Looks like I'll be forced to watch Sky Sports 1 all night long with red eyes lol

1 minute ago, ChelseaFanBoy said:

Looks like I'll be forced to watch Sky Sports 1 all night long with red eyes lol

Yeah I would say check it in the morning mate. Arsenal are gonna sell him to United but only after they get their replacments in.

And people wonder how English football journos get away with being so bad, it's because people seemingly swallow anything.

We would never pay his wages. We would never pay the agents fees and I doubt we'd pay the transfer fee either.

It's just journos trying to milk more out of the transfer story because it's a done deal and they're setting up their next weekload of rubbish articles about how Jose got one over on Conte because they're all too in love with City and Pep to bash them with that brush so we're a convenient even though totally fantasy driven substitute.

Not convinced. The fact that this originated in two Manchester based papers says to me it is a ploy by someone to get more from United. Our club news comes from Matt Law, Dom Fifield and Simon Johnson who have all said nothing. 

If we were interested or trying to signal to fans we were interested to save face, the news would be coming from them. 

2 hours ago, Ballack & Blu said:

But by us entering the fray, can only men UTD will have to stump up more, if its a game of Poker involving Roman/Marina, he/she aint gonna show no tells...

the media feed that we were interested came, somewhat unsurprisingly, from Arsenal in order that they could extract more from Utd. Always follow the money.....

And suddenly we are interested? Now happy to pay his wages? Really? No.

Yay we were linked with trying, now the mundane 'why aren't we even trying' posts can stop and people can move on to thinking about how insane a deal it would actually take.

Not sure if we should go for him. 29 and wants 35k/w. Would shatter our wage structure. Great player though.

I'd be happy to offer him 350 a week and happy to offer Hazard the same amount. Apparently we were offering Hazard 300 anyway. 

27 minutes ago, evissy said:

Not sure if we should go for him. 29 and wants 35k/w. Would shatter our wage structure. Great player though.

If he only wants 35k then we should offer him 40k. If hazard is worth 200k then Alexis has to be worth 35k!

54 minutes ago, Stim said:

Yay we were linked with trying, now the mundane 'why aren't we even trying' posts can stop and people can move on to thinking about how insane a deal it would actually take.

I don't think it's that crazy a deal. lets call it 45 million transfer fee (including the agent) plus 18 million for 3 years.. that's the thick end of 90 mill for an elite level player who needs no adjustment to the premier league and we have a ready made position for. 

Now lets examine the alternative, to a similar  quality player. I'm not as up on European football as I once was, so I'd have to guess. lets take Dybala at Juve, in today market the transfer fee alone will be 100 million. Then he's be looking at wages in an around the 150 mark maybe as high as 200k. but lets go low for now - that is 7.8 mill a year and 23 hand half mill over 3 years a cool 123 mill (not considering agent fees). You could argue that Dybala's shelf life is longer, and you would be right but also no guarantees he makes it in this league. The resale value is of little interest to me because you never want to see you're best players sold in their prime, we would hate to ever see profit for Hazard for example I'm sure. 

Another factor to consider is that we are in a 3 way arm wrestle for the CL spots with Liverpool and Spuds, and on recent form it's safe to say we have lost a little bit of leverage, if Alexis is the difference maker here thats  worth about 40 million on it's own. 

The deal add's up fiance wise. The only small issue you might have is giving Hazard Parity.

15 minutes ago, barak81 said:

I don't think it's that crazy a deal. lets call it 45 million transfer fee (including the agent) plus 18 million for 3 years.. that's the thick end of 90 mill for an elite level player who needs no adjustment to the premier league and we have a ready made position for. 

Now lets examine the alternative, to a similar  quality player. I'm not as up on European football as I once was, so I'd have to guess. lets take Dybala at Juve, in today market the transfer fee alone will be 100 million. Then he's be looking at wages in an around the 150 mark maybe as high as 200k. but lets go low for now - that is 7.8 mill a year and 23 hand half mill over 3 years a cool 123 mill (not considering agent fees). You could argue that Dybala's shelf life is longer, and you would be right but also no guarantees he makes it in this league. The resale value is of little interest to me because you never want to see you're best players sold in their prime, we would hate to ever see profit for Hazard for example I'm sure. 

Another factor to consider is that we are in a 3 way arm wrestle for the CL spots with Liverpool and Spuds, and on recent form it's safe to say we have lost a little bit of leverage, if Alexis is the difference maker here thats  worth about 40 million on it's own. 

The deal add's up fiance wise. The only small issue you might have is giving Hazard Parity.

Bingo. Alexis Sanchez strikes me as the type who's going to be able to play at a really high level well into his 30s as well.

And our wage-structure we'll have to shatter sooner rather than later anyways. If we want to compete that is.

Edited January 16, 20188 yr by Sindre

If he only wants 35k then we should offer him 40k. If hazard is worth 200k then Alexis has to be worth 35k!

Whoops. I meant to write 350

 

18 minutes ago, barak81 said:

I don't think it's that crazy a deal. lets call it 45 million transfer fee (including the agent) plus 18 million for 3 years.. that's the thick end of 90 mill for an elite level player who needs no adjustment to the premier league and we have a ready made position for. 

Now lets examine the alternative, to a similar  quality player. I'm not as up on European football as I once was, so I'd have to guess. lets take Dybala at Juve, in today market the transfer fee alone will be 100 million. Then he's be looking at wages in an around the 150 mark maybe as high as 200k. but lets go low for now - that is 7.8 mill a year and 23 hand half mill over 3 years a cool 123 mill (not considering agent fees). You could argue that Dybala's shelf life is longer, and you would be right but also no guarantees he makes it in this league. The resale value is of little interest to me because you never want to see you're best players sold in their prime, we would hate to ever see profit for Hazard for example I'm sure. 

Another factor to consider is that we are in a 3 way arm wrestle for the CL spots with Liverpool and Spuds, and on recent form it's safe to say we have lost a little bit of leverage, if Alexis is the difference maker here thats  worth about 40 million on it's own. 

The deal add's up fiance wise. The only small issue you might have is giving Hazard Parity.

That last sentence is the most important. The thing is if we agree to 300k+ that is setting the standard for top players, Hazard will want a rise, as will anyone else that hits form. The players on 100-150k, even though not as high profile will feel agrieved that they are worth 1/3rd of Sanchez. Man U and Man city can afford to have their entire first team on huge wages, we can't afford to break our wage structure, same with Arsenal, which is the reason they have to sell.

Edited January 16, 20188 yr by Jackbuchanan

12 minutes ago, Jackbuchanan said:

 

That last sentence is the most important. The thing is if we agree to 300k+ that is setting the standard for top players, Hazard will want a rise, as will anyone else that hits form. The players on 100-150k, even though not as high profile will feel agrieved that they are worth 1/3rd of Sanchez. Man U and Man city can afford to have their entire first team on huge wages, we can't afford to break our wage structure, same with Arsenal, which is the reason they have to sell.

I think this is not entirely correct, the players on 150k are only worth what the market will pay for them, Willian will not get more then that any were else so why would we pay him more. If a player can get a higher salary at another team its got nothing to do with out structure it's about them maximizing their worth 

From Rory Jennings 
"We’ve done it again haven’t we? Just like we did with Lukaku, make no moves then when we see a rival make a move spring into life, but yet again it’s too little too late. Like asking a girl you’ve fancied for a while if you can buy her a drink when she’s out on her hen-do"

I don’t care how much he’s going to cost us, just imagine Hazard and Sanchez.

The Board's reaction when Sanchez signs for United

Now onto Andy Carroll...

59 minutes ago, Jackbuchanan said:

 

That last sentence is the most important. The thing is if we agree to 300k+ that is setting the standard for top players, Hazard will want a rise, as will anyone else that hits form. The players on 100-150k, even though not as high profile will feel agrieved that they are worth 1/3rd of Sanchez. Man U and Man city can afford to have their entire first team on huge wages, we can't afford to break our wage structure, same with Arsenal, which is the reason they have to sell.

There are more sensible options in the market, but we just seem not to be trying.

Leon Bailey is available for £35m & wants a move.

Malcolm is available for £40m & rumoured to be Arsenal’s Sanchez replacement.

Why not get the pair, and let Pedro fill in as an option to Morata. With the rate at which both Bailey & Malcolm are developing, you won’t be able to buy them for £50m each come summer.

 

Perhaps Sanchez will be happy to take less than what he is demanding to stay in London. Obviously we’ll offer him more than Arsenal ever will, but not as much as Man Utd are willing to. I just have this faltering hope that he doesn’t fancy playing for Jose Mourinho.

I imagine its City dropping these rumours so the headlines read 'Utd beat Chelsea to Sanchez' rather than 'Sanchez chooses Utd over City'.

 

Seems too coincidental that the reporters mentioning this are from Manchester papers. 

Seems like there's too many routes with this transfer, and most end with us with egg on our face. Kinda wish our involvement hadn't been mentioned! 

A quote from Danni Alves interview in 2014 - According to the Brazilian, Sanchez needs to be the protagonist in any team he plays for, which he couldn’t be at Camp Nou Camp. 

Well he sure isn't going to be the star of the show at Utd as I think Pogba has captured the market there, but if he does it might take the pressure off Pogba; whether or not he can become the leading star here and take that love and adoration away from Hazard will be an interesting dynamic; and if he doesn't get the love and adoration he thinks he deserves, together with being the highest paid player in any team he plays for...... will he throw his toys out the pram?    I really don't see this transfer happening for us.....we don't his ego to upset the dynamics in the dressing room, because it will be no secret what sort of wages he will be on and that will not go down well with certain players I'm sure. 

Waste of money. Give me Andy Carroll any day of the week. 

Yeah, dont buy world class player, buy young unproven piece of shiats like Crappayoko, with exactly 0 feats and strengths. We didn't buy also Ballack and Fabregas in their late 20s, we don't need winning, we are like Arsenal now, we need young and bad player, that eventually will turn into mediocre in years.