Dennis cheap as chips zakaria

Daniel James cost £16 million, and although he was a bit shit, he still contibuted more in terms of effort and output than players that have cost us 5 times that. And then we sold him at a profit when it wasn't working out.

Bailing out on a £5 million transfer ffs

Originally Posted by dunk

%@#$&!s.

The Amad and Pellistri signings are the type of buys we should be making regularly regardless, they shouldn’t have any impact on the spending for the first team. They should be bought, nurtured, loaned and either utilised or sold on for a profit, exactly as City and Chelsea have been doing for the last 5-10 years, subsidising their youth system and helping to offset the costs of signing players. The problem we have is that we don’t do it aggressively or efficiently enough.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by dunk

%@#$&!s.

The Amad and Pellistri signings are the type of buys we should be making regularly regardless, they shouldn’t have any impact on the spending for the first team. They should be bought, nurtured, loaned and either utilised or sold on for a profit, exactly as City and Chelsea have been doing for the last 5-10 years, subsidising their youth system and helping to offset the costs of signing players. The problem we have is that we don’t do it aggressively or efficiently enough.

Nice in theory but didn't we spend 30m plus on Amad? That's a lot of money to nurture and loan out a player, and then hope he's gets good enough to make a profit.

From what I'm hearing on Pellistri we'd be lucky to make any profit off him either.

More like £15-17m with add ons that could get up to £30m IIRC.

Originally Posted by dunk

More like £15-17m with add ons that could get up to £30m IIRC.

So, 30 million?

Even 17 million is a joke for a player who doesn't have a place in the team.

Originally Posted by shenwen

So, 30 million?

Even 17 million is a joke for a player who doesn't have a place in the team.

Well, no. We don’t know what the add ons are. They may be Ballon d’Or related I’d imagine they’re structured so they are applicable if/when he becomes a first team regular, if he never manages it they aren’t applicable. That said, they were negotiated by our board, so they could be anything

We should be hoovering up young talent from all over the World. Some we’ll make a profit in, some will become first team players and some will be a bust. Speculate to accumulate.

Originally Posted by sparky***

can't be taking any chances for a whole 5 million euros ffs, got to be careful.

Meanwhile here's 20 million quid for a couple of kids who'll never see the light of day at old trafford, 80 million quid on a bloke slower than a snail's funeral, and new contracts for injury prone squad shite.

united!

Originally Posted by dunk

Well, no. We don’t know what the add ons are. They may be Ballon d’Or related I’d imagine they’re structured so they are applicable if/when he becomes a first team regular, if he never manages it they aren’t applicable. That said, they were negotiated by our board, so they could be anything

We should be hoovering up young talent from all over the World. Some we’ll make a profit in, some will become first team players and some will be a bust. Speculate to accumulate.

So which young kids with no real experience of long term first team football did City or Chelsea pay £17m + for (and go on the make a profit on?)

If our first team were doing well and had quality through out then yes but you don’t waste money on a rolex if you ve got a hole in the house roof letting the rain piss through? Or maybe you would

Originally Posted by The Stella Fella

So which young kids with no real experience of long term first team football did City or Chelsea pay £17m + for (and go on the make a profit on?)

If our first team were doing well and had quality through out then yes but you don’t waste money on a rolex if you ve got a hole in the house roof letting the rain piss through? Or maybe you would

Salah and de bruyne. Albeit they #@&%!ed up in letting them go. They still did it.
Pretty sure they did the same with lukaku.

City don’t do it because they can throw money and hide it under the books. 40 mill on mangala, ferran Torres , sane and etc

Fwiw I don’t think he was signed to make a profit on. We missed out on Sancho and incase they did again the following year was a back up winger .

Nothing wrong with spending 17 million on a player. Like you said the idiots should focus on the first team first

Originally Posted by Dasilvatwins

Salah and de bruyne. Albeit they #@&%!ed up in letting them go. They still did it.
Pretty sure they did the same with lukaku.

City don’t do it because they can throw money and hide it under the books. 40 mill on mangala, ferran Torres , sane and etc

Fwiw I don’t think he was signed to make a profit on. We missed out on Sancho and incase they did again the following year was a back up winger .

Nothing wrong with spending 17 million on a player. Like you said the idiots should focus on the first team first

Chelsea bought Salah for £11m loaned him out twice and sold him for €15m made £#%&! all and cost them wages no doubt.

Lukaku was bought for £17m any Chelsea and sold for £28m so £11m profit less 3 or 4 years salary so £#%&! all profit. Then they paid £97.5m to sign him back.

Mangala, Sane or Torres weren’t young kids.

Both of them above prove my point that we shouldn’t be gambling on bargain £17m youngsters certainly not at the moment.

The only one we did it with who wasn’t homegrown is Ronnie and that is the exception to the rule.

We will be lucky if we get our money back on those Pellestri or Amad

Signed for Juventus.