Contractual playing-time clauses (ex: Thiago)

[ciderman9000000]

Agree with what? That we have no midfielders apart from Carrick, Anderson and Cleverley? It's a fact.

Agree with Thiago's position in the pecking order; agree that he should play 60% of games no matter what. What if he's slow to settle whilst Anderson and Cleverley come out of the blocks running? What if we sign another CM who wants games also?

Team selection should be the manager's decision to make, he should not have it dictated to him by a player's contract.

 

[Arruda]

This takes away power from managers, or rather, gives them a football-unrelated thing to worry about. Imagine Thiago starting as an excellent player for United, but being at a form dip in the end of the season, at a crucial time in several competitions, and at the borderline limit of release clause playing time. Here's Moyes having to decide whether to give him a starting place in a title decider against Chelsea when there are players in better form at that moment. But Moyes knows that the player will be able to leave for 15m if he doesn't get a start in that game. At the same time he knows that the player is worth a lot more than 15m even if he isn't playing that well lately. Do we really want managers to be taking this into account when selecting the best team for any given moment?

Also, how fair is it to other team-mates who need to rely solely on their effort and talent to grab a place? Whilst the clause doesn't give Thiago a guarantee first-team place it might very well make the difference in tight decisions and give him an unfair advantage over others. This is still a team sport. If he wants a guarantee starting position then he should either get good enough that it would daft for anyone not to play him or he should join a club with lesser aspirations.

One of the reasons FIFA wants to ban investment funds partnerships with clubs is that they're an outside interference in the game, i.e., at some point some clubs may become so dependent on them that it's the fund and not the manager deciding who gets to play.

 

[Revan]

Team selection should be the manager's decision to make, he should not have it dictated to him by a player's contract.

Theoretically yes, I agree and support this. At times though, it is probably better if you change the principles in a specific case if that improves your chances of getting success. If Thiago said 'If you want me there, put a clause which says that if I don't play 60% of the minutes I am available I can go for 20m' and we said feck off and go in the next season with this midfield (or with improvements like McCarthy or Fellaini) then I think we were wrong, especially if in the end a very good midfielder could be the difference between us winning the title and not.

Generally speaking, we should not let players have this clauses, but at times when it can potentially make much more good than harm, we can let it.

Saying that it opens the Pandora box is as much true as saying that when we gave Rooney 200-250k after he questioned the club ambitions now other players will do that in order to get that wage. Each story is different to each other and giving that clause to Thiago doesn't mean that we will have a lot of players asking the same.

 

[Sarni]

This takes away power from managers, or rather, gives them a football-unrelated thing to worry about. Imagine Thiago starting as an excellent player for United, but being at a form dip in the end of the season, at a crucial time in several competitions, and at the borderline limit of release clause playing time. Here's Moyes having to decide whether to give him a starting place in a title decider against Chelsea when there are players in better form at that moment. But Moyes knows that the player will be able to leave for 15m if he doesn't get a start in that game. At the same time he knows that the player is worth a lot more than 15m even if he isn't playing that well lately. Do we really want managers to be taking this into account when selecting the best team for any given moment?

Also, how fair is it to other team-mates who need to rely solely on their effort and talent to grab a place? Whilst the clause doesn't give Thiago a guarantee first-team place it might very well make the difference in tight decisions and give him an unfair advantage over others. This is still a team sport. If he wants a guarantee starting position then he should either get good enough that it would daft for anyone not to play him or he should join a club with lesser aspirations.

One of the reasons FIFA wants to ban investment funds partnerships with clubs is that they're an outside interference in the game, i.e., at some point some clubs may become so dependent on them that it's the fund and not the manager deciding who gets to play.

Again, the clause doesn't mean he'll absolutely have to leave. If he's happy at the club he'll stay regardless of the 60% clause being fulfiled or not, a smart player will understand if he's dropped for a couple of games because he's not performing well.

 

[Sarni]

Agree with Thiago's position in the pecking order; agree that he should play 60% of games no matter what. What if he's slow to settle whilst Anderson and Cleverley come out of the blocks running? What if we sign another CM who wants games also?

Team selection should be the manager's decision to make, he should not have it dictated to him by a player's contract.

And it wouldn't be. If Moyes thought Thiago wasn't good enough, he could put him on the bench just like with any other player.

 

[ciderman9000000]

Theoretically yes, I agree and support this. At times though, it is probably better if you change the principles in a specific case if that improves your chances of getting success. If Thiago said 'If you want me there, put a clause which says that if I don't play 60% of the minutes I am available I can go for 20m' and we said feck off and go in the next season with this midfield (or with improvements like McCarthy or Fellaini) then I think we were wrong, especially if in the end a very good midfielder could be the difference between us winning the title and not.

Generally speaking, we should not let players have this clauses, but at times when it can potentially make much more good than harm, we can let it.

Saying that it opens the Pandora box is as much true as saying that when we gave Rooney 200-250k after he questioned the club ambitions now other players will do that in order to get that wage. Each story is different to each other and giving that clause to Thiago doesn't mean that we will have a lot of players asking the same.

A player's wages is a different matter entirely; the manager needn't concern himself with who earns what when making his team selection.

It's all too easy to say that we should just give in to Thiago's demands because it'll make us a better team, it's the easy option and imo it's the wrong option. The much more difficult thing to do would be to not cave in under such pressure from a player's agent which could potentially put undue pressure on the club's manager to at some point make team selections which he doesn't believe as being tactically sound.

It's all well and good saying, "Oh we'll just do it this once for Thiago and then we'll not do it again." The world doesn't work that way; particularly not so the world of football.

At United you have to earn your starting position and then prove that you can keep it. As a club, we shouldn't be offering players contracts with escape clauses; it sends out the wrong message, not only to the player in question, but to every member of the playing staff at all levels; we're no haven for mercenaries looking to advance their career and preen in front of the sugar daddies. SAF would never have allowed it and I can't imagine Moyes will be any different in that respect. If some muppets think that's the club being stupid then feck 'em.

 

[Sarni]

A player's wages is a different matter entirely; the manager needn't concern himself with who earns what when making his team selection.

It's all too easy to say that we should just give in to Thiago's demands because it'll make us a better team, it's the easy option and imo it's the wrong option. The much more difficult thing to do would be to not cave in under such pressure from a player's agent which could potentially put undue pressure on the club's manager to at some point make team selections which he doesn't believe as being tactically sound.

It's all well and good saying, "Oh we'll just do it this once for Thiago and then we'll not do it again." The world doesn't work that way; particularly not so the world of football.

At United you have to earn your starting position and then prove that you can keep it. As a club, we shouldn't be offering players contracts with escape clauses; it sends out the wrong message, to not only the player in question, but to every member of the playing staff at all levels. SAF would never allow it and I can't imagine Moyes will be any different in that respect. If some muppets think that's the club being stupid then feck 'em.

If it's true that Thiago rejected us because we wouldn't put such clause into his contract and we've done it to make a point, then it's really worrying. We won't agree to a perfectly reasonable clause, we won't pay agents high fees, we won't do this, we won't do that because we are the mighty Manchester United and we do everything on our terms.

I doubt it's the case though, he's probably been going to Bayern all along.

 

[ciderman9000000]

If it's true that Thiago rejected us because we wouldn't put such clause into his contract and we've done it to make a point, then it's really worrying. We won't agree to a perfectly reasonable clause, we won't pay agents high fees, we won't do this, we won't do that because we are the mighty Manchester United and we do everything on our terms.

I doubt it's the case though, he's probably been going to Bayern all along.

Be worried then. It's all doom and gloom for 90% of you anyway; has been for ten years or more . I can barely remember a season going by without being told how worried I should be for the club; one more travesty for you to worry about won't make much difference.

I'm not worried. feck the muppet bollocks - so what if we do things differently? We'll win anyway.

 

[Arruda]

Again, the clause doesn't mean he'll absolutely have to leave. If he's happy at the club he'll stay regardless of the 60% clause being fulfiled or not, a smart player will understand if he's dropped for a couple of games because he's not performing well.

Yet it seems he isn't happy at Barça even when they missed the requirements by little, and partly because he was injured - the clause didn't even contemplate this issue?

Why does he want to leave Barcelona? Is it the case that they don't want this clause again in his contract renewal? If anything, their experience with him shows exactly why no club should do it again. They've learned their lesson, I don't see why other clubs should follow suit and experience it for themselves.

 

[EvilChuck]

If it's true that Thiago rejected us because we wouldn't put such clause into his contract and we've done it to make a point, then it's really worrying. We won't agree to a perfectly reasonable clause, we won't pay agents high fees, we won't do this, we won't do that because we are the mighty Manchester United and we do everything on our terms.

I doubt it's the case though, he's probably been going to Bayern all along.

But yet we still seem to have been able to win the league last season, without complacency late in the season before that we'd have been talking about 5 in a row, and if it hadnt been for a couple of dodgy ref decisions in the two games against Chelsea in 09/10 we could be sitting her talking about how United have won the title every year since the 06/07 season. That isnt bad for a team that refuses to buckle to the demands of the rest of the footballing world

 

[ciderman9000000]

But yet we still seem to have been able to win the league last season, without complacency late in the season before that we'd have been talking about 5 in a row, and if it hadnt been for a couple of dodgy ref decisions in the two games against Chelsea in 09/10 we could be sitting her talking about how United have won the title every year since the 06/07 season. That isnt bad for a team that refuses to buckle to the demands of the rest of the footballing world

Aren't you think least bit worried? I'm really worried

 

[Sarni]

Be worried then. It's all doom and gloom for 90% of you anyway; has been for ten years of more . I'm can barely remember a season going by without being told how worried I should be for the club; one more travesty for you to worry about won't make much difference.

I'm not worried. feck the muppet bollocks - so what if we do things differently? We'll win anyway.

How is it all doom and gloom for me? I'm usually optimistic about 90% things concerning United. I was actually the one laughing it off when people said we could lose the league last season when we were 12 points ahead, I've been saying for a couple of years that Chelsea weren't half as good as us and wouldn't put up a title challenge when people were wanking crazily over them, I've said repeatedly that I expect us to continue being successful under Moyes yet somehow here comes cider, telling me that I'm apparently a doom and gloom type.

The only issue with the team right now is that we have no midfield and it's probably worrying for most people that we've not addressed it for years. I'm not overly optimistic when it comes to signing a midfielder, I've not been for three years and for three years I've been right about this somehow. We've missed about a dozen great opportunities to strengthen this particular area of the pitch and it's a shame because I reckon we'd be the best team in the world along with Bayern and Barcelona, some distance ahead of the rest, had we dealt with this issue properly.

I don't agree with the stance that Manchester United are too great and almighty to put a release clause into player's contract. Barcelona did it, Bayern likely will yet for some reason we are apparently above it. Especially as we're slowly running out of options.

 

[Arruda]

Barcelona did it but apparently they don't want to do it again. I wonder why is that.

 

[Sarni]

But yet we still seem to have been able to win the league last season, without complacency late in the season before that we'd have been talking about 5 in a row, and if it hadnt been for a couple of dodgy ref decisions in the two games against Chelsea in 09/10 we could be sitting her talking about how United have won the title every year since the 06/07 season. That isnt bad for a team that refuses to buckle to the demands of the rest of the footballing world

I never said we would go down, drop out of top 4 or anything. I think we'll find it more difficult to win the league next season with Ferguson gone as well as City and Chelsea recruiting far better managers that they had last term but we'll be thereabouts. I'd still have us down as favourites looking at current squads.

We have a perfect array of talent in defence, we have the best strikeforce in Europe, we have the best young goalkeeper in the world and in spite of Valencia being terribly out of form for a year I reckon we have one of the best groups of wingers in Europe. I also think we have one of the most talented young attacking midfielders out there. Basically our entire side apart from one area is in a great shape.

It doesn't mean everything is perfect though. Outside of the Real Madrid tie we've not been impressive in Europe for a single game over the last two seasons, we lack quality in midfield and we've missed out on a few players we shouldn't have to IMO. That's all. Only one of those is a major issue though.

 

[Sarni]

Aren't you think least bit worried? I'm really worried

Good old cider routine, first having a perfectly normal discussion, then putting words I didn't say into my mouth, actin all better and above me (being a top red and a top person obviously), and finally mocking me because he feels just too good to continue. Clap clap clap.

 

[Sarni]

Barcelona did it but apparently they don't want to do it again. I wonder why is that.

From their perspective it was risky business. They have a lot of players in the area he plays in and besides having a new manager who wants results and won't take risks with anything didn't help. Tito would play an out of form Xavi for 85 minutes rather than give Thiago a chance, it's no wonder Thiago doesn't want to stay when his future career could potentially be harmed here.

 

[Moriarty]

The only issue with the team right now is that we have no midfield and it's probably worrying for most people that we've not addressed it for years. I'm not overly optimistic when it comes to signing a midfielder, I've not been for three years and for three years I've been right about this somehow. We've missed about a dozen great opportunities to strengthen this particular area of the pitch and it's a shame because I reckon we'd be the best team in the world along with Bayern and Barcelona, some distance ahead of the rest, had we dealt with this issue properly.

It's not through lack of trying. Fergie attempted to strengthen the midfield with Hazard and Lucas, but both players opted to join other clubs. The whys and wherefores surrounding their decisions has been debated on here, but what can you do if a player you want goes elsewhere? What exactly did we do wrong in your opinion?

I don't agree with the stance that Manchester United are too great and almighty to put a release clause into player's contract. Barcelona did it, Bayern likely will yet for some reason we are apparently above it. Especially as we're slowly running out of options.

United have their own way of doing things. If that doesn't suit a player's or agent's agenda, too bad. I don't think we're stupid enough to try and browbeat modern footballers with a "take-it-or-leave-it" type of offer, especially when trying to sign young foreign prospects. Might have been all right in the old days when young British lads would give their right arm to wear the shirt, but that's now ancient history. But United can negotiate from a position of strength, at least when it comes down to the likelihood of winning trophies and competing at the highest level in the European game. Our weakness is our inability, or reluctance to simply chuck money around like a drunken sailor. We want players who will be here for the long term. We don't want fly-by-nights who come for a huge salary and the option to feck off to pastures new when the agent gets a call. Now if you're saying our options are narrowed because of that, then I agree. But I'd rather weed out the mercenaries and pick up that rare nugget of a player who puts achievements before money; and how many are like that?

 

[Sarni]

It's not through lack of trying. Fergie attempted to strengthen the midfield with Hazard and Lucas, but both players opted to join other clubs. The whys and wherefores surrounding their decisions has been debated on here, but what can you do if a player you want goes elsewhere? What exactly did we do wrong in your opinion?

Neither Lucas nor Hazard play in midfield and I'm not even unhappy that we didn't sign them. Lucas is all potential, you don't pay £32m for a player who might be worth that sort of money in 3 years. As for Hazard - we met his release clause but he chose to go to Chelsea, probably for a couple reasons that we couldn't really influence.

United have their own way of doing things. If that doesn't suit a player's or agent's agenda, too bad. I don't think we're stupid enough to try and browbeat modern footballers with a "take-it-or-leave-it" type of offer, especially when trying to sign young foreign prospects. Might have been all right in the old days when young British lads would give their right arm to wear the shirt, but that's now ancient history. But United can negotiate from a position of strength, at least when it comes down to the likelihood of winning trophies and competing at the highest level in the European game. Our weakness is our inability, or reluctance to simply chuck money around like a drunken sailor. We want players who will be here for the long term. We don't want fly-by-nights who come for a huge salary and the option to feck off to pastures new when the agent gets a call. Now if you're saying our options are narrowed because of that, then I agree. But I'd rather weed out the mercenaries and pick up that rare nugget of a player who puts achievements before money; and how many are like that?

I don't disagree with our way of choosing players based on their mentality. That's why we'd never sign someone like Zlatan who'll ask to leave in a couple of years. Us missing out on a host of midfielders over the last few years, most of whom seem like perfectly good and loyal people (Vidal, Gundogan, Martinez, Dembele etc.) has nothing to do with it though, most players who join a club like United are here to stay (except for Rooney).

I disagree with the thinking that we should be acting like we're better than anyone else on the basis that we wouldn't offer player a clause that allows him to leave if he doesn't play. It was the same two days ago where some people were convinced that we're somehow harmed because we won't act inproperly and tap up players or talk about them openly disrespecting their clubs at the same time, because we're United and we're better than the rest. Leave this more than a club bullshit to Barcelona and their fans, we're a fantastic club without needing to act as if we are above everyone else. Soon everyone will be talking about how it was us who turned Thiago down because he didn't pass some sort of mythical United mental tests or something.

Besides, it's perfectly plausible and perhaps more likely than not that we're not signing Thiago simply because he prefers Bayern. There are plenty of reasons for him to, clause or no clause.

 

[ciderman9000000]

Good old cider routine, first having a perfectly normal discussion, then putting words I didn't say into my mouth, actin all better and above me (being a top red and a top person obviously), and finally mocking me because he feels just too good to continue. Clap clap clap.

Okay

 

[The Neviller]

I said in the Thiago thread I'd probably throw the clause in to get the deal done, purely because of how much he'd improve us, but the more I think about it, I'm not sure I would. Firstly, it sets a precedent that I'm not sure we'd want to start. But secondly, it shows a real sign of weakness of character from the player. He mustn't have much confidence in his own ability if he needs contract clauses to guarantee games.

I don't want us to start dishing these out. If you want to come to United then back yourself, back your ability and fight for your place like everyone else.

 

[Revan]

Be worried then. It's all doom and gloom for 90% of you anyway; has been for ten years or more . I can barely remember a season going by without being told how worried I should be for the club; one more travesty for you to worry about won't make much difference.

I'm not worried. feck the muppet bollocks - so what if we do things differently? We'll win anyway.

First no need to go extreme, we have a wonderful squad but we have a relatively poor midfield when it is compared by other departments. Michael Carrick is our only central midfielder who would realistically go into the bench of Bayern and Barca, and I think those teams are the benchmark of today's midfield.

Second, we won the title last year but that do not change the fact that in many games we were overplayed and had more comebacks than in any other season in the history of Premier League. Those changes were most of the times from pure determination and from our strikers ability. Add to that, other clubs were pretty shit. City the main competitor couldn't win a single match in UCL, while everyone knew that Chelsea had zero chance to win the title. Both these teams have signed more competent managers, and while both have improved a bit their squad you never know with them, they can spend another 50m if they want. On the other side we have lost the best manager of all time.

Third, we do not know if Moyes can improvise as good as SAF. SAF was great and utilized the team perfectly that even with an average midfield we made a lot of success. We could have probably been better in Europe with a better midfield but that is for another debate. The big point is that can Moyes do well with only these midfielders we have?

So the point is that Thiago would have greatly improved us and although we don't like those clauses, I think that it would have been good if we allowed it if that was the difference between Thiago signing or not. Of course it could be that the club doesn't rate him that much which is something entirely different.

 

[Sarni]

Okay

It's true though, nearly every argument that involves you here ends with you pretending to be better than the other person and trying to make them look stupid (or insulting them straightaway).

 

[ciderman9000000]

It's true though, nearly every argument that involves you here ends with you pretending to be better than the other person and trying to make them look stupid (or insulting them straightaway).

Well don't say something stupid if you're worried about looking stupid. Don't shoot the messenger ffs!

I've not insulted you, have I? Get a grip, man.

Anyway...

 

[ciderman9000000]

First no need to go extreme, we have a wonderful squad but we have a relatively poor midfield when it is compared by other departments. Michael Carrick is our only central midfielder who would realistically go into the bench of Bayern and Barca, and I think those teams are the benchmark of today's midfield.

Second, we won the title last year but that do not change the fact that in many games we were overplayed and had more comebacks than in any other season in the history of Premier League. Those changes were most of the times from pure determination and from our strikers ability. Add to that, other clubs were pretty shit. City the main competitor couldn't win a single match in UCL, while everyone knew that Chelsea had zero chance to win the title. Both these teams have signed more competent managers, and while both have improved a bit their squad you never know with them, they can spend another 50m if they want. On the other side we have lost the best manager of all time.

Third, we do not know if Moyes can improvise as good as SAF. SAF was great and utilized the team perfectly that even with an average midfield we made a lot of success. We could have probably been better in Europe with a better midfield but that is for another debate. The big point is that can Moyes do well with only these midfielders we have?

So the point is that Thiago would have greatly improved us and although we don't like those clauses, I think that it would have been good if we allowed it if that was the difference between Thiago signing or not. Of course it could be that the club doesn't rate him that much which is something entirely different.

Thiago isn't the only midfielder in the world though; it was never an option of either sign Thiago Alcantara or sign nobody. If Thiago wants an escape route from United then bollocks to him; don't come here in the first place if you haven't got the balls to see it through.

It's a message I should expect the club to send to every player at every level. You have to earn a starting position week in week out; we'll not be held to ransom by mercenaries preparing their escape route if they're not getting enough games. Don't you see how that can have a knock on effect to the attitudes of every young player at the club?

The quickest way to spoil SAF's legacy at United imo would be to forget simple principles that the club abides by and which clauses such as the one under discussion directly violate. We can do better than that.

 

[Revan]

Thiago isn't the only midfielder in the world though; it was never an option of either sign Thiago Alcantara or sign nobody. If Thiago wants an escape route from United then bollocks to him; don't come here in the first place if you haven't got the balls to see it through.

It's a message I should expect the club to send to every player at every level. You have to earn a starting position week in week out; we'll not be held to ransom by mercenaries preparing their escape route if they're not getting enough games. Don't you see how that can have a knock on effect to the attitudes of every young player at the club?

The quickest way to spoil SAF's legacy at United imo would be to forget simple principles that the club abides by and which clauses such as the one under discussion directly violate. We can do better than that.

Thiago is the only top level available midfielder though. And for a low price.

Almost all players are mercenaries.

Principles are good as long as they bring more good than bad. If a player questions club's ambition in order to get more money, he should GTFO. But at that time Rooney was our best player and we just had lose Ronaldo and Tevez, so although we didn't go by our principles, we did the right thing. It's not entirely black and white and every case is individual.

 

[ciderman9000000]

Thiago is the only top level available midfielder though. And for a low price.

Almost all players are mercenaries.

Principles are good as long as they bring more good than bad. If a player questions club's ambition in order to get more money, he should GTFO. But at that time Rooney was our best player and we just had lose Ronaldo and Tevez, so although we didn't go by our principles, we did the right thing. It's not entirely black and white and every case is individual.

Almost all players are mercenaries, I agree with that. That's why you have to keep their mercenary tendencies in check as much as possible, and imo contractual playing-time is a huge step in the wrong direction for any club which doesn't want to attract or encourage the most... erm... mercenarious of the lot.

 

[Revan]

Almost all players are mercenaries, I agree with that. That's why you have to keep their mercenary tendencies in check as much as possible, and imo contractual playing-time is a huge step in the wrong direction for any club which doesn't want to attract or encourage the most... erm... mercenarious of the lot.

A difference of opinions IMO. You're more idealist, I am more pragmatist for this case. I think that this is an extraordinary case that would have greatly improved us so I think that we should have allowed it. Of course, most of the times we (and other clubs) shouldn't.

 

[Rowem]

Contractual playing time agreements are a stupid idea.

 

[The Neviller]

Yeah, Cider. Get real will you, you great fecking idealist.

 

[Moriarty]

A difference of opinions IMO. You're more idealist, I am more pragmatist for this case. I think that this is an extraordinary case that would have greatly improved us so I think that we should have allowed it. Of course, most of the times we (and other clubs) shouldn't.

I'm with Cider. I think if we allow it once, it will impact contracts throughout the club, especially when they're coming up for renewal. I can imagine Rooney throwing a strop if we signed a player with playing time in his contract. Give in to one, you'll have to give in to all.

 

[Revan]

I'm with Cider. I think if we allow it once, it will impact contracts throughout the club, especially when they're coming up for renewal. I can imagine Rooney throwing a strop if we signed a player with playing time in his contract. Give in to one, you'll have to give in to all.

Why? Does all Barca players ask for these clauses? Does all our players asked for more money after we agreed to give Rooney?

I don't think that if we gave him the clause, all the other players would have asked for it. And I never said that we should give the clause all the players who ask. Only that in this case, one of the most promising midfielders on the world is available for only 18m (Real paid around 39 for Ilarramendi who isn't half the player Thiago is) and if such a clause that likely in the end of the day wouldn't mean anything cause he would have played 60% of the available minutes broke the deal, I think that we did wrong. Of course, I don't believe at all that this was the case, more likely he simply chose Pep.

 

[Moriarty]

Why? Does all Barca players ask for these clauses? Does all our players asked for more money after we agreed to give Rooney?

I don't think that if we gave him the clause, all the other players would have asked for it. And I never said that we should give the clause all the players who ask. Only that in this case, one of the most promising midfielders on the world is available for only 18m (Real paid around 39 for Ilarramendi who isn't half the player Thiago is) and if such a clause that likely in the end of the day wouldn't mean anything cause he would have played 60% of the available minutes broke the deal, I think that we did wrong. Of course, I don't believe at all that this was the case, more likely he simply chose Pep.

I don't know about Barca's players. In fact, I hadn't heard of contractual playing time until it surfaced in this forum. I just think it's a bad thing with the potential to cause all kinds of problems.

 

[Sarni]

Well don't say something stupid if you're worried about looking stupid. Don't shoot the messenger ffs!

I've not insulted you, have I? Get a grip, man.

Anyway...

Something stupid which is? Except for made up things I never said (like me worrying for 10 years apparently) I didn't even say anything that controversial here. If you don't agree with a point then fine, don't try to pretend it's a stupid one just because of that though.

 

[Sarni]

Why? Does all Barca players ask for these clauses? Does all our players asked for more money after we agreed to give Rooney?

I don't think that if we gave him the clause, all the other players would have asked for it. And I never said that we should give the clause all the players who ask. Only that in this case, one of the most promising midfielders on the world is available for only 18m (Real paid around 39 for Ilarramendi who isn't half the player Thiago is) and if such a clause that likely in the end of the day wouldn't mean anything cause he would have played 60% of the available minutes broke the deal, I think that we did wrong. Of course, I don't believe at all that this was the case, more likely he simply chose Pep.

I don't think it was about the clause at all. I even think we'd have gladly written it into his contract if it meant signing him, we'd actually have very little to lose by doing so. Worst case scenario he doesn't like it here that much, doesn't adapt properly and is benched in favour of Cleverley in which case we'd lose him in a year for roughly the same amount we paid in the first place or more and we'd be back to square one. If that had been the main condition under which he'd have signed the deal or not, I don't see why we'd refuse it to be honest, it doesn't make sense.

 

[ciderman9000000]

Why? Does all Barca players ask for these clauses? Does all our players asked for more money after we agreed to give Rooney?

Yes, off course they do!

 

[ciderman9000000]

Something stupid which is? Except for made up things I never said (like me worrying for 10 years apparently) I didn't even say anything that controversial here. If you don't agree with a point then fine, don't try to pretend it's a stupid one just because of that though.

I wasn't addressing you personally, you plank. Get over it.

 

[Platato]

If Thiago needs reassurance with regards to playing time in his contract when he's up against Carrick, Cleverley, Giggs, Anderson and Fletcher, he doesn't have the character that we look for in a signing.

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

If Thiago is so insecure he needs a contracted minimum of playing time feck him, its a dangerous precedent and should not even be considered. If you are good enough you will play if you aren't you wont.

No player should ever be guaranteed a start at Utd and if you don't have the necessary balls to earn and fight for a place feck off somewhere else.

 

[Platato]

If Thiago is so insecure he needs a contracted minimum of playing time feck him, its a dangerous precedent and should not even be considered. If you are good enough you will play if you aren't you wont.

No player should ever be guaranteed a start at Utd and if you don't have the necessary balls to earn and fight for a place feck off somewhere else.

Close-minded approach. First of all, Thiago would be moving to a new environment. Why are you and others assuming he is so insecure? Do you know the lad? Are these type of clauses purely driven by insecurity? We don't even know the terms of what minimum playing time would be. We could even negotiate for the release clause to be the same as what we bought him for. You don't lose any money there. Perhaps the lad wants assurances instead of promises. I think it's a fair deal especially since he would most likely get the required number of games. Somehow, people expect him to know about our players even though he hasn't joined. There's no indication he watches us play either. He now plays under Pep whom he trusts to use him properly and to provide ample playing time. He probably is more familiar with Sir Alex Ferguson and his track record rather than David Moyes. So why should he take any promises from Moyes at face value?

Secondly, it's not a dangerous precedent unless you apply it for every player. If you're using it on a case by case basis, no harm is really done. Your logic about precedent suggests Rooney set a dangerous precedent by attempting to hold the club to ransom. Have any of our first-team players done so in the same manner as Rooney since then?

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

Close-minded approach. First of all, Thiago would be moving to a new environment. Why are you and others assuming he is so insecure? Do you know the lad? Are these type of clauses purely driven by insecurity? We don't even know the terms of what minimum playing time would be. We could even negotiate for the release clause to be the same as what we bought him for. You don't lose any money there. Perhaps the lad wants assurances instead of promises. I think it's a fair deal especially since he would most likely get the required number of games. Somehow, people expect him to know about our players even though he hasn't joined. There's no indication he watches us play either. He now plays under Pep whom he trusts to use him properly and to provide ample playing time. He probably is more familiar with Sir Alex Ferguson and his track record rather than David Moyes. So why should he take any promises from Moyes at face value?

Secondly, it's not a dangerous precedent unless you apply it for every player. If you're using it on a case by case basis, no harm is really done. Your logic about precedent suggests Rooney set a dangerous precedent by attempting to hold the club to ransom. Have any of our first-team players done so in the same manner as Rooney since then?

Dress it up how you like, playing time and team selection has absolutely no place being influenced by anything other than form and tactical decisions ever.