GraemePaynesSocks Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Terrible deal if true, particularly if the bank get 40-50%, also doubt it'll be close to the £3m touted and again, how much of that will be in a lump sum up front? Agree it could be a great move for the lad, much better than England, but I think he needs another 50 games for United, and if so we could double the current bid. I will never understand some fans (the majority of United fans it would seem) absolute hard on about selling our best players to make money, I'm a United supporter - I care not a jot how much money we have, I care not one bit if they all leave on free contracts if it means we can watch them every week for 3 seasons and they help us win a trophy. Yes, if we get a ridiculous bid (£4m+) then we sell, every club does, but if the club is run correctly with a healthy turnover and wages ration I'd much rather have the best players at Tannadice than £1m cash in the bank. This is the sort of unrealistic thinking that scuppered Rangers and Dundee (twice). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ando Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 You'll care not a jot when the club goes bust then? Move into the real world. The club will go bust if United don't sell Gauld? The club will go bust if United keep wages to a sensible ratio of turnover? I can't recall the club going bust before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ando Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 This is the sort of unrealistic thinking that scuppered Rangers and Dundee (twice). Eh? Didn't Rangers and Dundee spend 150 - 180% of their turnover on wages? Didn't Rangers spend millions of cash they didn't actually have? United are not spending one penny here, ridiculous comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ando Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 That's a pretty short sighted view of things. For United to produce players like Gauld, they need money. To make money, one of the primary sources of income is to sell players. And selling a player for the second highest transfer fee in our history is great business for a player who only broke into the first team properly last year. Moreover, you say if he plays 50 more games the fee would double? That's possibly true, but here's another potential scenario... Gauld was fantastic up until Christmas and then went off the boil. Why? A number of reasons, but a key one was that other teams set out to stop him playing. He was heavily marked and got booted about the park. If I was Gauld, I'd be thinking "If I'm going to reach my potential, I need to play in a league where I'll have more time and space on the ball and won't be an instant target for other clubs". If I was Stephen Thompson, I'd be thinking "I know this guy is a huge prospect, but if he plays the whole of next season the way he played the latter half of last season, he won't even attract bids of £500k" This is a fantastic piece of business for everyone concerned in my opinion. Sensible argument, good points raised. Don't agree that it's short sighted view I have, could argue the other way that it's short sighted to sell now. I want to see United play well and win a cup every now and then, we won't do that by selling Gauld and Robertson for a combined £4-£5m this month in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevthedee Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 United look forward to selling a player to one of the elite clubs in Europe, Dundee on the other hand are in a fight to retain their captain from a first division side. A perfect example of the ambitions of both clubs. If utd had ambition it would be to keep there better players . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Darkest Timeline Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Well, now that it looks like it's not just nonsense, I'll say that I think this a great move for all involved for the most part. United get a good chunk of money (and possibly more down the line if there's clauses and the like), Gauld moves to a league where he can develop a lot better than he would in Scotland, and Sporting get a potentially fantastic player. The only downside is no more Gauld in tangerine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stumigoo Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Terrible deal if true, particularly if the bank get 40-50%, also doubt it'll be close to the £3m touted and again, how much of that will be in a lump sum up front? Agree it could be a great move for the lad, much better than England, but I think he needs another 50 games for United, and if so we could double the current bid. I will never understand some fans (the majority of United fans it would seem) absolute hard on about selling our best players to make money, I'm a United supporter - I care not a jot how much money we have, I care not one bit if they all leave on free contracts if it means we can watch them every week for 3 seasons and they help us win a trophy. Yes, if we get a ridiculous bid (£4m+) then we sell, every club does, but if the club is run correctly with a healthy turnover and wages ration I'd much rather have the best players at Tannadice than £1m cash in the bank. We will always be a selling club, we don't generate enough money through other avenues so we need to develop and then sell. If players go on to make a few appearances for United before that happens then that is an added bonus, but unfortunately we will always end up shifting our top youngsters to safeguard to long term future of the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alert Mongoose Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Should probably toss £100k to St Mirren for John McGinn. He will be keen to join the Tannadice revolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Should probably toss £100k to St Mirren for John McGinn. He will be keen to join the Tannadice revolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Great deal for Gauld though. The younger our players get out of Scotland the better chance they have of developing into top class players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ando Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 We will always be a selling club, we don't generate enough money through other avenues so we need to develop and then sell. If players go on to make a few appearances for United before that happens then that is an added bonus, but unfortunately we will always end up shifting our top youngsters to safeguard to long term future of the club. I get that theory but it doesn't weigh out in practice. How much did we get for our cup winning squad of 2010? Yet only 4 years later we've got a new team, arguably a better team, favourites to win the cup final. If you keep a good team together you've got a better chance of success, on every level. I believe we've got a once in a generation chance to compete at the very top of Scottish football for the next 3 years, we won't do that if we sell our best players this summer. I think that some United fans want to sell so we can lord it over Dundee about going into admin and we haven't, I'd rather brag about trophy wins and European qualification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 If utd had ambition it would be to keep there better players . *their Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broken Algorithms Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Hopefully this comes off for the lad. As others have said, it'd get him away from the bevvy culture which has ruined so many players while avoiding England where he'd be punted about the pitch. It'd be a fantastic success story for United too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibby82 Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I get that theory but it doesn't weigh out in practice. How much did we get for our cup winning squad of 2010? Yet only 4 years later we've got a new team, arguably a better team, favourites to win the cup final. If you keep a good team together you've got a better chance of success, on every level. I believe we've got a once in a generation chance to compete at the very top of Scottish football for the next 3 years, we won't do that if we sell our best players this summer. I think that some United fans want to sell so we can lord it over Dundee about going into admin and we haven't, I'd rather brag about trophy wins and European qualification. The club is still indebted. To 'benevolent' investors admittedly, but that debt will still need to be paid back. Once we're absolutely debt free, not just bank debt free, we can perhaps look towards retaining our younger players for longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rustyarabnuts Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Just hope that if this move goes through, United don't sell anymore of our youngsters i.e. Robertson, as many have said before I think this could be a great move for Gauld and he is able to get back to and improve on the form he showed last season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ando Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 The club is still indebted. To 'benevolent' investors admittedly, but that debt will still need to be paid back. Once we're absolutely debt free, not just bank debt free, we can perhaps look towards retaining our younger players for longer. You're right, but this year (I think till June 2015) we are due a massive percentage of any transfer income to the bank in relation to legacy loans. Maybe my words were too strong in my original post re this but weighing everything up, potential of player to receive higher fee next season plus potential of team to do better with player in it minus large chunk of transfer this year to bank I just don't think it's as good a deal as everyone makes out. IF United were to only sell Gauld for £3 up front with a 25% sell on clause, which allowed us to keep Robertson, Ciftci, Armstrong and GMS for another season at least then I guess I could be persuaded that it is a good deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RawB93 Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 If utd had ambition it would be to keep there better players . What a load of fucking shite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibby82 Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Courier reporting £3 million plus add ons. Not bad at all. Portugese press going with 2.2 million Euros. Not so good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibby82 Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 You're right, but this year (I think till June 2015) we are due a massive percentage of any transfer income to the bank in relation to legacy loans. Maybe my words were too strong in my original post re this but weighing everything up, potential of player to receive higher fee next season plus potential of team to do better with player in it minus large chunk of transfer this year to bank I just don't think it's as good a deal as everyone makes out. IF United were to only sell Gauld for £3 up front with a 25% sell on clause, which allowed us to keep Robertson, Ciftci, Armstrong and GMS for another season at least then I guess I could be persuaded that it is a good deal The percentage we are due to the bank reduces over that period though, so it may not be a high as 50 per cent now. Or perhaps the bank stipulated that if United receive an offer for a player over a certain threshold they are duty bound to accept it? Truth is that no one really knows other than Stephen Thompson, and I trust old frugal baws to do what's right for the long-term financial health of the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WendyWho? Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 £3 million for an 18-year-old with 50 first team appearances to his name (at least 25 of them pedestrian) is a fucking bonkers deal for United. Anyone who seriously thinks he would have boosted his value by another fairytale sum next season whilst simultaneously facilitating a shot at the title for a suddenly, magically dominant United side is clearly CRIMINALLY INSANE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.