The way I look at it is this; the price that I place on players should be reflective how much money the club is making. But we now live in a world where we think there should be no correlation. Just spend and spend. But football itself doesn't generate enough for any club to be spending £100m on a player every two years. I see trouble ahead if this mad trend continues. I don't think it is smart business spending £70m on a single player when you have debt running through the nose. And no, it doesn't make us another Arsenal. Actually come to think of it, they have consistently outperformed us in the past three years with far less budget. But what I am saying is that we could get two solid world class players for £70m. Smaller clubs have consistently done great business this through their scouting programs. Furthermore, we know that getting a big star is not always a successful affair. It is about as much of a gamble as a rough in the gem. As for profitability without Champions League; There is often a lag indicator for on field events in profitability. If we miss another 4th place finish, we would suddenly start becoming your AC Milan and Liverpool and with that comes shrinkage in budget. Overall, I definitely have great appreciation for balanced spending, youth and scouting system over galactico-type and get anyone that is famous at all cost.
If you genuinely think that, then you probably haven't paid much attention to football recently. The new PL broadcast deals are worth £8.3 billion over three years, that's around £140 million per club per year. When that money starts getting paid, pretty much every club in the PL could spend £100m on a player every two years. See that to me is a bigger waste of money. Firstly I don't think you could name a single genuine world class player who was transferred in the last few years for £35m. Secondly our squad is full of £30m players - we have one in practically every position. I don't see any benefit in spending money on squad players - I'd much rather we spent £70m on a player who will actually improve our first team than go running around buying duplicates of what we already have. We can only play 11 players on the pitch at any one time, it's not like we are lacking squad depth anywhere other than striker atm. Now you're arguing round in circles. As you say, missing out on the CL again will be financially damaging. So how does it make good business sense to avoid spending £70m on a world class player who can help us achieve CL qualification? And in doing so risk missing out on the £40m+ in TV money, £10m extra matchday revenue, and £20m in sponsorship which would come from the CL. I fully agree with this sentiment. But in no universe is Pogba a "galactico-type and get anyone that is famous at all cost" signing. Pogba is a top class CM who will give us massively more effectiveness in CM and complement any of our four current CMs as well as being better than any of them. He will have an immediate and significant impact on our starting line up, so he is worth the money, regardless of his fame or anything else.
But with the spectre of SAF still hanging around life a fart in a lift, he won't come back. He knows already what Manchester has to offer, compare that to the glitz and the lifestyle of Madrid - no contest.
@Swarbs do you not think that the likes of Schneiderlin (in particular) and Herrera deserve a chance in CM first under a decent manager? We have some idea of just how good they are from their previous clubs but were never allowed to show their true worth under LVG. I still feel both could be top players for us.
@Swarbs - As of today, some papers are suggesting that Juve now wants £120m. This is where common sense is lost. Few weeks ago, he was worth £50m, but today, he is now expected to go for more than £100m. I hear your argument that it is better to spend £10m on one world class than £5m on squad players but if you can get two players that are 8/10, why would you spend all the money on one player that is 9/10? Regardless, there is no way in hell that Pogba is worth north of £100m. It would be money foolishly spent even if it wins us the league. This is what happens when "hype" controls the market. And I guess sellers love this type of illogical valuation of players. Now back to value for money; I believe Tottenham and Leicester taught us valuable lessons this past season and I hope it sticks. Juventus and Atletico also know how to do smart business without attempting to compete using Madrid-type of idiocracy, yet they both compete at the very highest level. For all the money that United and City have spent these past few years, the reward on the pitch is nothing short of failure. This is where I hope there is better approach when it comes to transfers. Hype must not drive us to the point of paying insane and over the top for players.
They could well be. But then by that rationale we wouldn't sign anyone this window as we easily have 11 players in our squad who could be top players under a good manager. I don't think Pogba joining will result in those two being chucked on the scrap heap - if anything I think he would be able to offer something new which would bring out the best of those two. Not a million miles away, imo, from what Yorke gave us when we already had Solskjaer, Sheringham and Cole, or Hargreaves in 2008 when we already had Scholes, Carrick and Fletcher. Ultimately we aren't so stocked with riches in CM that we can afford to ignore a world class player who is almost certainly on the move this summer, particularly if Kroos ends up being a makeweight in that deal thus taking away another option.
Oh please don't be one of those people who buys into everything they read in the papers. Particularly when even the ****test of rags is reporting it as 120m euros, not pounds. As for the question of why you would get two players who are 8/10, what would be the point when we already have a squad packed full of 8/10 players? It's not like we can play another two of them in any game. If we are going to spend the money, then spend it on a player who will definitely improve the first team, rather than just spending it for the sake of it, just to say we are buying cheap players. After all, that's been our main problem the last few years - too many Depays, Rojos and Fellainis who are cheap but thus add little to our first team.
But that's a bit simplistic. The 11 players comment doesn't apply. It's obvious we have a clear need in positions such as CB, RB and RW. The players we have in those positions are either not good enough or are not experienced enough to take on the mantle. Rojo is ****, Valencia is past it, Mata's best position isn't as a right winger. You can't say that about Schneiderlin and Herrera. They've proved at other clubs they have the quality.
Yes, Fergie ****ed up on this one. But his philosophy didn't do too badly did it? But if we need Pogba and he is available and willing to play for us, I can't see why the past history should be a problem.
He's a great player but nowhere near £70m worth. £40m sure, in today's money. The top midfielders in my view right now are Iniesta, Busquets, Verratti, Kroos and Modric.
Pogba knows that the eyes of many top clubs are on him during the Euros and, as happened many times before to 'the next football superstar' in the making, he is trying too hard to impress rather than just playing his normal game. For different reasons (vanity for one) Ronaldo wants to 'shine' but he too has done nothing so far and I suspect the same will be true for most of the players who are using the tournament as a shop window. It really is hard to judge the real abilities and skills of a player away from their regular club colleagues - and it is mostly those with nothing to prove to anyone who do best. Another season of club football will show what Pogba can do.
I second this. Granted France has only played two games. He has done alright in those games as a squad player but certainly not as a game changer. Perhaps as he grows into the tournament, he will find his feet. But if he continues to play just above average, then I certainly don't see that 120m euros price tag. Your comment on vanity is exactly why I think he is more suited to Real than United.
Well, the madness of it is that if we think Sterling was worth £49m last year, then Pogba would be at least twice that fee. But then again, Sterling is worth no more than £20-25m, which would put Pogba at £50m. So yes, £50m would be fair price. It looks like Real is trying to raise money by selling some of their players to everyone at high price but no one is buying it so far. If they can't sell, they may not be able to buy him, it seems.
At this sort of level, there is no right price, it ALL depends what the seller agrees to accept and what the buyer is prepared to pay. Nothing else matters. Comparisons are worthless. If we say sterling is not worth £49m, what are the standards? The reason why the fee was £49m was because the RS didn't want to sell and City were desperate to get him. If juventus declares Pogba is available , we'll have an auction involving Madrid and United. The price paid could be well over £100m. It is like a rare painting coming up at auction and 2 billionaire collectors wanting to get it. Previous prices are not that relevant. And if United really want him, and he could make a difference then £100m is not that high a price.
