is tabloid nonsense

comment by Blarmy - 1,000,001 (U14547)
posted 0 seconds ago
is tabloid nonsense
----------------------------------------------------------------------
how du u no?

comment by Mr Chelsea. (U3579)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Blarmy - 1,000,001 (U14547)
posted 0 seconds ago
is tabloid nonsense
----------------------------------------------------------------------
how du u no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i kno

Well, yes, but that the hypothetical is still interesting.
I think both sets of fans would be relatively happy with a fee of say £100- £120m x
L

in answer to the op, i think a bid of 30m should do it.

£100- £120m x
___________

good one fella.

I meant his transfer fee, not the value of his contract x

All things considered, £100m is a lot more realistic than £30m x

With age and fact if he ever did time to us he'd have to do something (tell City and world he's going, put in transfer request).. £50m

5 most valuable strikers in the league:

5. Martial (£69m) - Young Frenchman proven in the Prem. Worth twice as much as Mbappe.
4. Ibrahimovic (£70m) - Brand Ibra is worth £100m alone
3. Rashford (£80m) - Young and English and already better than Michael Owen ever was
2. Lukaku (£90m) - make it all back in shirt sales
1. Rooney (£100m) - worth more in shirt sales alone

100m for a 29 year old?

in my humble opinion.
1. he's not on the same level of ronaldo or messi however saying that nor are lukaku and pogba and they're going for crazy sums.
2 he's reached his peak already..dont see him getting any better than he has shown already
3. we're not man utd so we wont be coming in waving an open chequebook around like a madman...
4. he does have injury issues
5. pep doesnt want him so that should in theory weaken your position significantly.

my only concern in buying him is point no 2 nd no 4..

30-40m seems fair.

Please keep in mind I'm asking for the most amount you would see spent.
Mr Chelsea is essentially suggesting £35m would be extortionate, which seems silly to me.
Even KKK Conte's amount of £50m seems in the region of a preferred value; I can't imagine any club refusing to meet a £60m valuation, for example x

Lewis that was some interesting information, but what's the point you are making?
Are you saying these would be better investments for Chelsea?
Including buying Rooney for £100m? x

comment by X (U4074)
posted 2 minutes ago
Lewis that was some interesting information, but what's the point you are making?
Are you saying these would be better investments for Chelsea?
Including buying Rooney for £100m? x
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would make it all back in shirt sales and marketing

And how much would they lose out on by not fielding a world class goal scorer?

I'm not sure United would be willing to part with Rashford for £80m.

Ibrahimovic is a free agent; Chelsea needn't pay anything.
But if his brand is truly worth £100m, why aren't clubs fighting for his signature? X

comment by X (U4074)
posted 1 minute ago
And how much would they lose out on by not fielding a world class goal scorer?

I'm not sure United would be willing to part with Rashford for £80m.

Ibrahimovic is a free agent; Chelsea needn't pay anything.
But if his brand is truly worth £100m, why aren't clubs fighting for his signature? X
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The kisses are appreciated. We would be justified in paying £90m to get Rooney back as we'd make it all back in shirt sales like we did with Pogba and we'd make even more from how marketable he is. Player values should not be based on their ability. Anyone can be good at kicking a ball about. It takes a lot more to get retweets and instagram likes. That's where the money is.

Okay... so what you're saying is United are about to willingly lose out on £100m in marketing and shirt sales by allowing him to sign for Everton..?
I just can't take you seriously.
Sorry x

They're losing out on £200m if you count in Ibra.
It's amazing United make any money at all... x

comment by X (U4074)
posted 1 minute ago
They're losing out on £200m if you count in Ibra.
It's amazing United make any money at all... x
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We would make it all back in shirt sales and marketing. How is it hard to understand? xxx

We really should bought him 5 years ago instead of Torres ....

He'd still command a monster fee. 70m i reckon

I understand the nature of your reasoning.
I'm merely questioning it's validity.

For me to concede to your point, you would have to convince me that there was an additional £200m worth of shirt sales and marketing agreements, that Chelsea weren't already receiving, that could only be delivered by signing Rooney and Ibra.

Think of it this way:
Lets say Rooney raised £50m worth of shirt sales last season.
How many of those sales were to people who would have bought a shirt anyway, and just got another player's name on the back? X

The fact that clubs don't make any money directly from shirt sales/increased shirt sales due to whatever player seems to be forgotten on a daily basis.

In theory signing a superstar player will lead to bigger sponsorships but that's it.

Agreed.
But arguably a comparatively unknown player could do the same just through success on the pitch.

Even without such considerations, Spence's seemingly arbitrary revenue valuations are ludicrously optimistic x

comment by X (U4074)
posted 4 hours, 13 minutes ago
Agreed.
But arguably a comparatively unknown player could do the same just through success on the pitch.

Even without such considerations, Spence's seemingly arbitrary revenue valuations are ludicrously optimistic x
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably coz hes taking the pisssss