Fuck it

goon

Indeed. In reality it's closer to getting something for nothing.

mdgoonah41

goon wrote:
Indeed. In reality it's closer to getting something for nothing.

but it is a straight swap. we are sending them one asset, we are receiving another asset in return. we are not receiving a transfer fee in addition to a player.

i find it very hard to believe that united came to us and said "we're only interested in sanchez if you take mkhiujdfdjf"....they probably offered £20-25m, just like city did, or the option of taking the player, and we just took the player. we should have sold him to city for £20m instead. this is a bad deal.

QuincyAbeyie

The only way we can look at it as getting "something for nothing" is if no clubs offered us cash, which City and probably also United did.

Tactics

Tambourine Man wrote:
GooneriC wrote:
Thats right, should have taken the money and let them keep their wasted asset and pay his wages. We should be after Fekir , show some serious intent ffs

Exactly this. It took ages to get rid of Walcott and in the window where we finally do it, we replace his place in the squad with a similarly aged liability. United would have found it extremely difficult to shift him with the wages he was on. He would have been there taking up a squad space and sitting on big wages. Instead, they got Sanchez and were able to get rid of a massive liability. We really are suckers.

Exactly what I just typed in another thread.

As I mentioned earlier, his arrival means we are forced to play 4-2-3-1

Mark my words, we'll see Aubemayang or Lacazette on the wings

goon

mdgoonah41 wrote:
goon wrote:
Indeed. In reality it's closer to getting something for nothing.

but it is a straight swap. we are sending them one asset, we are receiving another asset in return. we are not receiving a transfer fee in addition to a player.

i find it very hard to believe that united came to us and said "we're only interested in sanchez if you take mkhiujdfdjf"....they probably offered £20-25m, just like city did, or the option of taking the player, and we just took the player. we should have sold him to city for £20m instead. this is a bad deal.

You guys are letting your feelings on Mkhitaryan cloud your judgement. If you don't like him and would prefer the cash that's another argument.

But the reality is our 'asset' had no real value. He could literally sign a deal with another club as we speak and there's fuck all we could do about it, United on the other hand could sell their guy for 20-30m in the summer.

Tactics

For the next 6 months we are fully in control of Alexis' destiny. City were prepared to pay 20m for him according to reports (that represents a 'value'). Alternatively, we could have decided to hold him to his contract and forced him to stay, we still want to win the league cup and Europa league after all.

I personally think we should have sold him and brought in a replacement early in the summer or made it clear to him he should respect his contract and leave for free at the end of the season just like Dortmund did with Lewandowski. We did neither, insisted early on he wasn't for sale only to then try to sell him to City on the last day. In the end, we were left with a very disappointed player who had already closed the Arsenal chapter in his mind. Very poorly handled by the club.That's not a shock though.

By the way, United may well have tried to sell Mhikitaryan in the summer but we know from experience it's not that easy to sell underperforming players on high wages.

goon

We just sold Walcott for £25m and he's barely played for the last 12 months and is also down to his last 18 months. Dortmund have shown plenty of interest in taking him back too.

QuincyAbeyie

goon wrote:
mdgoonah41 wrote:
but it is a straight swap. we are sending them one asset, we are receiving another asset in return. we are not receiving a transfer fee in addition to a player.

i find it very hard to believe that united came to us and said "we're only interested in sanchez if you take mkhiujdfdjf"....they probably offered £20-25m, just like city did, or the option of taking the player, and we just took the player. we should have sold him to city for £20m instead. this is a bad deal.

If you don't like him and would prefer the cash that's another argument.

That's exactly what people (who criticize the deal) want.

Qwiss

At the end of the day the club have gotten themselves into the position where they've ended up with a straight swap Sanchez for Mkhi. Thats whats happening.

GooneriC

At the end of the day the club has fucked the fand over and made us a laughing stock. A common theme in recent years.

Mirth

http://www.onemoreinthetolly.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=3795

Tis done.

« Previous Page