I think the Coentrao deal had Garay going the other way as well
The thing is, we don't know if he will be any good in 5 years. Bale also made it as a winger not a full back. But by including him, if anything we should not have paid more than £20m. Also it is reported he is on£160k a week. Deal doesn't look good because in 3years time he will want "25% increase. In 10 years he may be earning 500k a week if he doesn't flop. And if we were going to do this and pay youngsters such money why did we try to play hardball with Pogba?
you have mountains of money
he's a really good signing, who cares if £10mil gets 'lost' as a one off especially as you have £1,000mil a year in revenue. and it's not your money
perspective
Knock on effect. We pay him 160k a week. How long till our wage budget balloons out of control?
comment by CurrentlyInChina84 (U11181)
posted 13 minutes ago
Knock on effect. We pay him 160k a week. How long till our wage budget balloons out of control?
----------------------------
It all balances out and I'm sure the club have a maximum wage budget in mind that they wont go over.
Plus don't we have Rio, Vidic, Giggs, Young, and Nani all on 80k+ a week? Those could easily be disposed of to make up the differences
no way is shaw worth 30 million,
but shaw is an excellent young player, we have got him let's be happy and move on
kolarov was 16 million. zabaletta 5 million.
The Shaw buy reminds me of Andy Carroll. People who know about football say: it is a joke buy and a massive waste of money.
The apologists are pundits with man u links like the liverpool pundits who defended caroll buy. Or just man utd fans like how the liverpool fans defended the carroll buy. They are just so delluded. The buy is absurd. One of the biggest rip offs in football history. I wouldnt of spent £30m on Maldini when he was 21 years old and he is one of the greatest players of all time who had maybe the best career of all time. Why? Because they are full backs.
(well actually maldini around now for £30m if he was 19 would be an amazing buy but thats one of the best players ever and this is luke shaw. )
don't know why you mention liverpool, the deal was between Roman and Newcastle.
we just said as long as we get 15 mil difference it's up to you two
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 38 seconds ago
don't know why you mention liverpool, the deal was between Roman and Newcastle.
we just said as long as we get 15 mil difference it's up to you two
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough. Still you would of been better off just flogging Torress for £50m. Which I must admit is maybe the best bit of business I can remember in football
I don't eat with my eyes....silly ennit...try a taste and yer might like it!
The apologists are pundits with man u links like the liverpool pundits who defended caroll buy. Or just man utd fans like how the liverpool fans defended the carroll buy. They are just so delluded. The buy is absurd. One of the biggest rip offs in football history. I wouldnt of spent £30m on Maldini when he was 21 years old and he is one of the greatest players of all time who had maybe the best career of all time. Why? Because they are full backs
-----------------------------
This is an absurd comment. Fullbacks are more important than ever in today's game, so of course their prices are going to be higher.
You think the only pundits praising Shaw are United linked? That's just blatantly false. He's 18, 2 years of premier league experience, PFA player of the year, English. That ticks basically every box, so paying a lot of money for that potential isn't that crazy
Problem is you be named 3 better left backs than Shaw in your title, and at a much cheaper price.
I'm sorry but we've been taken to the cleaners. Yes he is good, yes he has potential. He has been a solid fixture in a decent Southampton team, but not spectacular, and definitely not worth being the most expensive teenager in the world. 30 m is reserved for the teenagers of 2004 rooney's ilk, creative players who have a spark of genius, not a solid fullback with just 60 appearances.
That said, it's done now and I think he could become a good united player, just not for the silly sim of money we paid. What has he actually done?
"30 m is reserved for the teenagers of 2004 rooney's ilk"
Rooney was that much a decade ago, before inflation + the new mega TV/prem participation deals every club gets.
He'd be double that in today's market
comment by 2014 - Year of the Januzaj (U18323)
posted 3 hours, 1 minute ago
The apologists are pundits with man u links like the liverpool pundits who defended caroll buy. Or just man utd fans like how the liverpool fans defended the carroll buy. They are just so delluded. The buy is absurd. One of the biggest rip offs in football history. I wouldnt of spent £30m on Maldini when he was 21 years old and he is one of the greatest players of all time who had maybe the best career of all time. Why? Because they are full backs
-----------------------------
This is an absurd comment. Fullbacks are more important than ever in today's game, so of course their prices are going to be higher.
You think the only pundits praising Shaw are United linked? That's just blatantly false. He's 18, 2 years of premier league experience, PFA player of the year, English. That ticks basically every box, so paying a lot of money for that potential isn't that crazy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeh that is exactly what people said about Carroll. Luke Shaw is a decent prospect. £30m for that? Seems crazy. There are almost certainly better players in barcelona B team. Much like Pep said about Wilshire when the media were bigging him up (and all the fans obv go along for the ride). Pep got blasted for that but he was right.
This world cup is a reminder of how being a good for an english player often doesn't make you good enough to mix it on the top stage.
Either way, he is a full back. He wont be under the same pressure as carroll and the results wont be so black and white because he job isnt to score and create goals and attacking movements.
Real have a team full of cracking players,so they can afford to spend £30m on a full-back. Utd have that many positions that need improving,that I can think of better ways to spend such a vast amount of money.
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 16 minutes ago
"30 m is reserved for the teenagers of 2004 rooney's ilk"
Rooney was that much a decade ago, before inflation + the new mega TV/prem participation deals every club gets.
He'd be double that in today's market
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point is for a player of rooney's position, electrifying euro 2004, are always worth more money. Luke shaw has not 'lit up' anything. He's been a solid decent quality full back who may get a lot better but really has done nothing much to justify his price.
Lack of competition and availability of top quality players in his position have added millions to his price. We are paying top top dollar for hype.
I fully agree that he will become a very good player, but he'd have to become maldini to justify that price, and I don't think he he that potential.
Still, ain't my money, just seems a lot. A hell of a lot.
My point is if an 18 year old Rooney was at Southampton today, you'd pay £60mil for him.
So £30mil for Shaw doesn't seem that ridiculous (although it is a bit too high)
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
Putting the Shaw price in perspective
Page 1 of 1
posted on 27/6/14
Maidenhead United
posted on 27/6/14
£27 mill wasnt it
posted on 27/6/14
Thank you Januzaj
posted on 27/6/14
I think the Coentrao deal had Garay going the other way as well
posted on 27/6/14
The thing is, we don't know if he will be any good in 5 years. Bale also made it as a winger not a full back. But by including him, if anything we should not have paid more than £20m. Also it is reported he is on£160k a week. Deal doesn't look good because in 3years time he will want "25% increase. In 10 years he may be earning 500k a week if he doesn't flop. And if we were going to do this and pay youngsters such money why did we try to play hardball with Pogba?
posted on 27/6/14
you have mountains of money
he's a really good signing, who cares if £10mil gets 'lost' as a one off especially as you have £1,000mil a year in revenue. and it's not your money
perspective
posted on 27/6/14
Knock on effect. We pay him 160k a week. How long till our wage budget balloons out of control?
posted on 27/6/14
comment by CurrentlyInChina84 (U11181)
posted 13 minutes ago
Knock on effect. We pay him 160k a week. How long till our wage budget balloons out of control?
----------------------------
It all balances out and I'm sure the club have a maximum wage budget in mind that they wont go over.
Plus don't we have Rio, Vidic, Giggs, Young, and Nani all on 80k+ a week? Those could easily be disposed of to make up the differences
posted on 27/6/14
no way is shaw worth 30 million,
but shaw is an excellent young player, we have got him let's be happy and move on
posted on 27/6/14
kolarov was 16 million. zabaletta 5 million.
posted on 27/6/14
The Shaw buy reminds me of Andy Carroll. People who know about football say: it is a joke buy and a massive waste of money.
The apologists are pundits with man u links like the liverpool pundits who defended caroll buy. Or just man utd fans like how the liverpool fans defended the carroll buy. They are just so delluded. The buy is absurd. One of the biggest rip offs in football history. I wouldnt of spent £30m on Maldini when he was 21 years old and he is one of the greatest players of all time who had maybe the best career of all time. Why? Because they are full backs.
(well actually maldini around now for £30m if he was 19 would be an amazing buy but thats one of the best players ever and this is luke shaw. )
posted on 27/6/14
don't know why you mention liverpool, the deal was between Roman and Newcastle.
we just said as long as we get 15 mil difference it's up to you two
posted on 27/6/14
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 38 seconds ago
don't know why you mention liverpool, the deal was between Roman and Newcastle.
we just said as long as we get 15 mil difference it's up to you two
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough. Still you would of been better off just flogging Torress for £50m. Which I must admit is maybe the best bit of business I can remember in football
posted on 27/6/14
I don't eat with my eyes....silly ennit...try a taste and yer might like it!
posted on 27/6/14
The apologists are pundits with man u links like the liverpool pundits who defended caroll buy. Or just man utd fans like how the liverpool fans defended the carroll buy. They are just so delluded. The buy is absurd. One of the biggest rip offs in football history. I wouldnt of spent £30m on Maldini when he was 21 years old and he is one of the greatest players of all time who had maybe the best career of all time. Why? Because they are full backs
-----------------------------
This is an absurd comment. Fullbacks are more important than ever in today's game, so of course their prices are going to be higher.
You think the only pundits praising Shaw are United linked? That's just blatantly false. He's 18, 2 years of premier league experience, PFA player of the year, English. That ticks basically every box, so paying a lot of money for that potential isn't that crazy
posted on 27/6/14
Problem is you be named 3 better left backs than Shaw in your title, and at a much cheaper price.
I'm sorry but we've been taken to the cleaners. Yes he is good, yes he has potential. He has been a solid fixture in a decent Southampton team, but not spectacular, and definitely not worth being the most expensive teenager in the world. 30 m is reserved for the teenagers of 2004 rooney's ilk, creative players who have a spark of genius, not a solid fullback with just 60 appearances.
That said, it's done now and I think he could become a good united player, just not for the silly sim of money we paid. What has he actually done?
posted on 27/6/14
"30 m is reserved for the teenagers of 2004 rooney's ilk"
Rooney was that much a decade ago, before inflation + the new mega TV/prem participation deals every club gets.
He'd be double that in today's market
posted on 27/6/14
comment by 2014 - Year of the Januzaj (U18323)
posted 3 hours, 1 minute ago
The apologists are pundits with man u links like the liverpool pundits who defended caroll buy. Or just man utd fans like how the liverpool fans defended the carroll buy. They are just so delluded. The buy is absurd. One of the biggest rip offs in football history. I wouldnt of spent £30m on Maldini when he was 21 years old and he is one of the greatest players of all time who had maybe the best career of all time. Why? Because they are full backs
-----------------------------
This is an absurd comment. Fullbacks are more important than ever in today's game, so of course their prices are going to be higher.
You think the only pundits praising Shaw are United linked? That's just blatantly false. He's 18, 2 years of premier league experience, PFA player of the year, English. That ticks basically every box, so paying a lot of money for that potential isn't that crazy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeh that is exactly what people said about Carroll. Luke Shaw is a decent prospect. £30m for that? Seems crazy. There are almost certainly better players in barcelona B team. Much like Pep said about Wilshire when the media were bigging him up (and all the fans obv go along for the ride). Pep got blasted for that but he was right.
This world cup is a reminder of how being a good for an english player often doesn't make you good enough to mix it on the top stage.
Either way, he is a full back. He wont be under the same pressure as carroll and the results wont be so black and white because he job isnt to score and create goals and attacking movements.
posted on 27/6/14
Real have a team full of cracking players,so they can afford to spend £30m on a full-back. Utd have that many positions that need improving,that I can think of better ways to spend such a vast amount of money.
posted on 27/6/14
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 16 minutes ago
"30 m is reserved for the teenagers of 2004 rooney's ilk"
Rooney was that much a decade ago, before inflation + the new mega TV/prem participation deals every club gets.
He'd be double that in today's market
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point is for a player of rooney's position, electrifying euro 2004, are always worth more money. Luke shaw has not 'lit up' anything. He's been a solid decent quality full back who may get a lot better but really has done nothing much to justify his price.
Lack of competition and availability of top quality players in his position have added millions to his price. We are paying top top dollar for hype.
I fully agree that he will become a very good player, but he'd have to become maldini to justify that price, and I don't think he he that potential.
Still, ain't my money, just seems a lot. A hell of a lot.
posted on 28/6/14
My point is if an 18 year old Rooney was at Southampton today, you'd pay £60mil for him.
So £30mil for Shaw doesn't seem that ridiculous (although it is a bit too high)
Page 1 of 1