Manchester United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread - Mod Note in OP, 25/3

Lads we have to sign Depay. The potential of getting to sing a class song is too great with him.

unplayable

just realised wilson is out of contract in summer.

disaster if he leaves has real potential i think.

Pro. F

bangkok wrote: »

well as we sit here now, i haven't seen him play more than 5 full games, but i presume most scouts around Europe have scouted him plenty of times and if they think he was worth 20m then who are we to argue.

If you don't have an opinion on what does and does not represent good value on a player then you really should not be arguing about it.

Also, the price we are talking about is £25m, not £20-25m and not 20m. Stop edging it down to bolster your argument.

Spazdarn

I don't think he's worth it but you have to pay big money for potential these days

Martin Odegaard is on £80,000 a week at Madrid. Which is absolutely ridiculous. Depay amounts to anywhere near Hazard et all, I'd pay the 25m.

bangkok

bucketybuck wrote: »

Which is a load of old tosh in my opinion.

If we have a competent negotiator then it really is a very minor issue that we have money, this idea that we have to overpay because we are rich is lazy thinking. What, do we pay an extra 5% on transfer for every 100 million we make each year?

We have a lot of bargaining power, we pay big wages and we offer the chance to play for success at one of the worlds biggest clubs. We do not have to glibly accept whatever price the selling club decides, and that selling price is not based on how much money we have, its based on the relative value of the player.

If selling clubs are getting away with adding a premium to prices because we are a rich club then our negotiators are incompetent. And I don't believe that Ed Woodward is an incompetent negotiator, his business deals would attest to that.

your trying to tell me big clubs don't pay extra money on transfers?! now that's what I would call a "load of old tosh" of course they do

bucketybuck

bangkok wrote: »

your trying to tell me big clubs don't pay extra money on transfers?! now that's what I would call a "load of old tosh" of course they do

I'm saying the idea that clubs have to pay extra by default is a load of old tosh. You know why the big clubs pay more? Because they buy the best players.

You are looking at rubbish like Liverpool paying £35 million for Carroll because they got £50m for Torres and saying its always like that. It isn't, that was just crap business sense from Liverpool and I don't believe every person negotiating transfers is as rubbish at their job.

bangkok

Pro. F wrote: »

If you don't have an opinion on what does and does not represent good value on a player then you really should not be arguing about it.

Also, the price we are talking about is £25m, not £20-25m and not 20m. Stop edging it down to bolster your argument.

ok 25m, current Holland international, top goalscorer in the dutch league and he is a winger, lightning fast, room for improvement, re-sale value, knows van gaals system and van gaal knows him.

great deal, no brainer, sign him right now for 25m

bangkok

bucketybuck wrote: »

I'm saying the idea that clubs have to pay extra by default is a load of old tosh. You know why the big clubs pay more? Because they buy the best players.

couple of examples,

Real Madrid spent 32m on Illarramendi. over spent by around 10m imo.

United signing Berbatov, 32m same as above over spent by 10m.

PSG signing David Luiz, loads of money over spent by around 40m

Barcelona signing Chygrynskiy for 25m, over spent by 15m

Chelsea signing torres 50m

Liverpool signing Andy Carroll 35m

the list goes on and on...

Club that has money and the other club knows they do will always get burned

Maximus Alexander

"Big clubs pay extra for players" doesn't actually make any sense at all if you think about it for more than 8 seconds.

'Extra' compared to..?

Maximus Alexander

bangkok wrote: »

couple of examples,

Real Madrid spent 32m on Illarramendi. over spent by around 10m imo.
Who spent 22m on Illarramendi?

United signing Berbatov, 32m same as above over spent by 10m.
Who spent 22m on Berbatov?

PSG signing David Luiz, loads of money over spent by around 40m

Barcelona signing Chygrynskiy for 25m, over spent by 15m
Who signed Chygrynskiy for 10m?

Chelsea signing torres 50m
Who signed him for less?

Liverpool signing Andy Carroll 35m
Who signed him for less?

the list goes on and on...

Club that has money and the other club knows they do will always get burned

Obviously big clubs bought all of these players - because only big clubs could have afforded them.

bangkok

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Obviously big clubs bought all of these players - because only big clubs could have afforded them.

point was the bigger the club, the more they pay in most cases.

Even Bebe, we spent 7m on him, if a club like Everton or Stoke went for him he could have been signed for probably 1m

Pro. F

bangkok wrote: »

ok 25m, current Holland international, top goalscorer in the dutch league and he is a winger, lightning fast, room for improvement, re-sale value, knows van gaals system and van gaal knows him.

great deal, no brainer, sign him right now for 25m

I know what he is. Telling me again what I already know doesn't make me agree with you on what would represent a good deal.

bucketybuck

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

"Big clubs pay extra for players" doesn't actually make any sense at all if you think about it for more than 8 seconds.

'Extra' compared to..?

Exactly.

Take a hypothetical, say there is a player worth £20m. Everybody agrees that he is worth £20m, bids are accepted at that price.

Then United come in and bid £20m, but the selling club says, "No, you are rich so for you the price is £30m". Sound plausible? Of course it doesn't. United would pay £20m because whoever was negotiating would not be a complete and utter idiot.

Lord TSC

Arent we usually giving out about how the club ****s around with transfers and doesn't just "get them done" by paying up? I couldn't care less if it's 20 or 25m. If he's as good as they say, pay the 25m and get him in quick.

Mitch Connor

bangkok wrote: »

point was the bigger the club, the more they pay in most cases.

Even Bebe, we spent 7m on him, if a club like Everton or Stoke went for him he could have been signed for probably 1m

Wouldn't use that Bebe deal to back up such a point - that Bebe deal stinks to high heaven and doesn't, imo, represent that figure United were forced to pay by his club because we were United. Mendes, Fergie, Gill have questions to answer there, imo. Smells like bungs.

RobertKK

PSV are not required to sell, Van Gaal wants him this summer.

Each side has bargaining power, and that is how they come to agreement on value. PSV could choose to do a Dortmund as with Lewandowski.

RobertKK

Lord TSC wrote: »

Arent we usually giving out about how the club ****s around with transfers and doesn't just "get them done" by paying up? I couldn't care less if it's 20 or 25m. If he's as good as they say, pay the 25m and get him in quick.

Agree, I said that ages ago, but you would think some here were being asked to come up with the pay for Depay, when the pay for Depay will come from the the pay from sponsors, TV money and match day revenue plus other sales.

UnitedIrishman

Pro. F wrote: »

I'm not denying what he is. But I disagree that being what he is makes £25m good value and I don't think the transfers of Hazard, Moura and Neymar reflect the general state of the market.

You'd be hard pushed to find a player of his calibre, age profile and form both for club or country that represents better value than 25m. That's all I'm saying - we're just of different opinions whether it represents value or not. Personally having watched him a bit this season (having Sky Sports 5 at work can be handy for some things!) I think he's an excellent prospect. Ultimately, what he achieves when he's signed will decide whether he is good value or not.

Saying the transfers of Hazard etc are not representative of the market is fine, but with the increasing amounts of money from the TV deal, clubs sponsorship deals and billionaire owners pumping cash into sides then transfer fees are only going one way. And we can either do deals to the best of our ability and sign guys for fees which are close to the market value, move on to second or third targets which may not work out or just sit on a load of money hoping transfer fees will drop (which they won't).

bangkok

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Wouldn't use that Bebe deal to back up such a point - that Bebe deal stinks to high heaven and doesn't, imo, represent that figure United were forced to pay by his club because we were United. Mendes, Fergie, Gill have questions to answer there, imo. Smells like bungs.

ok, lets use Ronaldo. Arsenal had him on trial for 2 weeks, wenger was impressed, made a bid of 4m united come in and buy him for £12.5m. Point is, if another club like Arsenals size as in (transfer structure/budget) comes in, a club like spurs or Liverpool, deal might push up to 6-7m, but because it is United we are made spend 3 times the original transfer fee as Sporting knew we had the money and really wanted the player

bucketybuck

UnitedIrishman wrote: »

Saying the transfers of Hazard etc are not representative of the market is fine, but with the increasing amounts of money from the TV deal, clubs sponsorship deals and billionaire owners pumping cash into sides then transfer fees are only going one way. And we can either do deals to the best of our ability and sign guys for fees which are close to the market value, move on to second or third targets which may not work out or just sit on a load of money hoping transfer fees will drop (which they won't).

Isn't this what people are advocating? Because better that than option D which appears to be spunk money away without regard to value because we have loads of it anyway.

bucketybuck

bangkok wrote: »

ok, lets use Ronaldo. Arsenal had him on trial for 2 weeks, wenger was impressed, made a bid of 4m united come in and buy him for £12.5m. Point is, if another club like Arsenals size as in (transfer structure/budget) comes in, a club like spurs or Liverpool, deal might push up to 6-7m, but because it is United we are made spend 3 times the original transfer fee as Sporting knew we had the money and really wanted the player

United did not spend £12.5m on Ronaldo because they were rich and could afford it. They spent £12.5m because they felt that was good value considering the interest displayed by rival clubs.

One of these things is not like the other.

bangkok

bucketybuck wrote: »

United did not spend £12.5m on Ronaldo because they were rich and could afford it. They spent £12.5m because they felt that was good value considering the interest displayed by rival clubs.

One of these things is not like the other.

exactly clubs like Arsenal who had bid £4m, so why treble that figure just to get him when 6, 7 or 8m probably would have been enough, because sporting knew United had the money and got every last drop out of them.

bucketybuck

bangkok wrote: »

exactly clubs like Arsenal who had bid £4m, so why treble that figure just to get him when 6, 7 or 8m probably would have been enough, because sporting knew United had the money and got every last drop out of them.

Remind me how successful that £4m bid was please?

UnitedIrishman

bucketybuck wrote: »

Isn't this what people are advocating? Because better that than option D which appears to be spunk money away without regard to value because we have loads of it anyway.

Yes. As would I. But the discussion between myself and Pro is about whether paying 25m is good value or not for Depay.

adox

bangkok wrote: »

exactly clubs like Arsenal who had bid £4m, so why treble that figure just to get him when 6, 7 or 8m probably would have been enough, because sporting knew United had the money and got every last drop out of them.

Eh because that was the asking price?

Just because Arsenal offered £4 million for him doesnt mean it was near what the club valued him at.

Its also bizarre that you use Ronaldo for your argument as he is the personification of a bargain.

bangkok

Actually, perfect example is fellaini. He was worth 23m. Everton even put the buy out clause at that. Date passed for buyout clause, shouldn't mean his value increasing. We end up signing him for 27m even though the player was worth 23m.

Pro. F

UnitedIrishman wrote: »

You'd be hard pushed to find a player of his calibre, age profile and form both for club or country that represents better value than 25m. That's all I'm saying - we're just of different opinions whether it represents value or not. Personally having watched him a bit this season (having Sky Sports 5 at work can be handy for some things!) I think he's an excellent prospect. Ultimately, what he achieves when he's signed will decide whether he is good value or not.

Saying the transfers of Hazard etc are not representative of the market is fine, but with the increasing amounts of money from the TV deal, clubs sponsorship deals and billionaire owners pumping cash into sides then transfer fees are only going one way. And we can either do deals to the best of our ability and sign guys for fees which are close to the market value, move on to second or third targets which may not work out or just sit on a load of money hoping transfer fees will drop (which they won't).

I also think he is an excellent prospect. Excellent prospects go for less than £25m all the time.

I'm not denying inflation, I'm denying your claims of what the current and near future market value is.

I think you last sentence doesn't really mean anything. I am suggesting that we do deals to the best of our ability.

RasTa

What the hell is this crap I'm reading. Signing Depay isn't great value at £25m since the Sterling is so strong against the Euro. Simples.

Pro. F

bangkok wrote: »

Actually, perfect example is fellaini. He was worth 23m. Everton even put the buy out clause at that. Date passed for buyout clause, shouldn't mean his value increasing. We end up signing him for 27m even though the player was worth 23m.

The perfect example of how we should conduct our transfers is a transfer that was supposedly really badly conducted.

Maximus Alexander

bangkok wrote: »

exactly clubs like Arsenal who had bid £4m, so why treble that figure just to get him when 6, 7 or 8m probably would have been enough, because sporting knew United had the money and got every last drop out of them.

Arsenal didn't get him for £4m. £12m+ is what it took to get him. And it was a bargain.

What you've just done is provide an example that completely disproves what you're trying to assert.

bangkok

if Depay was linked with a move to spurs or Liverpool for example no way would his asking price be 25m.

Its like when Juventus hear we were interested in Vidal last summer and the chairman comes out and says Vidal is worth 60m. He is worth no where near that, but he knows united have the money.

Its not even an argument its a fact of life.

bangkok

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Arsenal didn't get him for £4m. £12m+ is what it took to get him. And it was a bargain.

What you've just done is provide an example that completely disproves what you're trying to assert.

easy to look back at it though and call it a bargain, like its easy to look back and say Bebe was a flop and a waste

Maximus Alexander

bangkok wrote: »

if Depay was linked with a move to spurs or Liverpool for example no way would his asking price be 25m.

If he was only being linked with Liverpool and Arsenal, and none of the bigger clubs were interested, then it would mean he wasn't considered as good a prospect. So it would follow that his asking price would be lower.

Spazdarn

bangkok wrote: »

if Depay was linked with a move to spurs or Liverpool for example no way would his asking price be 25m.

Its like when Juventus hear we were interested in Vidal last summer and the chairman comes out and says Vidal is worth 60m. He is worth no where near that, but he knows united have the money.

Its not even an argument its a fact of life.

It's the papers that band around the fee. I doubt the club have a little excel sheet of all the top european clubs and how much they think they can get for him in the next column.

Juventus quoted the massive price to ward off United. The assumption here is PSV would sell for the right price

bucketybuck

bangkok wrote: »

Actually, perfect example is fellaini. He was worth 23m. Everton even put the buy out clause at that. Date passed for buyout clause, shouldn't mean his value increasing. We end up signing him for 27m even though the player was worth 23m.

I can easily say that we overpaid for Felliani not because we had the spare cash, but because it was late in the transfer window and Everton knew Moyes badly needed him. They were in a stronger bargaining position and we had to overpay, and it had nothing to do with us being a big club with loads of money, which was the point of all this.

keane2097

I literally don't believe a lot of the posts I read in this thread these days.

bucketybuck

RasTa wrote: »

What the hell is this crap I'm reading. Signing Depay isn't great value at £25m since the Sterling is so strong against the Euro. Simples.

Sterling has been rubbish in Europe.

Pro. F

bangkok wrote: »

if Depay was linked with a move to spurs or Liverpool for example no way would his asking price be 25m.

Its like when Juventus hear we were interested in Vidal last summer and the chairman comes out and says Vidal is worth 60m. He is worth no where near that, but he knows united have the money.

Its not even an argument its a fact of life.

So if PSV won't give us Depay for a reasonable price move on to another player, there is always plenty of quality available. One transfer window of United refusing to be ripped off and everybody will know where they stand. It is possible to have lots of money and still not get ripped off, it's called not being an idiot.

UnitedIrishman

Pro. F wrote: »

I also think he is an excellent prospect. Excellent prospects go for less than £25m all the time.

I'm not denying inflation, I'm denying your claims of what the current and near future market value is.

I think you last sentence doesn't really mean anything. I am suggesting that we do deals to the best of our ability.

Sorry, the last sentence meant to say 'as close to or a bit above' market value... doesn't really make sense otherwise, yeah.

For instance some examples - relatively young wingers signed by top four sides in the last number of years (before TV deals and sponsorship increased):
Nani - €25.5m - had one full season at Sporting.
Mohammed Salah - €15m - one and half seasons at Basel.
Andre Shurrle - €21m - four full seasons at Mainz and Leverkusen.
Willian - £32m - established player at Shaktar/Anzhi.
Eden Hazard - £32m - four seasons at Lille.
Marco Reus - €18m - couple of full seasons at Gladbach.
Mario Gotze - €37m - three full seasons at Dortmund.

They were all in or around the same profile as Depay is now in terms of age, experience, international caps. Of course Gotze is at one end of the scale and there are others who are better value at another end of the scale. But 25m is very fair considering.

Cantona's Collars

keane2097 wrote: »

I literally don't believe a lot of the posts I read in this thread these days.

We are swapping De Gea for Ballotelli.

Headshot

keane2097 wrote: »

I literally don't believe a lot of the posts I read in this thread these days.

I hope you take my posts for gospel

keane2097

Headshot wrote: »

I hope you take my posts for gospel

That's a given.

TheDoc

Pro. F wrote: »

Why does Van Gaal having a direct impact on the player's development mean we should pay more? Surely if Depay likes Van Gaal so much we should be able to use that to get the fee down, not up. Since Depay can just not agree to be sold to any other club.

I think the issue here is that you are basing your understanding of where the transfer market is at on the few over priced fees that you can remember, rather than looking past those to see how much players trade for in the rest of the deals that make up the vast majority of the market. Or maybe you are under the misapprehension that younger, less proven players, should cost more because of what they might become.

Either way, you are wrong in your understanding of where transfer fees are generally at.

My point based on Van Gaal and Depay relationship is that a fee will not act as a deterrent for the interest to remain. If a fee of 25m for example, was offered by PSV, that would probably be agreed to swiftly. The relationship with the two may act as benefit to ensure Depay only agrees to join United, and may also act as a dilution to any bidding war taking place.

I think the issue here is that you feel there is a logical equation, or base, for how transfers work. Your a smart guy, let's not get overly pedantic about this. After your recent post outlining how you coming every discussion of the belief that you are always more knowledgeable that everyone else, this could turn into some awful bickering rubbish, cause I feel I'm spot on here.

Depay is very clearly in the upper bracket, of what you would call "Hot European Prospect". He has a world cup under his belt, and a full season of serious return in regards to goals and general performance.

The club from manger to director have indicated the player will move. He has had christenings from Dutch greats both retired and existing, outlining his talent, ability and prospects.

Getting him at £25m would be a snap.

I don't know how you could even bring into the loop the "other transfers that make up the market". We arn't talking about some run of the mill player here. This isn't some journeyman just making sure he has a premier league cheque to collect each week. .

Would seriously question how my understanding of where transfer fees are at is wrong.

bangkok

di maria, 5th most expensive transfer of all time. Do people think we overpaid? of course we did, by £20m at least and that's not based on this season either. Madrid knew we had loads of money and got an incredible deal

Pro. F

UnitedIrishman wrote: »

Sorry, the last sentence meant to say 'as close to or a bit above' market value... doesn't really make sense otherwise, yeah.

For instance some examples - relatively young wingers signed by top four sides in the last number of years (before TV deals and sponsorship increased):
Nani - €25.5m - had one full season at Sporting.
Mohammed Salah - €15m - one and half seasons at Basel.
Andre Shurrle - €21m - four full seasons at Mainz and Leverkusen.
Willian - £32m - established player at Shaktar/Anzhi.
Eden Hazard - £32m - four seasons at Lille.
Marco Reus - €18m - couple of full seasons at Gladbach.
Mario Gotze - €37m - three full seasons at Dortmund.

They were all in or around the same profile as Depay is now in terms of age, experience, international caps. Of course Gotze is at one end of the scale and there are others who are better value at another end of the scale. But 25m is very fair considering.

That is still a tiny sample with a big range from which to be deciding what is and is not good value.

I think it is a bad idea to use international caps to limit the players you are looking to buy. Caps are a poor way of valuing a player. If two players are of the same quality, but one has more international caps then he'll usually sell for more money. Caps drive up price without being a reliable indicator of a player's quality.

If we just use that sample then I would look at it like this:
Nani* - €25.5m - poor value
Mohammed Salah* - €15m - meh value
Andre Shurrle - €21m - good value
Willian - £32m - poor value
Eden Hazard* - £32m - meh value
Marco Reus* - €18m - good value
Mario Gotze - €37m meh to poor value

So, based just on that sample, I would conclude that Depey for £25m / €34.5m would be meh value, not the must buy Doc describes it. It's the type of price I would live with, but lauding it as good value looks very weird to me.

* I've only seen these players enough after those transfers, so I'm making the reasonable assumption that they performed at a similar level in their previous clubs.

adox

bangkok wrote: »

di maria, 5th most expensive transfer of all time. Do people think we overpaid? of course we did, by £20m at least and that's not based on this season either. Madrid knew we had loads of money and got an incredible deal

No one is arguing that Utd never pay over the odds for players so its a moot point.

You are arguing that Utd automatically pay over the odds for every player becasue they are a "big" club which simply isnt true.

RobertKK

So Aymeric Laporte, a player United are said to be interested in has signed, a big new contract with Adidas.
Real Madrid are also interested in signing him if reports are to be believed.
His buyout clause and he at 20 years of age is younger than Depay, different area of the field I know, is £30 million/€42 million.

https://twitter.com/AnderHerrera/status/588012804126420992

MagicIRL

Secret Agent Ander

TheDoc

And actually that is fine and I accept that perfectly. I was highly critical of the Shaw deal at 30m for someone with one years PL experience and nothing else.

But my point is based on how the market is, and the going rate for that type of player, 25m is a good price, as it could easily be along the lines of 35m+

Totenham enquired for Depay during the summer and were presented with a starting fee of 32m (according to the guy who then went on to outline why that deal didnt go ahead).

We will have the advantage with Depay in the club accepting he wants to leave, there is a decent relationship between Van Gaal and PSV from Holland duties, and because no bidding war will likely generate, he probably will come even cheaper.

But 25m is significantly less then other deals you would see done for what is considered a "european hot prospect". Dybala for example, in this bracket, with significantly less experience, is being touted in the 35-40m bracket.

Luciano Vietto, again in his breakthrough season, has a buyout clause of 25m

Neymar, well that was totally mental, but goes to show what can happen with a bidding war. Obviously has gone on leaps and bounds, but there was no guarantee a Brazilian his age would do well in Europe, with only Brazilian football experience.

Erik Lamela, was in this bracket for Roma, 30m for Spurs. The list goes on and on and on.

While logically of course you are correct in saying it is a big risk, but we both know this is how the football market works. If a young talent starts grabbing attention, the current club will want to cash in for big money, and typically all the elite will be circling causing a bidding war.

I've been watching Depay now since the turn of the year, briefly aware of him before that, and I could make a few comments that might be frowned upon or considered a bit outlandish.But I'd be fully confident that at 25m, on his current trajectory, under Van Gaal, would represent good business.

TheDoc

adox wrote: »

No one is arguing that Utd never pay over the odds for players so its a moot point.

You are arguing that Utd automatically pay over the odds for every player becasue they are a "big" club which simply isnt true.

Agreed.

I believe when we pay what appears over the top for someone, it's because we are fending off competition from other clubs.

It's rare that we are chasing a target that other elite/big clubs are not also monitoring, inquiring about.