Utd spent far more than Chelsea last season, how did that work out? You can't put how much a club is willing to blow on transfers down as proof that 1 club is moving forward and another isn't. And lets be fair Chelsea spend a lot of money too, around £200m(?) this season. The difference is Chelsea are no longer reckless in the transfer market - they don't make crazy short term signings and that coupled with their loan army means they're able to bring in a lot of money selling players they don't want or need.
January Transfer Window 2017/18
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
To be fair, we had a transfer strategy in the summer for the most part, but failed to get Perisic (which caused problems on the pitch and behind the scenes too). Lukaku was bought instead of Morata when it became apparent we could get him ahead of Chelsea.
I don't think Sanchez is a panic buy as such, more a world class player who is on the market and we could actually make good use of him, especially with an effective swap for Mkhitaryan.
I don't think Sanchez is a panic buy as such, more a world class player who is on the market and we could actually make good use of him, especially with an effective swap for Mkhitaryan.
Transfer spend is a gauge of how ambitious a club is to attempt to push on. United are constantly linked with signing the likes of Griezman, Chelsea seem more interested in signing the likes of Danny Drinkwater and Andy Carroll.
At risk of going around in circles, the facts are the facts, look at last seasons performance compared to this. United have improved, Chelsea the opposite.
Sanchez obviously agrees with me considering he's off to OT
We all know you can twist and manipulate facts to suit your argument. Chelsea have won the league and are one of a few also rans this season. Utd finished 6th last season and are one of a few also rans this season. And while Utd have been so ambitious, signing the Di Maria's, Pogba's and Lukaku's, Chelsea have won 2 league titles and Utd have finished in the top 4 once.Transfer spend is a gauge of how ambitious a club is to attempt to push on. United are constantly linked with signing the likes of Griezman, Chelsea seem more interested in signing the likes of Danny Drinkwater and Andy Carroll.
At risk of going around in circles, the facts are the facts, look at last seasons performance compared to this. United have improved, Chelsea the opposite.
Sanchez obviously agrees with me considering he's off to OT
Well Sanchez has agreed to join Utd over City too by all accounts (were Chelsea genuinely interested?) is that because Utd have progressed more than City and more ambitious or is it because they're the ones willing to pay him a £20m signing on fee and £350k per week?
There's no twisting needed, my simple point was United are a more promising proposition compared to Chelsea and i've outlined the reasons why. If I was a player, i'd want to win things, in your opinion as we sit here now who looks the more likely to win the league next season, United or Chelsea?
We know Sanchez won't be going to City because of the money, but who is to say Chelsea weren't offering 20m signing on fee and £350k per week?
Balague on ArsenalFanTV 
If that wasn't funny enough as it is, he's tried to hint without actually saying it that Liverpool are in for Sanchez too As ridiculous as that is, in terms of the positions on the pitch Sanchez plays he's probably more suited to a move to us than any of the sides mentioned. That said, the way in which he plays those positions (head down, all about him kind of mentality) is at complete odds to how we play and of course there's not a cat in hells chance that we'd spend this sort of money on a 29 year old.
I have no idea whether Chelsea were genuinely interested in him, let alone what they offered. The point I was making re City was that Sanchez's decision clearly isn't motivated by the clubs ambitions or progress which is what you've suggested is the reason why Sanchez is or will choose Utd over Chelsea. If he's willing to turn down City for money then there's no reason to think that any decision between any other clubs won't be determined by money either.
If that wasn't funny enough as it is, he's tried to hint without actually saying it that Liverpool are in for Sanchez too
As ridiculous as that is, in terms of the positions on the pitch Sanchez plays he's probably more suited to a move to us than any of the sides mentioned. That said, the way in which he plays those positions (head down, all about him kind of mentality) is at complete odds to how we play and of course there's not a cat in hells chance that we'd spend this sort of money on a 29 year old.I wasn't saying you were twisting, I was just pointing out that you can take the same facts and make an argument either way. I said above, Chelsea and Utd are a much of a muchness - both sides have had their ups and downs over the previous years and both have their issues around long term strategy and who will be manager in the next couple of years (I know Mourinho's likely to sign a new deal (so did Conte) but all that means is he'll get a bigger pay-off when things go bang). Any player joining either will be looking at the immediate future and not too far ahead imo and from that point of view, there's not much between them. As things stand neither side look like they're going to challenge City but at the same time should comfortably qualify for the CL over the next few years.
I have no idea whether Chelsea were genuinely interested in him, let alone what they offered. The point I was making re City was that Sanchez's decision clearly isn't motivated by the clubs ambitions or progress which is what you've suggested is the reason why Sanchez is or will choose Utd over Chelsea. If he's willing to turn down City for money then there's no reason to think that any decision between any other clubs won't be determined by money either.
For what it's worth I think City fabricated the Chelsea thing to try and cause trouble as they are annoyed about not getting him on their terms.
I think Liverpool would pay the Sanchez transfer fee but his contract would shatter their wage structure.
I think Liverpool would pay the Sanchez transfer fee but his contract would shatter their wage structure.
Money is always going to be a motivational factor, to some degree. Perhaps it's the only thing he cares about, who knows.
I just feel that all being equal, he would choose United over Chelsea. I guess we will never know if Chelsea were even in for him, that's just my personal opinion.
Out of spite? Quite possibly.
We wouldn't even pay the fee. Like I said earlier, anything you spend on Sanchez is dead money. Liverpool will only spend big on players that are long term signings or players that will have a resale value.
I don't see anything in it personally and I know I missed your edit regarding location in your previous post but that supposedly was a factor in why he joined Arsenal over Liverpool when he moved from Barca.
No doubt London can be a draw and is for a lot of players. Now he's been there for a while he probably can't wait to get out, I know I couldn't.
Don't you know who McBain is?
Exactly! I'm offended.
To get back on track, the big transfer news of this window has already happened - Jack Payne to the Rovers
So in other words nothing has been decided then
.
In a word no lol.So in other words nothing has been decided then
Apparently he wants more money and his agent wants paying aswell according to the mirror.
Last edited:
Yea, I don't think Walcott leaving really makes much of a difference to be honest
It's interesting to see Arsenal's approach to replacing Sanchez compared to Liverpool's with Coutinho. 5 months ago Arsenal's replacement for Sanchez was Lemar and they were willing to pay mega money for him. Given the amount they were willing to pay for Lemar you have to assume it wasn't a panic buy (or attempt to buy) so why now target Aubameyang instead? They can't get Lemar now so are settling for 2nd prize or is it a complete change of target?