Emi Martinez

[Dave]

If we do sell him, that feels to me like the sort of price we'd get.

I think that'd be pretty criminal from the club, tbh.

Maybe. But if he goes, it feels more like it's because we're trying to fix a wage bill problem rather than him demanding to leave.

If we were desperate to keep him, I imagine we'd ask for a lot more. Which nobody would likely pay, because he's a 32 year old goalkeeper, not a 25 year old attacker.

[VillaTim]

£40M is ridiculously low , i'd expect no less than £65M

[Monty]

If we do sell him, that feels to me like the sort of price we'd get.

I think that'd be pretty criminal from the club, tbh.

Maybe. But if he goes, it feels more like it's because we're trying to fix a wage bill problem rather than him demanding to leave.

If we were desperate to keep him, I imagine we'd ask for a lot more. Which nobody would likely pay, because he's a 32 year old goalkeeper, not a 25 year old attacker.

I mean, 32 is about 28 max in keeper years. And put it this way - if we're in a position where even CL qualification couldn't avert the need to flog a prize asset for well under his market value, then the club has fucked up badly somewhere along the way.

[Somniloquism]

On the subject of wages per turnover, anyone know whether the loaned players wages count on our totals (after-all the wages were offered and paid by us initially), or just any makeup for the wages if the loan club is not covering them all. Also anyone know whether the loan players wages are paid to us directly and we then pay the player or whether then other club just pays the player directly.

[ozzjim]

I think we'll get £45-50M when add ons etc are added in. Maybe more if it's in a swapsies sham to get round PSR which is possible with Barca or Man U.

[PeterWithesShin]

£40-50m is probably the right price for him. He's 33 soon and while that's not old for a keeper both his value and abilty will be declining sooner rather than later.

[Dave]

If we do sell him, that feels to me like the sort of price we'd get.

I think that'd be pretty criminal from the club, tbh.

Maybe. But if he goes, it feels more like it's because we're trying to fix a wage bill problem rather than him demanding to leave.

If we were desperate to keep him, I imagine we'd ask for a lot more. Which nobody would likely pay, because he's a 32 year old goalkeeper, not a 25 year old attacker.

I mean, 32 is about 28 max in keeper years. And put it this way - if we're in a position where even CL qualification couldn't avert the need to flog a prize asset for well under his market value, then the club has fucked up badly somewhere along the way.

I don't particularly disagree. Although I don't think it would be "well under" his market value. He'd become the fifth most expensive goalkeeper in history at £40m, and everyone else in the top twenty or so was in the early to mid-20s at the time of their transfer. Older goalkeepers just aren't a position that people spend massive transfer fees on. Yann Sommer was 34 and cost Inter £5m.

On the club fucking up, perhaps. It all feels a bit "living on payday loans" if he does go.

On the other hand, "we shouldn't be spending those big wages on all those new players in a desperate bid to finish in the top five and go deeper in the FA Cup and Champions League" wasn't a particularly common opinion in February - April.

[cdbearsfan]

Yeah, no issue with what they've done. Football is supposed to be exciting, and it has been.

[Monty]

If we do sell him, that feels to me like the sort of price we'd get.

I think that'd be pretty criminal from the club, tbh.

Maybe. But if he goes, it feels more like it's because we're trying to fix a wage bill problem rather than him demanding to leave.

If we were desperate to keep him, I imagine we'd ask for a lot more. Which nobody would likely pay, because he's a 32 year old goalkeeper, not a 25 year old attacker.

I mean, 32 is about 28 max in keeper years. And put it this way - if we're in a position where even CL qualification couldn't avert the need to flog a prize asset for well under his market value, then the club has fucked up badly somewhere along the way.

I don't particularly disagree. Although I don't think it would be "well under" his market value. He'd become the fifth most expensive goalkeeper in history at £40m, and everyone else in the top twenty or so was in the early to mid-20s at the time of their transfer. Older goalkeepers just aren't a position that people spend massive transfer fees on. Yann Sommer was 34 and cost Inter £5m.

On the club fucking up, perhaps. It all feels a bit "living on payday loans" if he does go.

On the other hand, "we shouldn't be spending those big wages on all those new players in a desperate bid to finish in the top five and go deeper in the FA Cup and Champions League" wasn't a particularly common opinion in February - April.

My point is if Champions League qualification doesn't actually make a difference to whether or not we have to sell him, then I'd call it a fuck up. Because it's not even a trade-off, or a risk-reward thing - it's just throwing players away.

[cdbearsfan]

Depends, though. What if Champions League means we have to sell "just" Martinez, not-Champions League means we have to sell several other good players, too?

[PeterWithesShin]

What if we don't have to sell him but he wants to leave. And rather than keep an unhappy player we let him go with best wishes and see it as a way to help PSR as well.

There's currently no actual proof we HAVE to sell him but some talk as though it's a definite.

[Dave]

My point is if Champions League qualification doesn't actually make a difference to whether or not we have to sell him, then I'd call it a fuck up. Because it's not even a trade-off, or a risk-reward thing - it's just throwing players away.

When this talk first started on Friday, I wondered whether Emery has decided that he wants / needs Rashford whether we get Champions League or not, and the only way to make the numbers work if it's "not" would be to claw back the wages of our highest earner to pay for it without Champions League money.

So it could potentially be that Champions League qualification means we get to keep Emi, not that we get to keep Rashford.

[cdbearsfan]

Seems likely we have to sell someone, as the rules are designed to ensure that clubs like Villa have to sell players if we get too close to overtaking the established gloryhunter franchises.

[ozzjim]

What if we don't have to sell him but he wants to leave. And rather than keep an unhappy player we let him go with best wishes and see it as a way to help PSR as well.

There's currently no actual proof we HAVE to sell him but some talk as though it's a definite.

I wondered this too. What if he's come to the point where time is ticking and he's decided it's time for one more big adventure. Maybe it's a mutually agreeable point to walk away. I can even see the lure of going to Man U for him, being the big man in the dressing room. He'd undoubtedly be a huge influence and I'd say they would immediately be 10-15 points better off. I'm not sure he's got that same impact on us anymore, because we've grown and evolved.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

There's not a single player I'd rather keep ahead of Emi.