January Transfer Window 2017/18

[Lord-Jaffa]

Had you paid cash on top of Mkhitaryan then you'd have been mad but then again if the reported wages and signing on fees are true, you're probably mad anyway. Sanchez is a more talented player but he's worth nothing in a matter of months - valuing them at the same is probably slightly generous to Arsenal. As soon as Utd have convinced Sanchez to sign then you've got Arsenal over a barrel and you could have squeezed them on the fee. Would you have really struggled to pick up £30m odd of Mkhitaryan had you sold him separately? The only reason imo why Utd have accepted a straight swap is for the certainty it brings - they don't have to worry about finding a buyer for Mkhitaryan and face the possibility of paying his wages for another 6 months if a deal doesn't happen now.

You keep mentioning his worth is nothing in 6 months, what do you estimate his worth to be had his contact been 4 years? In 6 months he could have very well ended up at Madrid/Barca, All things considered its a great swap for us, Mkhitaryan has looked useless this season.

 

[Yas786]

Reports from Germany saying arsenals bid for pea rejected

That does not surprise me in the slightest lol.

Typical Arsenal, ffs just pay what the other team wants if you really want that player.

As I said before Auba probably won’t be coming to Arsenal. Again we are shafted with the whole Sanchez affair. Should have just kept him till summer, we didn’t get any money for him as it’s being reported now. Stick the petulant fool in reserves and let him rot there till the summer then he can **** off to whatever team that wants him and his baggage.

 

[robfosters]

That does not surprise me in the slightest lol.

Typical Arsenal, ffs just pay what the other team wants if you really want that player.

As I said before Auba probably won’t be coming to Arsenal. Again we are shafted with the whole Sanchez affair. Should have just kept him till summer, we didn’t get any money for him as it’s being reported now. Stick the petulant fool in reserves and let him rot there till the summer then he can **** off to whatever team that wants him and his baggage.

That would have been a totally retarded thing to do. What is the point of sticking a player of his quality in the reserves on £140k a week when you can get a top player like Mikhi in return? A brainless act.

 

[BaZ87]

Who would be lining up to pay £30m+ for Mkhitaryan? He's looked nothing but average since joining.

No chance we would have got £30m for Mkhi, Jose has done his best to destroy any value he had this season through mismanagement.

Ross Barkley with 12 months on his deal was worth £35m. Mhkitaryan's done enough before to justify somebody taking him for that sort of money.

You keep mentioning his worth is nothing in 6 months, what do you estimate his worth to be had his contact been 4 years? In 6 months he could have very well ended up at Madrid/Barca, All things considered its a great swap for us, Mkhitaryan has looked useless this season.

Given his age, roughly double I guess. I'm not sure what the point of your question is though. I was talking about their relative transfer value and how the figures would be recorded on the books.

On your point about it being a great swap, that's of course subjective but I think you could have spent £150-180m better than on Sanchez for a couple of years.

 

[Shamikebab]

Ross Barkley with 12 months on his deal was worth £35m. Mhkitaryan's done enough before to justify somebody taking him for that sort of money.

To be fair that is just Chelsea being dumb. The only team that is going to pay that fee is an English team and we generally don't sell to our rivals unless we really want rid of a player. Maybe Arsenal would pay that much straight up but I'd be surprised.

 

[BaZ87]

To be fair that is just Chelsea being dumb. The only team that is going to pay that fee is an English team and we generally don't sell to our rivals unless we really want rid of a player. Maybe Arsenal would pay that much straight up but I'd be surprised.

They, in effect, are paying that though. The City deal hasn't broke down over the transfer fee, has it? Had Utd not come in they'd have negotiated a deal with City for somewhere in the region of £30m.

In terms of pure transfer value, I don't think it's unreasonable to say Mkhitarayan, given the length of his contract is worth at least the same as Sanchez. A swap is, give or take, about right.

edit: As I said initially, the upside for Utd is the certainty around the deal. They don't have to wait, possibly until the summer, for somebody to come in for him and negotiate a deal but you can bet your life if anybody from Everton to Wolfsburg came in for him, Utd would be demanding £30m or so given the fees that others have gone for.

 

[FrankJH]

On your point about it being a great swap, that's of course subjective but I think you could have spent £150-180m better than on Sanchez for a couple of years.

You are looking it in isolation though, rather than the bigger picture

It certainly doesn't hurt bringing in a world class player (admittedly when he is in the mood to be) to attract other similar calibre players over the next year or two

You also have to consider who is available right now to hopefully help Utd over the finish line of the top four this season, the only player Ive seen us linked to is Lucas Moura from PSG who would be a gamble to say the least.
Liverpool have already strengthened considerably in Jan (which may well turn a few of those draws into wins by shoring up the defence), Chelsea is debatable whether they have really strengthened or not, but do they need to - Arsenal certainly have a more motivated player than they had before but debatable whether they actually have strengthened yet - and of course this is with 10 days to go of the window being open - who knows what Spurs are upto.

I think its fair to say that Utd have a much better chance of a convincing end to the season as well as a much more enticing project going forward (to attract players in future windows) once Sanchez arrives.

Unquestionably an insane amount of money - even if it still may prove to be wildly inaccurate - its debatable how much less you would pay on a free for a similar player. In one sense the fact Mkhi is included in the deal as you said works for Utd, as we are getting rid of a player that didn't really work the way JM wanted - Mkhi's contract was probably worth ~ £15m with the time remaining maybe less).

With all the add ons etc excluding wages - because its impossible to know who to believe right now - even if Utd are paying a total of £20m extra in signing on / agents fees etc etc than City , its still a lot of money but really will it make a vast difference to Utd's profitability....highly unlikely. Champions League is king, especially now that tv money for getting there is worth so much its really a small price to pay.

edit: As I said initially, the upside for Utd is the certainty around the deal. They don't have to wait, possibly until the summer, for somebody to come in for him and negotiate a deal but you can bet your life if anybody from Everton to Wolfsburg came in for him, Utd would be demanding £30m or so given the fees that others have gone for.

The only thing I would say to selling abroad is that without doubt we would have to give Mkhi a pay off to cover wages etc moving to Wolfsburg or where ever, from what Ive seen so far going to Arsenal this isn't the case.

I haven't seen this being the case here anyway - if it is already then fair enough

 

[FrankJH]

There's strong rumours as well that Jose wants both Ozil and Wilshere for free in the summer. Stripping our three best players for virtually nothing in the space of six months due to our boards incompetence and greed. I couldn't possibly think of a bigger steel toe capped boot straight in the balls.

From the Utd press point of view, there has been nothing at all about Wilshere going to Utd - although there has been plenty about "re-uniting" Sanchez with Ozil on a free

CM we have been linked with a free Diarra (which seems dubious even on a free, but JM knows him from RM so who knows) and this African player from Nice - Seri - who is also being looked at closely by several others incl Liverpool.
The only AM apart from Ozil Ive seen Utd being linked with is Dybala , unless you want to call Bale an AM but he is more a wide attacker imo, and Ascensio - but cant see the any of those happening for different reasons.

 

[BaZ87]

You are looking it in isolation though, rather than the bigger picture

No, I'm looking at the bigger picture and I've spoke about the entire situation in more detail throughout the thread. The finances involved in the deal are crazy (the true cost of signing Sanchez could be anything up to £40m per season which is probably only 2nd to Neymar's transfer) and will have knock on effects in each and every transfer or contract negotiation Utd are involved in. Some of the Sunday rags are already reporting that Pogba wants a pay rise as a result - I suspect that's just paper talk at the moment but it won't be long before it becomes a reality.

Sometimes you can justify paying ott if you desperately need a particular player or he's such a natural fit - I don't see that as the case though. Seeing as Sanchez's most likely role in the side will come at the expense of Martial, who's arguably been your best player this season and comfortably out performed Sanchez, I can't help but think the money could have been spent better to improve other areas.

I'd love to understand why you think Liverpool losing Coutinho and adding VVD has considerably improved us. You mention turning our draws into wins by improving our defence but of our 8 draws in the League, 6 of them have been 0-0 or 1-1 - that would suggest that improving our attack would help us more.

The only thing I would say to selling abroad is that without doubt we would have to give Mkhi a pay off to cover wages etc moving to Wolfsburg or where ever, from what Ive seen so far going to Arsenal this isn't the case.

I haven't seen this being the case here anyway - if it is already then fair enough

Yes, anywhere Mikhi would have gone would have likely resulted in some sort of pay off but you don't think he's received anything in this deal? One of the biggest reasons why a player/agent will try to push for a pay off is to compensate for lower wages but ultimately an agent will push for as much as they can in any circumstance, a pay cut is just used as their leverage. You only have to read Raiola's comments in the last week to see that he knew the importance of Mhkitarayan to the deal and you can guarantee that he was pushing both ends for as much money as possible.

 

[Shamikebab]

I've seen nowhere linking us with Wilshere, what are these sources? He'd just sit on the bench here.

 

[fez]

I’ve seen nowhere with any reputable information about the contract Sanchez will be on at united apart from the complete ******** of £180m total for him which we all know is complete rubbish.

He won’t be on more than Pogba and Pogba apparently earns £14m per year. Certain journalists just pull these figures out of their arses to sell papers and get clicks.

Anyone got anything even remotely concrete to back that up?

 

[Shamikebab]

We had the same thing when we signed Pogba, newspaper "sources" claiming ridiculous fees then it later leaked that he was on nowhere near that.

 

[BaZ87]

So you've seen nothing reputable but we all know the £180m is complete rubbish? We all know it because you don't want to believe it because, according to you anyway, there's been nothing reputable reported.

Who knows exactly what he's earning but every outlet, who will be getting briefed by all parties, are reporting figures of £400k+ per week. Whether it's £180m or £160m all in, who knows but it's a hell of a lot whatever it is.

We had the same thing when we signed Pogba, newspaper "sources" claiming ridiculous fees then it later leaked that he was on nowhere near that.

That's not really true though is it? Juve revealed what Utd paid them and how much they paid to Raiola, we don't know for certain what Utd paid in addition to Raiola but the football leaks stuff suggested Utd paid an additional £16m to him which took the deal up to £105m which give or take was what was being reported at the time.

You don't believe that Utd would be briefing all the journos close to them that Sanchez is on nothing like the figures reported if they weren't fairly accurate?

edit: that football leaks thing also claimed Zlatan was on a basic wage of £367,640 per week.

 

[fez]

Why would he definitely not be on more than Pogba?

Because Pogba is a more important player and would want the same if he was getting 500k/week.

 

[fez]

So you've seen nothing reputable but we all know the £180m is complete rubbish? We all know it because you don't want to believe it because, according to you anyway, there's been nothing reputable reported.

So we have accurate breakdowns of what he is being paid etc? All we have is £490,000 per week and £180m deal.

How many other clubs have these things reported like this. Every player United buy seems to cost 4 times the amount we pay because suddenly we add unknown wages, bonuses, random numbers to the transfer fee and then stick a ridiculous number out there as the cost. How much was VVD because all I have heard is £75m.

Who knows exactly what he's earning but every outlet, who will be getting briefed by all parties, are reporting figures of £400k+ per week. Whether it's £180m or £160m all in, who knows but it's a hell of a lot whatever it is.

No they won't. They don't even know if deals are happening yet you think they know details of wages and other associated costs? Not a chance. Every time they have reported one of our players being paid X they have been miles off.

That's not really true though is it? Juve revealed what Utd paid them and how much they paid to Raiola, we don't know for certain what Utd paid in addition to Raiola but the football leaks stuff suggested Utd paid an additional £16m to him which took the deal up to £105m which give or take was what was being reported at the time.

I'm not contesting the amount we pay for players but how many players do we know the wages and agents fees for? You seem to be suggesting that its just as likely that utterly ridiculous numbers are just as likely as more sensible ones simply because we don't know. I assume VVD is on £300,000/week because you paid £75m for him? Seems about right...

You don't believe that Utd would be briefing all the journos close to them that Sanchez is on nothing like the figures reported if they weren't fairly accurate?

This makes less than no sense. You're evidence for him being on nearly £500k/week is that the only people who know what he will be on are saying that he won't be on that much.

Reporter: "Rumours are that Sanchez will be earning nearly double the wage of the next highest paid player at United, care to comment"

United: "Thats not even remotely true, hes on a competitive wage with other players of his calibre."

I can see how that would all but confirm it.

What would they say that convinces you otherwise? No comment. We don't discuss players wages.

 

[FrankJH]

No, I'm looking at the bigger picture and I've spoke about the entire situation in more detail throughout the thread. The finances involved in the deal are crazy (the true cost of signing Sanchez could be anything up to £40m per season which is probably only 2nd to Neymar's transfer) and will have knock on effects in each and every transfer or contract negotiation Utd are involved in. Some of the Sunday rags are already reporting that Pogba wants a pay rise as a result - I suspect that's just paper talk at the moment but it won't be long before it becomes a reality.

How much EXTRA over lets say City's deal (or the Liverpool one that has seemingly just come to light) - £5m a season, no matter when you sign world class players its expensive. One of the big columnists just tried to compare Coutinho to Sanchez and fom a creativity and general play pov it was roughly equal - of course Coutinho is a lot younger but otherwise a lot similar. Its impossible to know what players are worth now because Neymar changed everything and there are so few deals in comparison. When you include wages /agent fees etc in that deal what does that work out to? There has to be twenty maybe £25m / year just on the transfer fee without even considering wages /signing on fee etc.

Sometimes you can justify paying ott if you desperately need a particular player or he's such a natural fit - I don't see that as the case though. Seeing as Sanchez's most likely role in the side will come at the expense of Martial, who's arguably been your best player this season and comfortably out performed Sanchez, I can't help but think the money could have been spent better to improve other areas.
.

Sanchez has wanted to, and has been, playing a lot centrally - maybe JM has him playing behind Lukaku instead of Mkhi / Lingard /Mata
I'd love to understand why you think Liverpool losing Coutinho and adding VVD has considerably improved us. You mention turning our draws into wins by improving our defence but of our 8 draws in the League, 6 of them have been 0-0 or 1-1 - that would suggest that improving our attack would help us more.

Yes, anywhere Mikhi would have gone would have likely resulted in some sort of pay off but you don't think he's received anything in this deal? One of the biggest reasons why a player/agent will try to push for a pay off is to compensate for lower wages but ultimately an agent will push for as much as they can in any circumstance, a pay cut is just used as their leverage. You only have to read Raiola's comments in the last week to see that he knew the importance of Mhkitarayan to the deal and you can guarantee that he was pushing both ends for as much money as possible.

What I was meaning was if he had gone abroad, its more likely Utd would have had to stump up even more ££ to get it over the line because German clubs saleries are much lower than even Arsenal's let alone Utd's

 

[BaZ87]

....

When I commented on Zlatan's transfer last season you said it was ridiculous that he was costing Utd anything like £20m for a season. Still think that?

You've clearly misunderstood the first part of my post. You're claiming for certain that the figures reported are rubbish and there's no way he's earning that much but at the same time saying there's no reputable information out there. You're contradicting yourself.

The press are being briefed. There's not a chance in hell that Utd will want all these stories about £400-500k per week and £180m being reported if there was absolutely nothing to them. Do you think it benefits Utd in anyway that people think they've paid this much? Do you not think that these reports will not prompt agents of their own players or players they hope to sign to ask for more money? Who knows just how accurate the figures are but when all the press are reporting very similar things it's fair to assume that they've been briefed these figures and as above, if they were a million miles away then you can bet your bottom dollar that Utd would be briefing the press that it's bs.

....

Which City deal are you talking about? I assume the Liverpool deal you're talking about is Coutinho and or VVD? You acknowledge the age difference between them and Sanchez and it's that what makes a world of difference to these deals. Whatever you spend on Sanchez is dead money, the moment he signs the contract you're almost certainly paying it all and never getting a penny back. When you sign a younger player you have the opportunity of keeping a player for the long term which if you do will bring down the average yearly cost or you have the chance of selling them and recouping a large chunk of what you spend, if not make a profit.

Who knows whether Sanchez will play centrally behind Lukaku. He's not really a number 10 so I'd think that was unlikely.

And I know what you meant regarding moving abroad. The point I was making was that how likely Utd (or any club) are to pay off any player depends on how much leverage they or the player has. If Mkhitaryan is desperate to leave and Utd not desperate to let him go then Utd hold the cards regardless of what the buying club is offering. If the roles are reversed then the player/agent holds the cards. It would appear, at least that's what Raiola wanted us to believe, that Mkhitarayan was key to the Sanchez transfer - if that was the case then Arsenal could offer him £500k per week and Raiola could still turn around to Utd and say we want x or we're not moving. With all transfers and contract negotiations its a battle of who's less desperate for a deal to take place.

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

Ross Barkley with 12 months on his deal was worth £35m. Mhkitaryan's done enough before to justify somebody taking him for that sort of money.


Given his age, roughly double I guess. I'm not sure what the point of your question is though. I was talking about their relative transfer value and how the figures would be recorded on the books.

On your point about it being a great swap, that's of course subjective but I think you could have spent £150-180m better than on Sanchez for a couple of years.

His wages are obviously a lot higher than most people would consider to be reasonable, however considering hes quite often been one of the best players in the league in his absolute prime, I think it's a good trade. Interested to know what your opinion of it would be had his wages been around the 250k mark instead? He's quite obviously a fantastic player and hopefully lands on his feet and isn't stifled by Mourinho.

 

[trigg_27]

We're not going to have a clear idea about this transfer until both players have settled in to their new teams and got a few games under their belts. Sanchez may well struggle under Jose's system at United, while Mikhi could easily turn out to be the player we thought he was a couple of years ago under Arsene.

What I find interesting is just how much Arsenal have reduced their wage bill over this window. Walcott, Coquelin and Sanchez were all earning at least 100k per week and I'd expect Mikhi to be on about the same. That frees up a pretty hefty wedge from our annoyingly tight budget to tempt PEA to join and for Ozil to sign a new deal.

 

[BaZ87]

His wages are obviously a lot higher than most people would consider to be reasonable, however considering hes quite often been one of the best players in the league in his absolute prime, I think it's a good trade. Interested to know what your opinion of it would be had his wages been around the 250k mark instead? He's quite obviously a fantastic player and hopefully lands on his feet and isn't stifled by Mourinho.

My views on him as a player, and this pre-dates any link to Utd, are that he's hugely talented but has a terrible attitude. When he was being linked with City I said that he wouldn't make a noticeable difference to them and he only makes marginally more difference to Utd. He can play through the middle but you've got to assume that Lukaku will still be first choice there so he'll in effect be cover for that position. The most obvious role he's being signed for is to play on the left of your attack - is he a massive upgrade on Martial? Not on this seasons form he's not. As I said above, you can defend paying so much for somebody you desperately need but imo, Utd don't desperately need him.

Assuming the reported signing on fee and agent fees are fairly accurate then yea, £250k would be much more reasonable. An extra £150 to £250k per week is anything from £35m to £58.5m over the course of the 4 and a half year deal. That's a lot of money.