Alejandro Garnacho - discussion thread

[Pete3206]

He is very talented.
It might work.

Spoiler for Hiden:

It won't. Sancho Part II

[eamonn]

Stop quoting pls

[JJ-AV]

Happy with this. Think he's got qualities to be a top winger and we are probably a better environment for him to thrive. A loan with an option is fine, I think.

Appreciate I'm in the minority.

[Ozzjim]

We needed 2 wingers at the start of the summer, knowing that Sancho was going to go. As Rogers plays on the left a lot, we also need to replace him. Bailey is terrible, so we kind of need to replace him. Elliot could have been a very useful squad member, so having one that can actually play would have been nice.

As such, Garnacho replaces Sancho AND Elliot for me, as neither were much good and only counted as one player. That leaves Manzambi replacing Rogers, Gomes replacing Youri, an Onana shaped hole and last but certainly not least, a Leon Bailey hole.

I pray to all the villa gods out there, please get another winger to replace Bailey that has different attributes to Garnacho.

[Bosco81]

I’d be happy to get him in on loan, with an option to buy if he performs for us.

I get the impression he won’t be our last attacking signing, but none of us really know what’s going on, so it’s up to you how much you choose to get excited by/lose your shit over every link that gets posted.

Just hope we don’t lose any more of the Istanbul XI.

[Percy McCarthy]

It doesn’t really. It sounds more like us being interested in the player, but unsure on where his head is at, and using a loan as a test.

That’s not very smart as SCR compliance for UEFA is a major issue.

Why is not punting money upfront not smart for SCR compliance?

As there is 45 days to avoid it being considered a swap deal.

Is loaning him more problematic in that regard than signing him outright?

Depends on the difficulty of hitting the conditions.

As it would trigger too quickly or something else?

The rules say something like* “if the conditions cannot be met with a degree of certainty” it’s considered a loan, and therefore not a swap deal. Whereas if they’re easy it’s considered as a transfer. In which case, I’m not sure how the Elliott deal wasn’t considered a transfer, unless it’s a new rule.

*it’s been a few hours since I read them.

Presumably the Elliot deal wasn't considered a transfer, because we didn't end up buying him. But it would have been if we had have done?

What I’m referring to is the way UEFA judge it at the outset. So, with this Garnacho thing, if the conditions were easily met, like ten games and it’s permanent, it’s considered a transfer and the agreed future fee would go into the accounts immediately, adversely affecting our finances. Whereas if the conditions can’t be met with certainty (like say ten goals, or thirty games) it’s considered a loan and the agreed fee is deferred until such time as the conditions are met.

What I’m saying is, under those rules, I don’t understand why the Elliott loan, with its easily achievable conditions, wasn’t considered a transfer and the agreed fee wasn’t put into our accounts? Obviously, the fee would have been struck from the accounts at the end of the loan when the conditions were not met. Maybe that’s what happened and it just wasn’t reported.

[Percy McCarthy]

Sorry about quoting, didn’t see it until after I did it.

[eamonn]

No worries. Just surprised as you pioneered the rabbit ears on here for quote shortcuts ^ ^

[Gareth]

Last person to try help/challenge Emery on recruitment was bounced out the door. No doubt for me that was real story behind the Elliot debacle. History written by winners of which undoubtedly Emery is one. But that doesn't mean decisions can't be challenged.  Garnacho just seems like a risk we don't need to take.

There was little excuse for signing that fraud Sancho either but we were stuck in a last minute trolley dash situation that Steve Bruce would have loved. These loans, obligations etc, I'm not sure why we should be back in that place. Lindelof was at least given a contract and a show of faith in him. In all honesty this seems like another case of two clubs helping each other out to get around SCR/PSR/MMR

If he meets the obligations and we are happy with him we’ll be as happy as can be signing him next year for £42m or whatever it is….if the obligations aren’t met then we don’t buy him seems fair enough to me.

Just need to ensure that it’s a proper obligation ie 30/35 starts / sub appearances and a break clause in Jan if he misbehaves.

There’s a player there who has cut it, albeit briefly in PL at two absolute basket case clubs (which Sancho never has unfortunately) so it’s a pretty low risk loan for me.

Get it done and get him under Unai’s spell

Bonus is I think he counts as home grown as he was in the ManUre academy

[ROBBO]

He has talent but his finishing is woeful, if Unai can improve that part of his game he will be a decent aquisition.

[Garyth]

All I can think about is if we have Garnacho, Palhinha, and Emi in the same team we’ll be the team no one enjoys playing - or perhaps the most disliked 😂

[Bosco81]

Is the difference Percy, that the Elliott move was our only agreement with Liverpool, UEFA will take an interest in this deal because of the Rogers transfer ?

[Holte Antipode]

Can't really fall in love with this signing. His off-field antics come across as a right twat.

BUT, Unai has previously managed to lasso a wild Colombian bucking bronto for long enough to give us a year's worth of entertainment, then put him out to stud elsewhere for a handsome profit.
So if the Sultan feels he can do the same with a young Argentine stallion then I guess it isn't his first rodeo* and we should back him.
* Apologies for ranching references, all this FIFA TV shit from Texas may have subliminally affected me.