Alex Sandro (7 Viewers)

Juve92

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2016
1,694
I find it fascinating that this thread is made up of people saying how bad Sandro is followed by how he should be worth 50 mil. Do you think other teams dont watch them play or do you think shit Lbs at his age are going for 50? OOOOOOOrrrrr....you rate him in which case why sell?
He is not worth 50 mill, maybe before Cardiff when some EPL clubs were interested in him but not anymore. His current market value is 25-30 mill.
 

Badass Dybala

Viva la revolution!
Feb 12, 2006
58,177
All else being equal, if we replace Emerson with Sandro we will be weakening yet another position, regardless of how unhappy you all are with Sandro. Why would we get a player who played little over 700 minutes this season? Why is Chelsea trying to get rid of him?
Because Chelsea have Ben Chilwell who's probably the best English left back along with Shaw this season, however Emerson is a starter for Mancini in the NT
If we're able to cut our losses on Sandro then do it, he's been poor for some time and doesn't justify his big wages. If we can make capital gains on a 30 year old then all the more reason to sell. If we're getting Gosens as well then we will have not only upgraded that area of the field, but given it adequate depth in Emerson.
 
Oct 23, 2011
2,116
Because Chelsea have Ben Chilwell who's probably the best English left back along with Shaw this season, however Emerson is a starter for Mancini in the NT
If we're able to cut our losses on Sandro then do it, he's been poor for some time and doesn't justify his big wages. If we can make capital gains on a 30 year old then all the more reason to sell. If we're getting Gosens as well then we will have not only upgraded that area of the field, but given it adequate depth in Emerson.
The NT should no longer be a standard for Juve. Capital gain is one thing but we don't want to end up in a similar situation as Arthur's where he costs us 20 million a year because we made those "sweet capital gains on Pjanic". We're never going to be able to get rid of him unless we want to take massive losses. Capital gain should simply not dictate our market, quality on the pitch should. Where is this getting Gosens coming from? Thats a big if. So again, all else being equal, replacing Sandro with Emerson is a clear downgrade.
 

zizinho

Senior Member
Apr 14, 2013
46,898
I find it fascinating that this thread is made up of people saying how bad Sandro is followed by how he should be worth 50 mil. Do you think other teams dont watch them play or do you think shit Lbs at his age are going for 50? OOOOOOOrrrrr....you rate him in which case why sell?
You didn't read my post did you?
 
Apr 19, 2007
3,780
You didn't read my post did you?
I get that youre talking about plus valenza ans a pjanic type deal but even at 30 its overpriced. My point wasnt just about you. Its about our view of him and what it will take to replace him. Palmeiri plus 10 is probably where we stand at most

- - - Updated - - -

The NT should no longer be a standard for Juve. Capital gain is one thing but we don't want to end up in a similar situation as Arthur's where he costs us 20 million a year because we made those "sweet capital gains on Pjanic". We're never going to be able to get rid of him unless we want to take massive losses. Capital gain should simply not dictate our market, quality on the pitch should. Where is this getting Gosens coming from? Thats a big if. So again, all else being equal, replacing Sandro with Emerson is a clear downgrade.
I agree to some extent but money is real. You cant just assume that we are better off not doing this. Its the same story about players like Ramsey, Can, and Rabiot. They are overpriced but when we do sell them eventually we will have come out of the deal as if we never paid them a cent or even make a profit. We got to this position but these deals so we cant be to mad at it until we are more stable
 

Bianconero81

Ageing Veteran
Contributor
Jan 26, 2009
31,972
I get that youre talking about plus valenza ans a pjanic type deal but even at 30 its overpriced. My point wasnt just about you. Its about our view of him and what it will take to replace him. Palmeiri plus 10 is probably where we stand at most
Palmieri is an elite Jabroni, a borderline garbage level player. Why should we be sacrificing Sandro for less when we can get Chelsea's trash for free in 12 months?

Sandro's contract expires in 2023 and Plumberson Failieri's in 2022. Yes, the Chelsea reject may be younger, but he is not wanted and his contract is expiring sooner than Sandro's, hence 20 million should be the minimum consideration. We're doing Chelsea the favor here - it's not the other way around.
 
Apr 19, 2007
3,780
Palmieri is an elite Jabroni, a borderline garbage level player. Why should we be sacrificing Sandro for less when we can get Chelsea's trash for free in 12 months?

Sandro's contract expires in 2023 and Plumberson Failieri's in 2022. Yes, the Chelsea reject may be younger, but he is not wanted and his contract is expiring sooner than Sandro's, hence 20 million should be the minimum consideration. We're doing Chelsea the favor here - it's not the other way around.
I dont like the deal either. All im saying is I find it interesting that we hold Sandros value higher while simultaneously bashing how crap of a player he is. Hes 30! I just dont see his market value being very high. Palmeiri isnt really what im talking about as much as the unrealistic value of Sandro
 

Bianconero81

Ageing Veteran
Contributor
Jan 26, 2009
31,972
I dont like the deal either. All im saying is I find it interesting that we hold Sandros value higher while simultaneously bashing how crap of a player he is. Hes 30! I just dont see his market value being very high. Palmeiri isnt really what im talking about as much as the unrealistic value of Sandro
I think we can inflate the prices a bit. Sandro at 40 and Plumberson Failieri @ 20. Receive the Jabroni and 20 million in cash to put towards further reinforcements.
 

zizinho

Senior Member
Apr 14, 2013
46,898
I get that youre talking about plus valenza ans a pjanic type deal but even at 30 its overpriced. My point wasnt just about you. Its about our view of him and what it will take to replace him. Palmeiri plus 10 is probably where we stand at most

- - - Updated - - -


I agree to some extent but money is real. You cant just assume that we are better off not doing this. Its the same story about players like Ramsey, Can, and Rabiot. They are overpriced but when we do sell them eventually we will have come out of the deal as if we never paid them a cent or even make a profit. We got to this position but these deals so we cant be to mad at it until we are more stable
The guy never plays at Chelsea, they have TWO LBs ahead of him, and we are giving up our starter. Age is similar. This has to be a lopsided transaction monetary wise
 

Badass Dybala

Viva la revolution!
Feb 12, 2006
58,177
Age is similar? Not really
What is sandros price? how high do you value him?
Realistically given age and form, at the very most circa 20 mill face value, but lets face it nobody will give us straight up cash for him for most of our deadwood, not in these current climates either. Sandro earns something like 6 mill a year in wages too lets not forget. But like Pjanic he was never really worth 60 mill but for the sake of cooking the books that's how he was valued

Chelsea can argue that Palmieri's age (26) holds some value too.
 

Badass Dybala

Viva la revolution!
Feb 12, 2006
58,177
That is why I said as a back up obviously we are going for gosens to solve our left back problems but he doesn't not play in a back four
tbh if it boils down to who is the backup I'm not that fussed either way, alonso is the better attacker granted but palmieri is better defensively imo. It all really boils down to how much are we gaining from this financially.
 

zizinho

Senior Member
Apr 14, 2013
46,898
Age is similar? Not really
What is sandros price? how high do you value him?
Ah youre right, for some reason i thought hes 28-29

Depends on the market, but i think its 25-30M higher than Emerson. Emerson has a year left on his contract and is dead last on the bench for them. Im sure anyone who offers them his current book value (5M i think) could have him. AS is in the 30M range imo
 
Apr 19, 2007
3,780
Realistically given age and form, at the very most circa 20 mill face value, but lets face it nobody will give us straight up cash for him for most of our deadwood, not in these current climates either. Sandro earns something like 6 mill a year in wages too lets not forget. But like Pjanic he was never really worth 60 mill but for the sake of cooking the books that's how he was valued

Chelsea can argue that Palmieri's age (26) holds some value too.
I agree Sandro is about 20 and Palmeiri is 10(which is bottom level for a player these days)
-Thats brings me to the 10 mil plus on the exchange. I dont understand where the 20-30 come from?

- - - Updated - - -

Ah youre right, for some reason i thought hes 28-29

Depends on the market, but i think its 25-30M higher than Emerson. Emerson has a year left on his contract and is dead last on the bench for them. Im sure anyone who offers them his current book value (5M i think) could have him. AS is in the 30M range imo
30 mil for a 30 year old struggling lb? also your valuation of Palmeiri is way off. 5 mil? thats laughable these days.
 
Last edited:
Oct 23, 2011
2,116
I get that youre talking about plus valenza ans a pjanic type deal but even at 30 its overpriced. My point wasnt just about you. Its about our view of him and what it will take to replace him. Palmeiri plus 10 is probably where we stand at most

- - - Updated - - -


I agree to some extent but money is real. You cant just assume that we are better off not doing this. Its the same story about players like Ramsey, Can, and Rabiot. They are overpriced but when we do sell them eventually we will have come out of the deal as if we never paid them a cent or even make a profit. We got to this position but these deals so we cant be to mad at it until we are more stable
We also paid Can's agent close to 20 million when we signed him. We are not Sassuolo with a business model of buying cheap and selling high. We are Juventus and we aim to win thropies. Which other top side goes into a deal strictly to make profits? They look at it from a sporting perspective and from that POV this would simply be a terrible deal, unless we get another LB as a starter, which i doubt will happen.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 6)