It was 300k wasn’t it? Which means we paid something like a 30000 % markup...
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 6 minutes ago
The didn't have to pay a transfer fee as such, just compensation for the time United had spent training him and his potential etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is correct.
I thought it was 12 million earlier and then realised I was having another brain fart and that was what Chelsea had to pay us for Mikel.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
I thought it was 12 million earlier and then realised I was having another brain fart and that was what Chelsea had to pay us for Mikel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That was ridiculous. Not even having to sign a player and you get £12m for him which considering transfer fees today would probably be about £30m. To top it all off, he was crap so not only did you dodge a bullet but you got paid for it.
Didn't you also sign Carrick instead?
That's when you used to win at transfers, even when you tried to sign a dud you needed up getting paid for it and putting it towards a better player.
Actually we sold many players at a loss under SAF due to the players being sold were no longer needed or SAF believed not to hinder players who have been loyal to the club. Ed, for all his woes, has managed to get decent money for our sales. We made our money back from Depay and Morgan Sch. Zaha was sold back for half the price but we get a huge chunk if he is sold on. Its one of the reasons why Zaha is valued that high.
What was good was that most players we signed tend to work out more than being flops.
Sign in if you want to comment
Has Sir Alex been vindicated
Page 4 of 4
posted on 14/6/19
It was 300k wasn’t it? Which means we paid something like a 30000 % markup...
posted on 14/6/19
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 6 minutes ago
The didn't have to pay a transfer fee as such, just compensation for the time United had spent training him and his potential etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is correct.
posted on 14/6/19
I thought it was 12 million earlier and then realised I was having another brain fart and that was what Chelsea had to pay us for Mikel.
posted on 14/6/19
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
I thought it was 12 million earlier and then realised I was having another brain fart and that was what Chelsea had to pay us for Mikel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That was ridiculous. Not even having to sign a player and you get £12m for him which considering transfer fees today would probably be about £30m. To top it all off, he was crap so not only did you dodge a bullet but you got paid for it.
Didn't you also sign Carrick instead?
That's when you used to win at transfers, even when you tried to sign a dud you needed up getting paid for it and putting it towards a better player.
posted on 15/6/19
Actually we sold many players at a loss under SAF due to the players being sold were no longer needed or SAF believed not to hinder players who have been loyal to the club. Ed, for all his woes, has managed to get decent money for our sales. We made our money back from Depay and Morgan Sch. Zaha was sold back for half the price but we get a huge chunk if he is sold on. Its one of the reasons why Zaha is valued that high.
What was good was that most players we signed tend to work out more than being flops.
Page 4 of 4