General transfer rumours

Ajm1985 said:
While I gather your point, I'd argue Enzo going for £100m plus in Jan 23, followed by an auction for Caicedo in Jan onwards set the market for midfielders at the time.
Click to expand...
That’s my point mate! Nice one for using more examples - what other players go for sets the market.
 
City64! said:
The price clubs pay for any players sets the market value. If you can’t understand that I’m not sure I can help mate.

You think Arsenal would have had to pay £100m for Rice if we’d not paid £100m for Grealish? That’s how it works.
Click to expand...
So Savinho (someone that plays in the same position) cost us £30m. Unless you think Garnacho is 50% better then he's overpriced.

See, we can all pick and choose transfers (good and bad) to suit our argument, why a blue would choose someone that's universally considered a bad value transfer as an example to talk up the value of a United player is beyond me.

Or perhaps United should be paying £80m+ for anyone slightly better than Antony.
 
moomba said:
So Savinho (someone that plays in the same position) cost us £30m. Unless you think Garnacho is 50% better then he's overpriced.

See, we can all pick and choose transfers (good and bad) to suit our argument, why a blue would choose someone that's universally considered a bad value transfer as an example to talk up the value of a United player is beyond me.

Or perhaps United should be paying £80m+ for anyone slightly better than Antony.
Click to expand...
Using Savio, who was playing for a CFG club is silly.

The example of Antony - that’s perfect. They laud £80m for him and ended up having to pay over the odds for other crap players because selling clubs could see, “well you’ve paid £80m for someone that’s average, you can pay that for x, y, z” hence why they’ve got into the mess they have.
 
City64! said:
Using Savio, who was playing for a CFG club is silly.

The example of Antony - that’s perfect. They laud £80m for him and ended up having to pay over the odds for other crap players because selling clubs could see, “well you’ve paid £80m for someone that’s average, you can pay that for x, y, z” hence why they’ve got into the mess they have.
Click to expand...
Problem is, no-one uses Antony as a guide for market value because it was a spectacular poor value for money buy for United.

Just like no-one uses Kalvin Phillips or Nunes.
 
moomba said:
Problem is, no-one uses Antony as a guide for market value because it was a spectacular poor value for money buy for United.

Just like no-one uses Kalvin Phillips or Nunes.
Click to expand...
I guarantee if we went to buy Cunha Wolves would say, “Well you gave us £53m for Nunes and this lad is better”.
 
City64! said:
...I guarantee if we went to buy Cunha Wolves would say, “Well you gave us £53m for Nunes and this lad is better”
Click to expand...

They might but if we don't think he's worth what they're asking we won't do a deal.

Player value isn't determined by bad deals you've made in the past.

Otherwise Man United would be paying £80m for every fidget spinner they want to buy.

We paid £55m for KDB who is one of the best midfielders ever. Guess what, we'll pay more for players that will achieve less with us. And we'll pay less for players that will achieve less than Kalvin or Nunes.
 
City64! said:
Didn’t they have to pay £75m for Hojland? You’re proving my point.
Click to expand...
No they'd didn't have to pay £75m for Hojland. They chose to pay that as they thought that provided value for money.

As it happened, they look to have ballsed that up as well, which is very funny.

But they spent £36m on Zirkzee, £38m on De Ligt, £52m on Yolo, £12m on Mazroui. £42m on Ugarte. Most of those look overpriced as well but it proves that market value isn't determined by one particularly bad transfer.

If you think Garnacho is good value for money at £46m good luck to you. I disagree and I don't think this discussion is going anywhere.

Just glad we're not involved even at half the price.
 
moomba said:
No they'd didn't have to pay £75m for Hojland. They chose to pay that as they thought that provided value for money.

As it happened, they look to have ballsed that up as well, which is very funny.

But they spent £36m on Zirkzee, £38m on De Ligt, £52m on Yolo, £12m on Mazroui. £42m on Ugarte. Most of those look overpriced as well but it proves that market value isn't determined by one particularly bad transfer.

If you think Garnacho is good value for money at £46m good luck to you. I disagree and I don't think this discussion is going anywhere.

Just glad we're not involved even at half the price.
Click to expand...

That’s not what we’ve been discussing, is it?

You said that what a player costs a team has no influence on the market.

Antony Gordon was okay-ish at Everton, showed potential and Newcastle paid £45m for him. If Napoli are looking at around that price for Garnacho it’s about right.
 
City64! said:
That’s not what we’ve been discussing, is it?

You said that what a player costs a team has no influence on the market.

Antony Gordon was okay-ish at Everton, showed potential and Newcastle paid £45m for him. If Napoli are looking at around that price for Garnacho it’s about right.
Click to expand...


I would have thought it was exactly what we've been discussing. BUt oh well, like I said it's a discussion that's going nowhere.

You think Garnacho is good value at £46m, time will tell whether you're right or not.

FWIW, I'm no fan of Gordon but he's twice the footballer that Garnacho is imo.
 
moomba said:
I would have thought it was exactly what we've been discussing. BUt oh well, like I said it's a discussion that's going nowhere.

You think Garnacho is good value at £46m, time will tell whether you're right or not.

FWIW, I'm no fan of Gordon but he's twice the footballer that Garnacho is imo.
Click to expand...
Gordon has 10 goals and 5 assists this season. Garnacho has 8 goals and 4 assists.

One plays for a team challenging for top 4, the other plays for a shite team fighting relegation. Not really “twice the footballer” is he?
 
City64! said:
Gordon has 10 goals and 5 assists this season. Garnacho has 8 goals and 4 assists.

One plays for a team challenging for top 4, the other plays for a shite team fighting relegation. Not really “twice the footballer” is he?
Click to expand...
Bruno Fernandes had better g+a stats than De Bruyne over a large period
 
City64! said:
Wasn’t that from his first season at the rags where he scored about 15 penalties in one season? So rags put the goals scored in there as a G/A
Click to expand...
Well penalties are goals. De Bruyne took them for us as well. The point is that even then you only have to watch the players that there were a huge difference in De Bruynes ability and importance to his team, than Fernandes.

Gordon is head and shoulders above Garnacho
 
ScottSinclair said:
Well penalties are goals. De Bruyne took them for us as well. The point is that even then you only have to watch the players that there were a huge difference in De Bruynes ability and importance to his team, than Fernandes.

Gordon is head and shoulders above Garnacho
Click to expand...
De Bruyne has taken three penalties maximum for us so don’t talk shit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top