More transfer rumours

[ponsaelius]

We might be the richest club in the world and it's easy to say 'it's not my money I don't care' (there's definitely an element of that which I empathise with) but equally with FFP we have to be ran sensibly. It will take years of building up - and part of that will be buying and selling sensibly. You only have to look at Everton to see where it can go wrong.

 

This will mean possibly biting the bullet and cashing in on players when we get mega offers, or ensuring players that don't quite fit or aren't good enough aren't stuck here on inflated contracts or at an age where we can't move them. On a smaller scale you can see the issue we have at the moment where we haven't moved on players when we should have done due to kicking the can down the road - and are now stuck with aging championship players who we will probably have to literally pay to get rid of.

 

It also means stumping up the money and wages when it's right to do so and the player is worth it. I think we basically showed we will do that with Bruno.

[ponsaelius]

Somebody like Gayle could have been sold for 10-15 million to an ambitious Championship club easily when he was 27-28. Even at 29 he was off the back of a 23 goal season at WBA we could have got close to our money back from a desperate promotion chaser.

 

Instead because we refused to progress and upgrade the squad by spending, and instead just kept him around like many others, he has hung around into his 30s becoming more injury prone and now has a value close to nil. This is just really bad squad management.

 

It's a really tricky balancing act, no doubt. The Longstaff one is a good case in point. Really we should be securing his value as a player at that age so we don't lose him for nowt. But equally you don't want to end up stuck with a player you can't shift by overpaying them.

[macphisto]

35 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, we're talking about one transfer window. If we can spend £50m+sales this summer to get us to 8th, then £100m+sales the next summer to get us to 5th, suddenly you're a fringe CL team on the up and you can attract the sort of players a side hoping to compete for titles would need. If the aim is to compete at the top end within five years, we can't cash all our chips in during the first proper transfer window when a load of our top targets will turn us down because we aren't in Europe.

A net outlay of £150 million from where we are won't get us into top 5 in my view by the season after next. That's only £60 more than our January spend. The teams above aren't going to standstill and they will bring in a lot more than we will through sales.

 

It's also relying on every signing coming off. No matter how good we are, some of our signings won't work out.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

6 minutes ago, macphisto said:

A net outlay of £150 million from where we are won't get us into top 5 in my view by the season after next. That's only £60 more than our January spend. The teams above aren't going to standstill and they will bring in a lot more than we will through sales.

 

It's also relying on every signing coming off. No matter how good we are, some of our signings won't work out.

 

The Jan spend was £90m gross and net though, even if we only manage to get £30m through the door from the likes of Manquillo, Darlow, Hayden, Gayle etc with perhaps one decent sale for someone like Dubs, Almiron, Lascelles then you are looking at doubling our Jan gross spend in a market that doesn't carry the Jan premium. We can also pad out with some out of contract players.

 

Its definitely not a 'spend £150m net and we'll be more likely than not be in the top 5' but there is very little to bridge form where we are and 7th and then you look for 1 or 2 clubs to fall short to challenge top 5 next year. That should be the aim with that sort of spending.

[TRon]

40 minutes ago, ponsaelius said:

I don't think a wage structure will rigidly prevent any signing on 100-150k a week. It will just be reserved for players that deserve it, or are of an age where their value will hold.

 

I definitely am not sold on the Lingard idea at the wages discussed tbh. 

 

This. I don't have any problem even paying 200k a week if the club feels it is ready, but not for a player like Lingard. I think he's a decent player, but still hasn't proven himself to be a consistent winner.

[Keegans Export]

46 minutes ago, macphisto said:

A net outlay of £150 million from where we are won't get us into top 5 in my view by the season after next. That's only £60 more than our January spend. The teams above aren't going to standstill and they will bring in a lot more than we will through sales.

 

It's also relying on every signing coming off. No matter how good we are, some of our signings won't work out.

The net spend is the key part though. If we bring in £30m for players who aren't even playing currently (Hayden, Lewis, Gayle etc) or contributing little (I love the guy but Miggy) then you're not losing anything in terms of quality but you're adding +£180m of talent (using the £150m base figure I just pulled out of my backside there) which could be four Brunos.

 

You're not wrong about having to have a really high hit rate when it comes to transfers though and that is going to be a massive challenge, but my point was more that what we spend this summer isn't necessarily going to reflect what we will spend in the following summers & doesn't necessarily contradict what they claim are their ambitions. 

[Deuce]

2 hours ago, 54 said:

 

 

[SUPERTOON]

Linked with Danjuma again, he would be a brilliant signing 

[McCormick]

Also more reports that we’re sweet on Solanke. I actually rated Solanke and wondered why, with all of his talent, he failed in the Premier League.

Whether he’s finally living up to his potential or if he just found his level in the championship; it does seem that it’s clicking for him currently. Talks of Bournemouth wanting close to 40m(!) though should kill that interest off, I’d imagine.

[SUPERTOON]

Just now, McCormick said:

Also more reports that we’re sweet on Solanke. I actually rated Solanke and wondered why, with all of his talent, he failed in the Premier League.

Whether he’s finally living up to his potential or if he just found his level in the championship; it does seem that it’s clicking for him currently. Talks of Bournemouth wanting close to 40m(!) though should kill that interest off, I’d imagine.

I would be pretty disappointed if we end the summer with him as our big striker buy tbh.

[Elliottman]

Find it weird when people say 'x amount wont get us here' or 'we need to spend x amount to get there'. It all comes down to who you buy not want you spend. We could spunk £80million of Harry Maguire and £30million on Solanke and of course we wont get near the top 5 or 6. 

 

Or we could spend £130 on some really clever signings and a couple of Bosmans and be absolutely flying. Utterly pointless conversation, trust the process. 

[The Prophet]

The Telegraph reporting that we won't be signing Lingard as he's after £150,000 a week and a signing on a bonus.

[The Bonk]

What has he done to earn that type of money? Yeah, hard pass.

[maze]

Don’t think Lingard has performed well enough to demand 150k tbh. Just because you have been a manure player all your life. I’d also question his motivation - here to contribute or pick up a paycheck?

 

Might as well go for Rashford then. Same mold, only better imo. 

[Groundhog63]

13 minutes ago, Elliottman said:

Find it weird when people say 'x amount wont get us here' or 'we need to spend x amount to get there'. It all comes down to who you buy not want you spend. We could spunk £80million of Harry Maguire and £30million on Solanke and of course we wont get near the top 5 or 6. 

 

Or we could spend £130 on some really clever signings and a couple of Bosmans and be absolutely flying. Utterly pointless conversation, trust the process. 

Take this sensible shit to the back of the room and leave to transfer talk to the FIFA22 generation ?

[Manxst]

2 minutes ago, maze said:

Don’t think Lingard has performed well enough to demand 150k tbh. Just because you have been a manure player all your life. I’d also question his motivation - here to contribute or pick up a paycheck?

 

Might as well go for Rashford then. Same mold, only better imo. 

Lingard is free? Rashford has two years left on his contract so would cost £70m + those wages? 

[maze]

8 minutes ago, Manxst said:

Lingard is free? Rashford has two years left on his contract so would cost £70m + those wages? 

To be perfectly honest, I don’t think Lingard is up for it and that he care too much about his footballing career apart from getting as much money as he can in a final long-term contract somewhere.  
At 150k being 29, he is not going to be easy to shift if it comes to that. 
pre OGS Rashford was really good, and I’d pay £70m to get just that. 

[TRon]

45 minutes ago, The Bonk said:

What has he done to earn that type of money? Yeah, hard pass.

 

Failed to hold down a first team place at an underperforming Man U for the last 3 years. I mean it's hardly a glowing reference. Don't get me wrong, I think he's got talent, but there's obviously been something missing.

[madras]

56 minutes ago, maze said:

To be perfectly honest, I don’t think Lingard is up for it and that he care too much about his footballing career apart from getting as much money as he can in a final long-term contract somewhere.  
At 150k being 29, he is not going to be easy to shift if it comes to that. 
pre OGS Rashford was really good, and I’d pay £70m to get just that. 

Dunno like. Lingard looked the business at West Ham.

[xLiaaamx]

Joe Willock looked the business here at the same time and that's not worked out too well for us. 

[Kid Icarus]

Not sure about that, I still have a lot of faith in Willock. 

[madras]

Just now, Kid Icarus said:

Not sure about that, I still have a lot of faith in Willock. 

Yip, definitely think he's worth another season.

[gbandit]

Willock has shown a lot of quality. Good pace, good technique and good finishing. He just needs to become more consistent. I think extra pace in the side and players getting more used to Bruno’s through balls will help Willock a lot next season 

[Wild Geese]

Re - Lingard

It’s all just paper talk, there just doing the old shit stirring and hoping for a reaction from the club, let’s just wait and see!

[Nine]

4 hours ago, ponsaelius said:

I don't think a wage structure will rigidly prevent any signing on 100-150k a week. It will just be reserved for players that deserve it, or are of an age where their value will hold.

 

I definitely am not sold on the Lingard idea at the wages discussed tbh. 

 

I got some shit on here a while back because I said we wouldnt be pushing our wage structure very far past around our current top earner in Bruno at 120/130k, I still think this will be the case. As you said it could be pushed a bit further for the right player but Howe is very big on squad harmony and the unity of this club that hes carefully moulded since he came in.. this is why I just cant see players coming in on close to 200k a week. Step by step we will get to that number with new contracts for our current core along the way, possibly next summer? 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2022 by Nine