Alexis Sanchez

[aguero93:20]

Yeah it was a pretty poor argument that justified paying literally anything for literally anyone

The rags have offered seventeen billion for Akinfenwa apparently.

 

[aguero93:20]

I suspect there will now be a "cover up" of why we didn't sign Sanchez. Making out he was way too expensive, poor attitude, not that good a player and we are better off without him...

In my view we must learn lessons from this missed opportunity. He was a top quality player available for a bargain fee, with a very high workrate experienced with Pep's style. He will significantly strengthen our local rivals. We messed this one up, let's hope we don't show such unimpressive negotiating skills again.

Sam Lee made a telling comment on the transfer:
"If City are willing to let Sanchez join United due to the price of the total package (which would be about £40m in fees, plus wages which were agreed) then they must be thinking of their perception of value, rather than cost. They’ll do very well to find a cheaper alternative.
And by value versus cost I mean this: they must have decided it’s not ‘worth’ paying £40m-odd to Arsenal and agent, but it is worth paying £100m at least for another player (insert your own names). That, or simply they’ve been caught on the hop and have absolutely no say in it.
... City weren’t overly worried by United as recently as Friday "

Thanks for quoting the rag again, we all read what he had to say earlier. We're still 15 points ahead of his team mind.

 

[citizens_1976]

Its disappointing really. Allowing a player of Alexis' quality to join our fiercest rivals isn't a good statement from us whatsoever. People will obviously see it differently to me, but the good thing about getting Alexis was, we could of had our attack sewn up for the next 3 seasons and could have literally splashed out big money on a centre back and a central midfielder in the summer giving ourselves plenty of time to evaluate our options. Now we have to weigh up getting a forward player as well as the other 2 positions and a quality player in that position will cost us 100m plus. If we are looking at players like Griezmann, Dybala and Kane for example, all 3 of these players will come to almost 150m a piece. If City can't get this Sanchez deal over the line for 30-40m, I just can't see Txixi and the board paying past the 100m mark for a striker/forward player whatsoever.

We will have shot ourselves in the foot in the long run in my opinion. If Txixi thinks paying almost 400k a week for Alexis is bonkers, wait until he goes in the market in the summer for other players in that position, he really is going to have a fright and a massive wake up call.

 

[argyle]

So what's the answer? We pay anything anybody asks for any player we are interested in?

Personally I'd like us to stick two fingers to FFP and pay whatever we want to be the absolute best.

In reality, my concerns are to do with recent history. We didn't pay what was required for Hazard and RVP and we didn't turn the screw when we should have and it came back to bite us.

Taking this stand will please the big blue accountants on here but our closest rival will now be stronger when we could have further stamped our authority over everyone in the league.

Just my opinion, I know it's not the end of the world and I know I'm in the minority.

 

[goater555]

Utd is crazy and I hate these rags

Two posts in 3 years

#stayrelevant

 

[Mancityus]

24 yo Dybala for £150m on 250k a week who can serve the club for 9 years is better value than £50m for Sanchez and £400k a week for 3 years.

What if rags come in there too and offer same terms and 160m instead, 10m more than us and steal the deal again - that is what that has happened here.

 

[Metalartin]

I suspect there will now be a "cover up" of why we didn't sign Sanchez. Making out he was way too expensive, poor attitude, not that good a player and we are better off without him...

In my view we must learn lessons from this missed opportunity. He was a top quality player available for a bargain fee, with a very high workrate experienced with Pep's style. He will significantly strengthen our local rivals. We messed this one up, let's hope we don't show such unimpressive negotiating skills again.

Give over "cover up" lol, the deal wasn't deemed good value at those prices it's that simple, we were his first choice all we had to do was match their offer but we didn't want to.

Time will tell on this decision but I don't see United winning the title off the back of this signing alone this season or the next. It's not just the transfer fee it's the wages, signing fee, agent fee, whatever bonuses and incentives he was offered and when you add it all up it's not the bargain you or Sam Lee are hyping it up to be, it also has the possibility to cause problems with the rest of the squad and future signings when one player gets a deal like that(something that should not be overlooked it's very significant the unrest that could cause). Those of you sulking about it can argue none of it matters 'til the cows come home but it all matters even to the big clubs(bar Real). They don't even know if he will settle, I suspect he will given his character but it's not a given either.

 

[The slaughtered lamb]

I suspect there will now be a "cover up" of why we didn't sign Sanchez. Making out he was way too expensive, poor attitude, not that good a player and we are better off without him...

In my view we must learn lessons from this missed opportunity. He was a top quality player available for a bargain fee, with a very high workrate experienced with Pep's style. He will significantly strengthen our local rivals. We messed this one up, let's hope we don't show such unimpressive negotiating skills again.

Sam Lee made a telling comment on the transfer:
"If City are willing to let Sanchez join United due to the price of the total package (which would be about £40m in fees, plus wages which were agreed) then they must be thinking of their perception of value, rather than cost. They’ll do very well to find a cheaper alternative.
And by value versus cost I mean this: they must have decided it’s not ‘worth’ paying £40m-odd to Arsenal and agent, but it is worth paying £100m at least for another player (insert your own names). That, or simply they’ve been caught on the hop and have absolutely no say in it.
... City weren’t overly worried by United as recently as Friday "

Dead right, it is about perception of value. No one knows for certain. For every buyer there's a seller, obviously both have different ideas about value or no bargain would be struck. So you look at track record to see who might get it right more often than not - I think we're doing ok. It's up to United to play catch up now, so they're the ones taking risks. If it's four hundred grand a week, that's a gamble. Doubt we've been caught on the hop, we seem to be doing ok.

 

[BigOscar]

What if rags come in there too and offer same terms and 160m instead, 10m more than us and steal the deal again - that is what that has happened here.

We set ourselves on fire and run in circles in a blind panic?

 

[Young Blue]

Thanks for quoting the rag again, we all read what he had to say earlier. We're still 15 points ahead of his team mind.

I know he's a rag but he's one of the best journalists on City matters out there. You may not like what he says, but sometimes the truth is painful. We should have sealed the Sanchez deal and I hope our decision makers learn the proper lessons from it.