Alexis Sanchez

[San Tropez]

what do you mean?

I mean if we offered him 13m net, hence 26m gross and he is going to the rags for 27m gross, then it's virtually the same valuation for the player, no?

But City pulled out cos of the wages demanded - so did Bayern and PSG. So it cannot be true that our offer was net.

 

[San Tropez]

I work on research/valuation models for trade houses so can see the bs in these figures.

 

[BlueMoonz1977]

I wonder how the press will react if rashford suddenly gets less game time because of foreign signings coming in!

It will be glossed over with a snippet in the paper about a paragraph long.

 

[Nails]

I work on research/valuation models for trade houses so can see the bs in these figures.

£13m gross from City, £27m gross from United. Where's the BS, Rag?

 

[San Tropez]

£13m gross from City, £27m gross from United. Where's the BS, Rag?

I am not sure what you are trying to say. Can you tell me a bit more?

The BS is that City can't have offered him £26m gross.

 

[sky_blue]

£13m gross from City, £27m gross from United. Where's the BS, Rag?

The BS is that it was reported that we had offered £13m net (not gross), which simply can't be true as pointed out by Tropez. Can't be true as in it's too high, so the reports must have been false.

 

[kaz7]

I am not sure what you are trying to say. Can you tell me a bit more?

The BS is that City can't have offered him £26m gross.

rags are giving him double what we offered,it's in the guardian so go look,he is going there for money thats it,the end

 

[Nails]

The BS is that it was reported that we had offered £13m net (not gross), which simply can't be true as pointed out by Tropez.

Who reported that? (Sorry San Tropez, if I jumped to the wrong conclusion).

 

[San Tropez]

£13m gross from City, £27m gross from United. Where's the BS, Rag?

To put it in a different way - what i am saying is that City DID NOT offer Sanchez £26m gross.

 

[sky_blue]

Who reported that? (Sorry San Tropez, if I jumped to the wrong conclusion).

I think Di Marzio reported that and then a lot of papers picked it up from him. Shortly after that, Mullock came out with an article saying that City were not willing to meet his demands (in direct contradiction with Di Marzio's reports). I'm willing to bet good money that Di Marzio was talking out of his arse (or had been misled by an agent) and City briefed Mullock later on the actual situation.