That one will piss me off for a long time. It was a sitter, a goal to be had and the front foot firmly planted on the face of fukcing Brighton. Instead, Bruno missed the sitter and our heads went down and we got mugged. Then our heads went down after the De Gea howler in the next match and we got mugged again, but I digress.
Bruno Fernandes | New contract until 2027
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
That one will piss me off for a long time. It was a sitter, a goal to be had and the front foot firmly planted on the face of fukcing Brighton. Instead, Bruno missed the sitter and our heads went down and we got mugged. Then our heads went down after the De Gea howler in the next match and we got mugged again, but I digress.
He is on 250k a week, and McTominay is on 70k a week, they both seem just as crap to me, not too fair.
QQ lord
What a weird random bump
A serious question: I was surprised when Man United extended this players contract when they did as he was already contracted to the club for his prime years anyway. Was it because Man United were not certain to finish in a top-4 position? There is loads of discussion about how MUFC have to overpay on fees or wages (e.g. Casemiro) to compensate for not being in the current CL, is this a similar thing - but with a player already at the club - to prevent him moving away from United to get game time in the most elite European competition?
Another theory: I wonder if Ronaldo had anything to do with it, I assume they are friends as well as international team mates. I wonder if his signing came with any perks, like give my friend a new deal ASAP because behind the scenes they have come to an arrangement that whenever Bruno gets the ball he tries to pass it to he mate, as a priority?
It's time to make him the club captain.
The problem is we thought Bruno was worth the 250k/week. He wasn't.
Tied down for 2 years, option of a third. Turning 30 soon. He likely wants a new deal. It just doesn't make any sense to offer him one. We should rather move on the players who are paid more or similar. Certainly Martinez, Dalot, Mainoo and Garnacho are not in the same wage bracket.
We don’t need to move him on. He’s one of, if not arguably our best player. With a potential 3 years left on the deal he knew what he was signing up for and has been rewarded handsomely for it. That contract was his last big deal and he will have known it at the time.
From a financial POV I'm not advocating moving him on. I'm suggesting that others in the squad who are paid similar or higher are ones that need moving on. I don't think he'd be looking for an upgrade on his deal if he was already the highest paid player at the club. That being said, I'd take a great offer for him, but we already have too much to do this summer so I cannot imagine it happening, and Erik loves him.
Rashford is earning more and offering a lot less, Casemiro is paid similar and has lost it, Eriksen and Maguire are both getting good money but likely not as much, and Varane was being paid a very high wage too. And then there's Sancho. I'd get rid of them all if possible. And say "there's your pay rise Bruno, you're welcome"
edit: not sure about #7 Mount
Apparently we're looking at offering another new contract?
I don't understand the logic here. Definitely don't sell him, but why would we give him a new contract when he's tied down until he's what? 33? Handing out fat new contracts to players who are likely to be winding down at the end of their current contract seems very Glazers.
I don't understand the logic here. Definitely don't sell him, but why would we give him a new contract when he's tied down until he's what? 33? Handing out fat new contracts to players who are likely to be winding down at the end of their current contract seems very Glazers.
Oh I didn’t know his contract ran till 2026 with an option to extend. Not sure why it’s such a big topic if that’s the case.
Players and agents know how to work us.
We don’t need to move him on but we also don’t need to offer him anything new.
The Real Madrid model is not gonna work for us. We have never had quite the same pull and the PL is far more competitive. Not to mention we have been shit for 11 years. So the idea of being "ruthless", even towards genuinely good players, is not applicable to us. And if you even try to mention Chelsea then I will literally puke on my keyboard.
So with that nonsense out of the way: should we offer Bruno a new contract when we are in such a good position? For me the answer is yes. I find no actual faults with Bruno (not being the best at everything is not a fault). He's for all intents and purposes the perfect player and professional. And he's our best player too.
So if we aim to be a club that rewards good performers and top professionals, then we should give him a new contract and make him our top earner. And then get rid of the chronic under-performers on high salaries, obviously.
So with that nonsense out of the way: should we offer Bruno a new contract when we are in such a good position? For me the answer is yes. I find no actual faults with Bruno (not being the best at everything is not a fault). He's for all intents and purposes the perfect player and professional. And he's our best player too.
So if we aim to be a club that rewards good performers and top professionals, then we should give him a new contract and make him our top earner. And then get rid of the chronic under-performers on high salaries, obviously.
It's utter stupidity on our part if we do. We have him until 2027 when as you say he'll be 33 and way past his best. We can refuse to sell him even if he did want out until that point when he won't be worth selling anyway. If he does kick up a stink then he can be sold if necessary. We're completely in the driving seat here and we have no reason to bend over for him and his agent. He's also likely to be one of the top 3 highest earners after this summer on his current deal by the time we offload what we plan to.
Our priorities, it seems, are still very much misplaced.
We've already rewarded him with an extension and pay bump. Since then he's been worse than before the extension so why the hell should we reward him again. He's tied down for three years at a great competitive wage so if he's such a model professional get on with it instead of trying to leverage the club for more money.
Bruno Fernandes "the perfect player" . Crackheads wouldn't be as delusional.
Bruno Fernandes "the perfect player" . Crackheads wouldn't be as delusional.
If we sell the high earning under-performers he will automatically become the highest paid player.
No reason for a new contract.
Debatable.
He wouldn't be the top earner in any of our rival teams. In Man City he wouldn't even make the top 5. In Bayern and Real he'd barely make the top 10.
In fact, before Varane left he wasn't even in our top 5!
Being a top professional does not mean that you accept being underpaid. I would even argue that it makes you a fool.
"Perfect for all intents and purposes" does not mean that he is better than everyone at everything.
What would you criticise him for professionally, apart from things that are wildly subjective ("I don't like how he complains on the pitch")? It can't be fitness, workrate or the way he conducts himself in the media. And he is our best player, so you can't really claim that he's a problem there either. And even if you think Martinez is better for instance, Bruno is for sure United quality.
Are we gonna get rid of all of them this summer?
And is it OK that the highest earner at Man United wouldn't be the highest earner for any of our rivals and not break the top 5 at City and barely break the top 10 at Real and Bayern?
We clearly have a wage structure problem. But the problem isn't someone like Bruno, who has proven his worth. The problem is the likes of Martial, Rashford and Casemiro being on crazy wages. The problem is that the likes of Mount earns more than Bruno!
Daft bump
That in no way explains why we should though.
Perhaps to prove that skill and effort pays off? We want to attract players with the right mentality. I think professional athletes should be driven by meritocracy and competition. Not by over-selling your skills, getting a fat contract and then half-ass the upcoming years.
Look at how lazy, inconsistent and injury-prone even our best players have been since Fergie retired. Bruno clearly stands out in a positive way. We ought to reward that in my opinion.
It's a weak argument, unless you're Bruno Fernandes' agent.
He's already on a lot of money (I don't care if Casemiro, Rashford, and Mount earn a few bob more a week), he's almost certainly in our top 5. He has 2+1 years left on his contract. He ended the season strongly, but had a lot of poor performances in the mid and early season.
There's genuinely so little to justify actually extending his contract.
If he wants to kick up a fuss about not getting an extension - he is welcome to show us clubs who will 1. actually bid the money we would need to sell our captain who essentially has 3 years left on his contract, and 2. will pay him the type of money he will want in a contract extension. At which point an appropriate decision can be made by all parties.
Until then, tickety boo, get on with it and let's evaluate deep into next season.
He's already on a lot of money (I don't care if Casemiro, Rashford, and Mount earn a few bob more a week), he's almost certainly in our top 5. He has 2+1 years left on his contract. He ended the season strongly, but had a lot of poor performances in the mid and early season.
There's genuinely so little to justify actually extending his contract.
If he wants to kick up a fuss about not getting an extension - he is welcome to show us clubs who will 1. actually bid the money we would need to sell our captain who essentially has 3 years left on his contract, and 2. will pay him the type of money he will want in a contract extension. At which point an appropriate decision can be made by all parties.
Until then, tickety boo, get on with it and let's evaluate deep into next season.
But as others have said we should be getting rid of the players paid more, we are looking to stop giving out high wages, it's out of control.
I suppose it depends on what we’re actually paying him. He’s probably our best and most consistent player and should be paid accordingly. My only objection would be increasing the length of his contract. I’d have no real objections to a sensible increase with the same term contract. We had this nailed during the Gill/Ferguson years where players over a certain age only got short term contracts extensions.
But is he really underpaid? Sounds about right for what he’s offered since he got his last contract.
No official link or confirmation, or are we just taking this as read?
Or is this just a random bump?
Or is this just a random bump?
Luckhurst said we would be willing to offer him a new contract if hes willing to stay. That's the reason for the bump probably.
You want to offer someone who turns 30 right after the season starts, who has potentially 3 years left on his current contract, a new contract? Sorry, but what is the logic behind that? Don't you think we've made this mistake far too many times to do that again? I know he is one of our best players along with Lisandro Martinez and Shaw, but there is no way of knowing when and how quick he will regress. It would be incredibly silly to have him until he's 35 if he's regressing quickly at 32, don't you think?
Regarding the bolded part: do you not think not being able to dribble as a number 10 is a major deficit? He is not very press resistant or a good dribbler, which - historically - is a key aspect of the playmaking number 10 role, and why the most successful teams through history has had attacking midfielders with these strengths.
Bruno earns 240k per week. There is no reason for why the top earner at Manchester United should be on less than 300k. Otherwise we are actually not competitive.
I don't think our total wages are a big problem. It's who earns the money that matters. And that's where we have failed.
Is Luckhurst some kind of god? Fancy believing anything a journalist says.
It nothing more than an educated guess which anyone here could have come up with.
I am curious as to whether the +1 in his deal is on the clubs side only. I would assume that it is but if it is not then that could be a consideration in renegotiating.
in principle, I don’t have any issue with adding a little more cash to his deal without extending the length. If 300k is the going rate for your best player and his deal is for 240k then in reality how much is it really going to hurt to bridge that gap? It works out to just over an extra 3M per season, for reference that is what we are saving by releasing Brandon Williams. It is hardly a significant amount in terms of our overall wage bill and it shows our appreciation to the man who has unarguably been our best player of the past 5 years at least.
in principle, I don’t have any issue with adding a little more cash to his deal without extending the length. If 300k is the going rate for your best player and his deal is for 240k then in reality how much is it really going to hurt to bridge that gap? It works out to just over an extra 3M per season, for reference that is what we are saving by releasing Brandon Williams. It is hardly a significant amount in terms of our overall wage bill and it shows our appreciation to the man who has unarguably been our best player of the past 5 years at least.
Nah. But people discussing tweets from journalists happens all the time though whether it's made up or not.
Funny you quoted my post except the first sentence. Perhaps because you can't refute it. So your argument revolves around him not being the highest paid player at the club and earning less than a tiny percentage of other players mainly at City, Real and Bayern. Do I need to spell out why those clubs can afford to pay higher wages than us or is that mysterious to you? I'll take constant late runs in the CL and domination of your domestic leagues for 500 Alex.
Do you support the club or Bruno? Would you rather Bruno gets what he wants at the detriment of the club or the other way around? At the start of next season he will most likely be our second highest earner. That's more than fair. If he wants to moan and cry about it to the media then tough shit.
Bruno is a good professional and good player but calling him perfect is just delusional even if you add "for all intents and purposes" which doesn't actually reduce the effect of the word perfect at all.
We have the 4th highest wage bill.
In the world? Well, we are at least the 4th biggest club in terms of name so that makes sense. And we are still a money machine are we not?
Out total wage output would be perfectly fine if the players were actually United quality.
We are not in the Champions League. And due to many years of overspending and neglect we not able to simply throw money around as much as before.
I don't think giving a raise to a player, even our best player, who is already on a 2+ year contract is financially sound.
We are not the finished product like Real at the moment, but rather in a transition.
If Bruno only had a year left I would agree with you, but given the length of his contract and our current situation I don't see any upside to a bumper contract.
We are not 4th in terms of quality, performance, or success currently. Not anywhere near. it's a foolish clue who pays that much for so little.
That’s absolutely the thing - our total wage bill is not representative of our output which is the crux of the issue.
We aren’t the Harlem Globetrotters, or a purely commercial outfit. In which case size and commercial viability should directly correlate to wage bill. We have to consider actual productivity in which case we are no where close on terms of wage balance.
We give dross mega money.
So then we sell the players earning 300k (or more), make Bruno the top earner and replace the players in the 100k to 300k range who are not good enough. And obviously no new arrival should become the top earner unless they are prime Messi or some shit like that.
The solution is not to pay less than our rivals. Especially if we are not even willing to reward those who perform! What incentive is there then? The idea of signing hidden gems who only want to play for United is romantic, but not realistic.