Well tbh,you look at Chelsea managing to do well selling players on of late and wonder why we can't do the same.
I mean, David Luiz for instance.
im a big fan of luiz but yeh 50m was quite a deal
they did sell salah though who is on fire in serie a now, although he might only be on loan actually. and i have no doubt cuadrado will be a success next year.
Well tbh,you look at Chelsea managing to do well selling players on of late and wonder why we can't do the same.
I mean, David Luiz for instance.
Yeah, look at the players we have sold for more than £20 million, it is a short list, Ronaldo being the extreme example (even then we could have got more), Becks, and Ruud were both sold for less than they were worth, we are just terrible ast getting anywhere near decent transfer fees for our players.
Even if he was only mildly successful, we'd make a huge profit on him.
Would we really make a huge profit on him?
A profit for sure, seeing as he would be coming on as free transfer, but I am not sure about the huge part, we don't tend to do so well in that area, we are much better at spending money, then bringing it in for our players.
A profit for sure, seeing as he would be coming on as free transfer, but I am not sure about the huge part, we don't tend to do so well in that area, we are much better at spending money, then bringing it in for our players.
It's relative.
If he costs £5m, has a couple of Hernandez-esque years, and we sell him for £10m, that's 100% profit. That's 'huge' by any definition.
If he costs £5m, has a couple of Hernandez-esque years, and we sell him for £10m, that's 100% profit. That's 'huge' by any definition.
Yes, all that is true, but realistically would we get anywhere near £10 million for him if in the future we were to sell him? With our track record of selling players, I wouldn't say so.
I would put him in the "punt" category along with Diouf, and Manucho, and we didn't get much for them when we tried to sell them.
I could be wrong, and we could get a relatively large amount of money, but our track record to my mind, doesn't fill me with that much hope.
Getting 50 million for David Luiz has set the bar extraordinarly high.
In many ways I quite like Luiz, but come on ...
I don't know which £50 million was more extraordinary, the Luiz one to PSG, or the Torres one to Chelsea, both players were not worth anywhere near such vast amounts, and the selling clubs must have both jumped for joy when they got that level of cash!
Yes, all that is true, but realistically would we get anywhere near £10 million for him if in the future we were to sell him? With our track record of selling players, I wouldn't say so.
I would put him in the "punt" category along with Diouf, and Manucho, and we didn't get much for them when we tried to sell them.
I could be wrong, and we could get a relatively large amount of money, but our track record to my mind, doesn't fill me with that much hope.
If his contract wasn't up this summer, he'd cost at least £10m right now.
If he spends a couple of years training and playing with people like Rooney and Van Persie, and being coached by people like Van Gaal and Giggs, you'd have to think that he'll get better, even if it's not to our level.
Unlike Diouf and Manucho, he has spent a season in the Premier League, scored a few goals in a struggling side, and has done quite well.
I'm not saying that I'm all for signing him, but we'd be bloody unlucky to lose money on him.
A track record that doesn't involve LvG. Under LvG the club managed to get £4.4m for Buttner, £7m for Kagawa, but maybe that's just Dortmund wanting an Asian for the shirt sales, £16m for Welbeck, and £6m for Zaha, and who knows how he got £2.4m for Bebe? And of course Batdude's favourite, Michael Keane brought £3m.
Ings is English, and he is talented. If he can prove that he can score a few at the top level then he'll command a good fee, if the club want rid of him. And he has the "home-grown tax" that clubs have to pay. After a couple years City and Arsenal might be interested. I'd say Chelsea for the home-grown bit but they might fill that with other squad fodder by then.
If his contract wasn't up this summer, he'd cost at least £10m right now.
If he spends a couple of years training and playing with people like Rooney and Van Persie, and being coached by people like Van Gaal and Giggs, you'd have to think that he'll get better, even if it's not to our level.
Unlike Diouf and Manucho, he has spent a season in the Premier League, scored a few goals in a struggling side, and has done quite well.
I'm not saying that I'm all for signing him, but we'd be bloody unlucky to lose money on him.
You make good points, but I guess years/decades of selling our players for not very much, or waaayyyy under market value, has got me a tad bit pessimistic.
Believe me, in this case, I hope that you are right, and I am wrong!
A track record that doesn't involve LvG. Under LvG the club managed to get £4.4m for Buttner, £7m for Kagawa, but maybe that's just Dortmund wanting an Asian for the shirt sales, £16m for Welbeck, and £6m for Zaha, and who knows how he got £2.4m for Bebe? And of course Batdude's favourite, Michael Keane brought £3m.
Ings is English, and he is talented. If he can prove that he can score a few at the top level then he'll command a good fee, if the club want rid of him. And he has the "home-grown tax" that clubs have to pay. After a couple years City and Arsenal might be interested. I'd say Chelsea for the home-grown bit but they might fill that with other squad fodder by then.
That is very true, and one can only hope that this is the start of a new era, one where we can get a little more for our players, then perhaps we would have previously.
Just take out the bit about City, as I cannot remember the last time we sold them a player, (Tevez was never ours to sell) but if we could get other big clubs interested in one of pur players, then that would be to our advantage.
Comments
Sadly, I think that you're right. I've always liked him. I'm sure that there's a great player in there somewhere.
That'll depend on the amount of money involved.
Well tbh,you look at Chelsea managing to do well selling players on of late and wonder why we can't do the same.
I mean, David Luiz for instance.
im a big fan of luiz but yeh 50m was quite a deal
they did sell salah though who is on fire in serie a now, although he might only be on loan actually. and i have no doubt cuadrado will be a success next year.
Ronaldo?
We were short changed for him in hindsight.
Welbeck?
We did get like £16 mill for Danny "scored the same amount as smalling" Welbeck though which is pretty good going.
There is that goal unfortunately.
Maybe if Timmy tactics can get past Liverpool they might cause an upset.
Rafael has been a dead man walking for a while, when Valencia is in your position for the vast majority of the season, you know the game is up.
Yeah, look at the players we have sold for more than £20 million, it is a short list, Ronaldo being the extreme example (even then we could have got more), Becks, and Ruud were both sold for less than they were worth, we are just terrible ast getting anywhere near decent transfer fees for our players.
Would we really make a huge profit on him?
A profit for sure, seeing as he would be coming on as free transfer, but I am not sure about the huge part, we don't tend to do so well in that area, we are much better at spending money, then bringing it in for our players.
The best deal we did was getting something like £15 million for Mikel from Chelsea, lord only knows how we managed to get that much!
It's relative.
If he costs £5m, has a couple of Hernandez-esque years, and we sell him for £10m, that's 100% profit. That's 'huge' by any definition.
In many ways I quite like Luiz, but come on ...
Yes, all that is true, but realistically would we get anywhere near £10 million for him if in the future we were to sell him? With our track record of selling players, I wouldn't say so.
I would put him in the "punt" category along with Diouf, and Manucho, and we didn't get much for them when we tried to sell them.
I could be wrong, and we could get a relatively large amount of money, but our track record to my mind, doesn't fill me with that much hope.
I don't know which £50 million was more extraordinary, the Luiz one to PSG, or the Torres one to Chelsea, both players were not worth anywhere near such vast amounts, and the selling clubs must have both jumped for joy when they got that level of cash!
If his contract wasn't up this summer, he'd cost at least £10m right now.
If he spends a couple of years training and playing with people like Rooney and Van Persie, and being coached by people like Van Gaal and Giggs, you'd have to think that he'll get better, even if it's not to our level.
Unlike Diouf and Manucho, he has spent a season in the Premier League, scored a few goals in a struggling side, and has done quite well.
I'm not saying that I'm all for signing him, but we'd be bloody unlucky to lose money on him.
Ings is English, and he is talented. If he can prove that he can score a few at the top level then he'll command a good fee, if the club want rid of him. And he has the "home-grown tax" that clubs have to pay. After a couple years City and Arsenal might be interested. I'd say Chelsea for the home-grown bit but they might fill that with other squad fodder by then.
Like Sterling and Henderson, you mean?
(Heh heh).
For £50m they might be able to get Sterling on a season-long loan, but Hendo? No chance.
You make good points, but I guess years/decades of selling our players for not very much, or waaayyyy under market value, has got me a tad bit pessimistic.
Believe me, in this case, I hope that you are right, and I am wrong!
That is very true, and one can only hope that this is the start of a new era, one where we can get a little more for our players, then perhaps we would have previously.
Just take out the bit about City, as I cannot remember the last time we sold them a player, (Tevez was never ours to sell) but if we could get other big clubs interested in one of pur players, then that would be to our advantage.