Thats a huge contract. Abit like signing Mata where he declined hugely towards the last couple of years but we were stuck with him. I get why we done it though. He's been our best player.
8
Season Average Rating
- Appearances
- 25
- Goals
- 5
- Assists
- 11
- Yellow cards
- 4
- Red cards
- 2
This is the first mistep from Ineos. This same with Mata contract, Casemiro signing, De Gea new contract
For me it's second first was keeping Ten Hag .
And you think this is somehow evidence that in another team, the xG that he creates would simply come on top of the already existing one, yes?
I'm no xGA expert, but if a club were to sign a player with the highest xA out of anyone in Europe's top 5 leagues, then there is a significantly high probability that their overall xG will increase as a result?
Is this thread finally proof that people can argue about anything?
So no evidence then, just an assumption. I wonder, why your initial post had it phrased as if it was a fact. And you don't need to be an expert to understand, that xG (and all* other stats as well) aren't simply transferable. If Bruno is our one and only creative outlet then obviously his numbers look different than when he'd play in a different team where he had to share that responsibility.
I might as well say that Liverpool, Chelsea and Newcastle have higher xGs than we do because they do not have a player like Bruno in their team. Doesn't really have less substance than your claim.
INEOS have disappointed me with this. Moving on from Bruno(and upgrading him with a player that can keep the ball at his feet if needed) in 1-2 years should've been the final piece in creating a team that is capable of winning the league, but we are doubling down on him...
Idiotic.
Idiotic.
Alright, cool. We can't know anything with absolute certainty until it is actually happened. Maybe you should give the likes of Brighton a call and let them know that their data-driven approach to transfers is merely an 'assumption' that a player's stats will be transferable from one club to another.
It feels like you're just being difficult for the sake of being difficult, but hey, whatever it takes to avoid admitting you were wrong about Bruno's high xA contributing towards his team's overall xGA. Man, the caf is a strange place sometimes.
A young one flamed me yesterday in a game server that life ends at 40.
I replied: "Your mum?"
Why would I admit anything, mate? You were the one who claimed that those teams xG would improve with him in the team. I said you can't know that because they do just fine without him so who exactly knows whether their, higher than our, xG would increase or decrease. You can't know that because adding Bruno would mean removing one part of their, already better than us, working machine.
But all that isn't really the point, nobody debates that Bruno has high individual numbers and is a pretty good player. I just think some of you are overstating the meaning of those numbers, especially given that other teams without such a player have the same output as ours and even higher ones. Pretty sure you all want those team numbers to go up as well, all where we differ is when it is the right time to step away from Bruno for that matter. As so often, the club made the easy choice doubling down and make a fan-friendly decision that is easy to sell. I don't blame them for choosing the path of low resistance.
He wasn't particularly good last season though. He prob deserves to be paid more than others but if we are going to reset our wage structure we have to start somewhere
He has also played a ridiculous amount of football over recent years so it wouldn't be surprising to see him drop off physically earlier than some other players
It's early days but at present many of the decisions we are making seem to be the ones murtough and Co would make
"Among the top earners"
Excellent news. Wonderful footballer and creative heart of the team.
I don't mind the extension but I just hope he gets rotated more either sitting out games or getting subbed out. It's better for him, the team and the players capable of playing in his place. I know it's never going to be happen with him being the Captain and with ETH but we shall see.
No one said interest meant he can leave. Quite obviously he was indicating he would push to leave which is why his agent was doing the tour around teams whilst asking United for a new deal
But even if, he could push all he wants as long as United don't want to sell, he can't force. Obviously that isn't a scenario that anybody wants but the player itself won't like that as well, because it would damage the public picture he curated before. In your initial post it sounded as if we "simply had to extent" which is absolutely not the case. If people like the idea of him getting that contract, thats fine, but I don't get the talk that it was unavoidable.
You’d be an absolutely shocking DoF
You’d let all your players get into the final year of their contract because “why pay you more when I can pay you less” and then watch them and their agents absolutely feck you over a barrel when you wanna talk new contract with 12 months remaining.
Were you possibly Arsenal’s DoF around that time they had to sell RvP and a bunch of their other best players to rivals due to letting them get to 12 months or less remaining?
Were you the genius who took the chance on Sanchez back in the day?You’d be an absolutely shocking DoF
You’d let all your players get into the final year of their contract because “why pay you more when I can pay you less” and then watch them and their agents absolutely feck you over a barrel when you wanna talk new contract with 12 months remaining.
Were you possibly Arsenal’s DoF around that time they had to sell RvP and a bunch of their other best players to rivals due to letting them get to 12 months or less remaining?
There is a good choice that it would turn out that stuff is way more complex than it appears from the outside but that applies to anybody on here. Also you are generalizing once again - I never said that this would be my general approach, just because it'd be my approach with Bruno right now. You also act, suprisingly in line with club politics, as if the course of the club is the only reasonably thinkable which is not the case. If Bruno was looking for commitment from our side, we could have offered to extent but with less base salary but same incentives. If he wanted a payrise we could have offered to add more performance based clauses. For all the "he gives his all for the club" we could have just told him to understand, that the club is trying to rectify a decade of mismanagement and while understandable, we can't give out payrises at this point in time.
I really don't get it - maybe we run under completely different assumptions when it comes to all this. It sounds as if Bruno is the one holding the cards the way I read your posts. But in my eyes, it is the club holding the cards. Which is why I don't get why the club would come all the way to meet his demands.
Because you can’t seem to grasp why it is standard practice at all clubs to renegotiate a new deal with 2 years remaining, it’s not because clubs love giving away more money, it’s because it protects the asset.
If the clubs could offer less and get players to sign, they would. INEOS aren’t just saying “oh Bruno only wants some performance based bonuses to extend but feck it, let’s give him 50k a week more instead to show how kind we are”.
They’ve waited 6 weeks negotiating to save 5m Euros on De Ligt, but sure, they could’ve easily got Bruno extended cheaper.
What planet are you living on?
Great news. Our best player, the heart of the team. And a physical freak too - rarely injured in a team of sick notes, and that despite playing more football than pretty much anyone in Europe's top leagues.
I think he'd have been extraordinarily successful in a United team consistently challenging for the big trophies. But he's also the kind of player you need if you're going to survive the bad times, and I hope by the end of his career with us he isn't remembered as less of a legend for it.
I think he'd have been extraordinarily successful in a United team consistently challenging for the big trophies. But he's also the kind of player you need if you're going to survive the bad times, and I hope by the end of his career with us he isn't remembered as less of a legend for it.
He was the best player in our squad last season.
What is this standard practice based on exactly? Because based on that, we'd have to extend with Casemiro, Malacia and Sancho as well. Amads contract is up one year earlier, have we extended this one already as well? And fyi - at City it applies to B. Silva, Stones, Walker, Ederson (biggest names) and I haven't found anything with google indicating that extentions were handed or are negotiated as we speak (not that this would prove anything, but it would have helped solidify your premise).
Some fans especially United believe if they hate on a player we’ll get a better one.
Still can't consistently take dangerous corners or freekicks. Often straight in to the first defender.
We’re almost certainly in talks with Amad currently, if we’re not then we’re absolute morons because we can tie him down much cheaper now than if he has a great season.
The other 3 are laughable examples due to age & wage, attitude (massive fall out) and horrendous injuries.
Man City are currently working on Ederson’s new deal (google it).
Walker is 34.
Google Stones and you’ll find City started last year trying to tie him down to a new one, looks like they haven’t offered the pay rise he’d need so hence he hasn’t signed one yet, knowing full well he strengthens his hand the closer he gets to Bosman.
B Silva literally signed a new deal last year that took him to 300k /week (despite having 2 years to run) and his hand was so strong he made them include a 50m release clause as he’s fancied a move to Barca or PSG for a few years. City have been desperately trying to tie him down to longer deals for years: https://www.thetimes.com/sport/foot...ghs-up-new-manchester-city-contract-mxngq7qwt
It’s a weird debate to have because there’s nothing to debate, since the Bosman ruling, clubs simply don’t want their best assets getting within 12 months of walking away for free, why are you arguing this?
Last edited:
Indeed we could have refused and had our captain and best player upset and demotivated going into the season. When I said had to I meant it was the only smart decision. Of course we could have chosen to not be smart and cause a problem in the squad
So the guy who "loves the club", "great captain", "great attitude" would be upset and demotivated if he didn't get a pay rise after already getting one a couple years ago and would have caused problems in the squad?
It’s basically an extra year on his current deal with an option for a second one and a pay rise to make him one of our most we all paid players.
All makes sense to me. He frustrates me at times but he is our best player and is missed massively when he’s not playing.
All makes sense to me. He frustrates me at times but he is our best player and is missed massively when he’s not playing.
Guy was probably looking at the efforts of the likes of Sancho, Rashford and Casemiro last season and as he is the captain, is a reliable starter, always trying to lay goals on for other that he deserved some sort of payrise. It says he is one of the top earners, not the top earner, he could still be well behind those three.
Yes the best player in the team would not be happy being paid less than Mount. Hence why the club have given him a new deal. Unless you believe they gave him one for no reason
The second best player is happy being paid less than Mount? Third best? How far are you willing to go to make players better than Mount happy?
I don't think they gave him one for no reason just for no good reason
I have a feeling he is about to have his best season yet for us. I’ve been really impressed with his last few months, and I also think the team is trending in a good direction now. If we can get this Urgate deal done, I put no limit on what the team can achieve if we click.
Interesting to read that from you. What has changed, what trend do you see?
I see deliberate intent to implement a progressive style. Last season I think we didn’t stand much of a chance due to injuries, and other small details like bad luck at wrong moments which, by the time we got to Christmas, had already shaped the narrative of our season. But I wanted Ten Hag to stay and for the team to have a mental reset and with players coming back this season, young players expected to improve, and new players coming in to provide competition and depth, I feel the small details may break in our favour. Once momentum has gathered, I think we’ll be a match for anyone.
From those last few games last season, and Charity Shield; I really want to see him more in that False 9 role. It plays to his strength, while give the team one more room in midfield for a more controlling type midfielder.
Although there comes the issue with a new striker and big purchase striker United have.
Last edited:
I don’t see it as necessary. Scott McTominay seems to occupy a similar sort of role regardless of who else plays so Bruno could still do something similar wven with a striker.
For people moaning about this signing, aside from the fact Bruno is our best player, never injured and captain and actually deserves the contract, it also sends an important message to the rest of the squad plus potential signings that you will be rewarded if you perform.
It’s important that while we stop rewarding mediocrity, we continue to reward players who have earned it and that gives a clear message to the rest of the squad, work hard and get your rewards or slack off and find yourself out the door.
Until INEOS, that message was unclear - work hard and get rewarded with a big contract, piss around and you’ll also get a big new contract because we want to “protect your value”.
It’s important that while we stop rewarding mediocrity, we continue to reward players who have earned it and that gives a clear message to the rest of the squad, work hard and get your rewards or slack off and find yourself out the door.
Until INEOS, that message was unclear - work hard and get rewarded with a big contract, piss around and you’ll also get a big new contract because we want to “protect your value”.
This is a bit like the early days of Bruno. When it felt, as if he felt he'd belong to the attacking group while the midfield got outnumbered on a regular basis. So I agree, he doesn't have to be False 9 (probably shouldn't be because against most CBs, who'd push up against him, he is too weak and slow) but probably is best used as a roaming 2nd Striker. But we have to make sure that the rest of the team is working with that so we don't get outnumbered and outfought. With the current midfield personel I'd be a bit worried.
I made my peace with that contract but I think that signal effect is a little farfetched. If anything, United has a reputation of overpaying. That might change with the new regime but it is a little too early to tell. But we certainly don't need a signal to show players "oh look, I only have to perform and I could be seriously rich, didn't know that, lets train a little harder then". I'd see that when say Brighton would pay up to a great performer, this would mean something for his teammates. But at United, there are too many on such wages (or close to it) for such a message to have any kind of effect.
Not the one you directed this at, but I also think this team is about to turn a corner. Adding depth this summer was more important than improving the 11 in any single position. We’ve seen under ETH that our best 11 are capable of competing and playing his system. This issue has always been the giant drop off in quality from our backups.
And not only quality but in playing style. Maguire and Lindelof can’t play a high line. They can’t recover but more importantly they don’t have the progressive passing. Same goes for AWB. When he played we lost any ability to keep possession or have an overlapping threat on the right.
If we can get in a decent 6, I’ll be very confident. Relying on Casemiro is a problem. He can’t cover the ground needed.