight to keep him. Keeping players in the hope that they will improve has cost us m over the years, we can’t keep waiting for him on a return in our investment.
Click to expand...

People are too quick to lose faith in players. Have a little patience and stop being so dramatic over an out of form season. Don't even judge his first season here because it was chaotic for everyone at the club. No one settles when the structure at the club crumbles.
 
Have to give him next season, as he did have personal problems disrupting this year.
But the pressure is on. For that fee, and for a wide United player, there has to be an expectation of a bigger output than shown so far.

The most worrying thing is that we seemed to buy him as a right winger when he's much better on the other side, where we already had Rashford and now have Garnacho.
 
Corey said:
Sancho's transfer fee has been reported as £73m and his contract length is 5 years. So after two years 2/5ths of the transfer fee (£29m ) will have been amortised, and the remaining 3/5ths (£44m) will be his net book value.

Therefore, if we sell him for less than £44m it will be recorded in the accounts as a loss on the sale of an asset. Suppose we sold him for £26m, then this would be an £18m loss.

However, Sancho's wages are reportedly around £18m per season. So if we sell him then it will reduce our salary cost, and hence boost our annual profit/reduce our annual loss by £18m.

Hence £26m is the rough breakeven figure if we were to sell Sancho this Summer.
Click to expand...

I think the issue there is that if you simply break even you are not freeing up any money to add to transfer spend so the net effect is you have reduced your squad by 1 player for no gain and you may well then have to spend to fill that position. Typically clubs only do this when the player in question is a complete write off and/or a toxic personality. Sancho is neither of these things and so it makes sense to persevere for another season in hopes ETH can get more from him so that even in a worst case scenario we are in position after year 3 where selling him will actually provide a net gain to our transfer activity.
 
Gandalf said:
I think the issue there is that if you simply break even you are not freeing up any money to add to transfer spend so the net effect is you have reduced your squad by 1 player for no gain and you may well then have to spend to fill that position. Typically clubs only do this when the player in question is a complete write off and/or a toxic personality. Sancho is neither of these things and so it makes sense to persevere for another season in hopes ETH can get more from him so that even in a worst case scenario we are in position after year 3 where selling him will actually provide a net gain to our transfer activity.
Click to expand...


I agree, I don't think it makes sense to sell because we won't get that much money and then we lose a player. Hopefully he can kick on next season and come close to proving his worth, otherwise I suspect he will be sold the following Summer.
 
I would sell him as I just can't see him ever doing anything special in a MUFC shirt.
Some players are built for the big stage, others are not.
Will we sell him? I doubt it. We like to hang on to deadwood.
 
He’ll get one more season to improve. I’m not convinced he’ll ever be more than a squad player but the finances of a sale don’t add up so I think it makes sense to give him another chance rather than loan him out.
 
No club is going to pay Sancho £350k per week so we're stuck with him. Best hope he improves. His performance against Chelsea was good, would be nice if he could continue that.

Also, unrelated but just saw Sabitzer is on £210k per week. Bloody hell
 
Definitely sell. He doesn't seem arsed most of the time and is always pulling out of 50/50 tackles.
His wages are a real problem too. There are other players in the squad that play better than him but get paid less. Not good for the squad.
 
Idxomer said:
It's interesting all the people saying sell when the stats put him only behind Bruno as our most creative forward.
Click to expand...
Probably because there aren't many who consider United to be a very creative team anyways plus, I guess, Sanchos creative stats are probably closer to those of Casemiro than they are close to Bruno. He hasn't been good for us. Who knows what the reasons are but for now, it just doesn't feel like United and Sancho are a match. Something has to happen, depending on what his issues are, do whats the best for both parties. Be that a good loan or be it a transfer. Just don't just try to sit the issue out doing nothing but hope.
 
Dazzmondo said:
No club is going to pay Sancho £350k per week so we're stuck with him. Best hope he improves. His performance against Chelsea was good, would be nice if he could continue that.

Also, unrelated but just saw Sabitzer is on £210k per week. Bloody hell
Click to expand...

Thats surprising…..where did you see that?….and more importantly is that his Bayern wage and what we had to pay or the wage we had to pay to entice him here?
 
The lad has talent, but he doesn't have the mentality to be a top level player, not for this club anyway. We need players who are fighters and hungry for success. Sancho doesn't seem to fall into either of these two categories.

The Sevilla away game was the one that made up my mind about him for me. We're under the cosh, getting battered and hanging on, and he pulls out of a 50-50 on the edge of our box. He got hooked at half time, I thought Erik wouldn't play him for the rest of the season after that!

A small little vignette I know, probably overly harsh you might think. But it showed he doesn't have the cojones to be a top player. He'll go missing in any big game we play against tough opposition, absolutely guaranteed. Is that the type of player that's going to help us get back to the very top?

As to selling him, very few clubs could afford to take him on for the money he's on, and the ones that can afford it are not going to be interested. They can see this lad doesn't have the minerals as sure as I and many other fans can. So we're stuck with him for the foreseeable I think.
 
Dazzmondo said:
No club is going to pay Sancho £350k per week so we're stuck with him. Best hope he improves. His performance against Chelsea was good, would be nice if he could continue that.
Click to expand...

As Shania Twain once said, "that don't impress me much!"

He'll do OK in home games against poor and demoralised opposition. And for that reason, if we can't sell him, maybe he could be a squad player for those types of fixtures.

But don't let it fool you. In most games against good opposition, or even teams who just have a bit of bite about them, he'll go awol.
 
Easy decision. If someone come in with a 80m offer then take it, but will there be any? Unlike Maguire or Bailey, we don't need to get rid of him on the cheap. IMO VDB, Telles are higher priority fire sale.
 
Maybe we could at least try to loan him out to some slower league first. His value may rise after that.
 
If he can play great game and make impact in offense and defense vs City in final, he will give me hope to keep him.
 
I'd keep him another season, he's a talento but hasn't adapted i think he would do better with a true #9 next to him
 
You must log in or register to reply here.