[ShinjiNinja26]

I want him replaced but the club have definitely done him dirty here. If we don’t want him then he should never have been offered a new contract, you don’t offer him a new deal then back out once he signs it. That’s a shitty move.

 

[Adnan]

I think this is almost definitely what happened. A load of people won't want to admit it because it implicates Ten Hag as well, but I'm convinced that he just changed his mind on De Gea being sufficient as the number one and we changed the contract offer accordingly.

It's a shite thing to do, don't get me wrong, but we really do need to move on from him at this point.

I don't think ten Hag realised how bad he actually is in possession.

 

[Guapa]

Bang out of order.We really are a joke of a football club.Hope the new owners get the right people in place first order of business.DdG deserves better than that.

 

[Oranges038]

Embarrasing from the club. I want us to move on from Dave but handing him a contract and then backing out after he signs is so amateurish business behaviour its insane.
There is no defending this

I'm confused by this, he signed a contract and the club backed out weeks later?

Do the club officials not sign the contract first then the player signs?

As a player, why sign it unless the club has already signed off on it? Leaving it to them to sign it after you seems a bit odd.

Or why sign it at all when the other people who haven't yet signed it aren't there to sign at the same time?

 

[Rainy nights in Stoke]

I'd be livid if I was De Gea. That said, he seems quite meek and not the type to kick up a fuss. Which makes you wonder how he got the purported £375k contract in the first place..

 

[Idxomer]

Poor from the club but Mendes did the same before. He kept demanding more and more each time and that's how De Gea's contract reached those obscene figures.

 

[Irwin99]

So David, we agreed about that 200K p/w revised contract- well, after that cup final performance, we'd lack to revise our offer. It's now a lot less than that.

 

[Roario]

It's not really nothing though. It shows poor planning from the club and a lack of integrity.

I don't think Ten Hag was looking for a new keeper this transfer window until the backend of last season. De Gea was just giving the ball away every match. It became clear that he needed to go.

 

[Idxomer]

Also, the article is so obviously a leak from De Gea. I would wait to see what the club will say.

 

[sullydnl]

Nothing story. De Gea was probably offered a reduced wage as a starting gk. Ten Hag saw that he could not hack it anymore and told the board he needed a new keeper. The board now offers a contract more suitable for a backup keeper.

In itself that reflects very poorly on the club.

Because it means we were willing to hand someone a substantial contract to be our #1, only to then very quickly decide he wasn't actually up to the job after all. If we weren't sure we wanted him in that role, we shouldn't have been offering that still very big contract.

And it's not like some new evidence emerged to change our opinion on De Gea since. The De Gea that ended the season is the same one that started the season and the same De Gea we've seen over the last several years. We were just unable to come to a decision on what to actually do with him.

 

[pcaming]

Genuinely think everyone in a senior role at this club needs to go.

 

[saivet]

Nothing story. De Gea was probably offered a reduced wage as a starting gk. Ten Hag saw that he could not hack it anymore and told the board he needed a new keeper. The board now offers a contract more suitable for a backup keeper.

Surely the club and ETH should have known this by that point. It's not like this contract was offered at the start of the season.

To agree it verbally and withdraw the offer is bad but he signed the contract.

 

[Lyng]

I'm confused by this, he signed a contract and the club backed out weeks later?

Do the club officials not sign the contract first then the player signs?

As a player, why sign it unless the club has already signed off on it? Leaving it to them to sign it after you seems a bit odd.

Or why sign it at all when the other people who haven't yet signed it aren't there to sign at the same time?

I have no clue what happened but this situation should never happen, and wouldnt happen if we had any form of proper planning.
The correct thing would have been to inform Dave that he wasnt in the plans for the future and give him a proper send of. Not hand him a contract and then take it back.

 

[Big Ben Foster]

I remember reading about how during the Woodward / Judge era, we'd agree on transfer fees with clubs, only to then come back and try to negotiate them down and restructure the deal after it had already been agreed.

Seems like whoever is making decisions now is cut from the same cloth.

 

[Based Adnan]

Think we've done him a bit dirty all things considered, even if we need to move on. This all feels like it's because we don't know what to do with our summer budget and the takeover.

Reeks of indecisiveness from the club but this isn't too different from what De Gea did when he signed the 375k a week contract.

He agreed a contract with the club alongside Jorge Mendes after a season of negotiations and then went back to ask for more money on the advice of his lawyer causing Mendes to drop him as a client.

 

[Remember the geese]

I don't think Ten Hag was looking for a new keeper this transfer window until the backend of last season. De Gea was just giving the ball away every match. It became clear that he needed to go.

This is a problem in itself. It was obvious all along that we needed to replace De Gea.

 

[dubplate warrior]

He's not good enough moving forward but this is no way to treat a club legend. Didn't even get a proper farewell.

 

[TheGame]

I want him replaced but the club have definitely done him dirty here. If we don’t want him then he should never have been offered a new contract, you don’t offer him a new deal then back out once he signs it. That’s a shitty move.

Exactly disgusting behaviour if its true especially to a player who has given us that much years of service, if they wanted him to go, they should have been straight with him.

 

[Big Ben Foster]

Nothing story. De Gea was probably offered a reduced wage as a starting gk. Ten Hag saw that he could not hack it anymore and told the board he needed a new keeper. The board now offers a contract more suitable for a backup keeper.

That would still indicate poor planning on the club's part. The whole point of a football operations department is to maintain some level of continuity and squad planning at the club regardless of managerial changes.

 

[Oranges038]

I have no clue what happened but this situation should never happen, and wouldnt happen if we had any form of proper planning.
The correct thing would have been to inform Dave that he wasnt in the plans for the future and give him a proper send of. Not hand him a contract and then take it back.

Oh I agree, he needs to go and he should have been sent packing done at least 2 years ago.

But this just seems very odd, that they agreed a new deal and he signed it, but the club didn't.

If a company you work for offers you a new contract, you would expect their signature would be on there first as the offer is coming from them. You sign it and it's a done deal.

Offering someone a new contract and not signing it first just doesn't seem right.

 

[Kag]

If the outcome from all of this is that De Gea leaves and we bring in a replacement like Onana then we’ve won.

It doesn’t detract from what a farce the whole thing has been from start to end.

 

[Telsim]

Clown fiesta, if true. Should have decided to let him go months ago, have a proper send off, and be done with it in a respectable way. But I expect nothing less from the people in charge.

 

[Rake]

As much as I want us to sign a new keeper, this absolutely atrocious by the club... He does not deserve such disrespect. Just be straight with him and let him leave. Very poor handling of the situation, if journos have spread correct information.

 

[Nonameisknown]

Reeks of indecisiveness from the club but this isn't too different from what De Gea did when he signed the 375k a week contract.

He agreed a contract with the club alongside Jorge Mendes after a season of negotiations and then went back to ask for more money on the advice of his lawyer causing Mendes to drop him as a client.

So Karma I suppose. You get what you deserve.

 

[Witchking]

ok, re thinking about this, we don't yet know when United made the first offer and when it was signed and when United then lowballed.

Probably might tie up with the contract being signed in Feb before or after we won the cup. The idea might have been to get a decent understudy if De Gea stays on.

Post that United have been dog shite and De Gea has played a prime role in United losing big games, letting Liverpool close. Losing to Sevilla due to De Gea's brilliant goal keeping him screwing United in the FA cup final.

So there would have been backroom discussions to move away from him right away.

The offer would have been rescinded and a lower new one would have been given as a "Feck you" to either push away from United or stay on as a 2nd choice.

Not a classy move De Gea deserved better and better is someone telling to his face that we appreciate his services but he is no longer needed or if you stay you will be a second choice.

The decision is correct but not done the right way.

 

[UnitedSofa]

Also, the article is so obviously a leak from De Gea. I would wait to see what the club will say.

Can I get a tin foil hat too?

 

[Adnan]

I'm confused by this, he signed a contract and the club backed out weeks later?

Do the club officials not sign the contract first then the player signs?

As a player, why sign it unless the club has already signed off on it? Leaving it to them to sign it after you seems a bit odd.

Or why sign it at all when the other people who haven't yet signed it aren't there to sign at the same time?

The Athletic are reporting about him signing a extension and then the club pulling out. Which doesn't make sense because if he had signed the extension then this would've been settled ages ago. He likely wasn't even offered a new contract and if he was offered one, then ten Hag had likely seen enough at the back end of the season to see that he isn't good enough for the way ten Hag wants to play. Under Woodward and Judge he would've got his contract imo.

 

[Gabriel Djemba-Bebe]

Nothing story. De Gea was probably offered a reduced wage as a starting gk. Ten Hag saw that he could not hack it anymore and told the board he needed a new keeper. The board now offers a contract more suitable for a backup keeper.

Agreed.

Surely the club and ETH should have known this by that point. It's not like this contract was offered at the start of the season.

To agree it verbally and withdraw the offer is bad but he signed the contract.

I reckon from August-Feb, Ten Hag probably thought he could make do with De Gea and circumvent his weaknesses on the ball, but then in the final third of the season the high profile mistakes kept getting more frequent and more inexcusable. Sevilla and West Ham both within the space of a couple of weeks was probably the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

[Witchking]

Reeks of indecisiveness from the club but this isn't too different from what De Gea did when he signed the 375k a week contract.

He agreed a contract with the club alongside Jorge Mendes after a season of negotiations and then went back to ask for more money on the advice of his lawyer causing Mendes to drop him as a client.

Did not know this. Looks like football business is basically no morals.

 

[Oldyella]

Also, the article is so obviously a leak from De Gea. I would wait to see what the club will say.

Allows everyone to complain about the club again though, so it's obviously true.

 

[Andy_Cole]

A disgraceful treatment of our longest servant. Look I’m his biggest hater. He needs to go. But to offer him a contract and withdraw? No class.

 

[RVN1991]

The people running this football club are an absolute embarrassment. No doubt they'll top it off this summer by not selling the club and/or bringing back greenwood. You just have to expect the worst from these clowns at this point.

 

[SB16]

Everything about the way this club is run stinks

 

[Sunny Jim]

Think we've done him a bit dirty all things considered, even if we need to move on. This all feels like it's because we don't know what to do with our summer budget and the takeover.

Quite frankly though it sounds like we want him on a 2nd goalkeeper type of contract

dick move form United.

 

[mu4c_20le]

Glazer masterclass

 

[Big Ben Foster]

Allows everyone to complain about the club again though, so it's obviously true.

The club's track record doesn't inspire much confidence.

 

[Oranges038]

The Athletic are reporting about him signing a extension and then the club pulling out. Which doesn't make sense because if he had signed the extension then this would've been settled ages ago. He likely wasn't even offered a new contract and if he was offered one, then ten Hag had likely seen enough at the back end of the season to see that he isn't good enough for the way ten Hag wants to play. Under Woodward and Judge he would've got his contract imo.

Aye, that's what I don't get. Makes no sense to offer him a new contract and for him to sign it and then for the club to not sign it and back out weeks later. If he put pen to paper then it was a done deal.

I'd say it was verbally agreed, then they've decided based on performances etc and you'd have to think there was input from ETH that it's just better to save money and feck him off and bring in a new keeper.

 

[OleGunnar20]

Terrible handling from the club. I'm all for him moving on, he's not good enough at the mo - but the guys a United legend for me. We need to be so much more decisive than this if we've a hope of rebuilding this squad properly.

 

[El Jefe]

Only we could make such a slam dunk look like such hard work.

Through no hard evidence, I think we'd offered him the contract and promised him we were keeping him for ages as EtH and the club had hinted at. I feel his feckups in the last third of the season then brought about an "oh shit" moment where the club realised a mistake was made and then tried putting it out there he'd be No.2 in an effort to dissuade him from agreeing.

He clearly should've been let go. We should have communicated this before the end of the season and let him get his deserved farewell.

DDG as a No.2 makes zero sense. Unnecessary pressure for the No.1 and he'd be by far the highest earning backup goalie. Past it goalie unfit for a modern style of play. It's such an easy decision.

I did suggest something similar last week and it seems like that is in fact true if the latest report from The Athletic is true.

We have clearly gone back on our word to him which is a joke. Not renewing him is the right decision but the way weve gone about it is terrible.

 

[Lyng]

Oh I agree, he needs to go and he should have been sent packing done at least 2 years ago.

But this just seems very odd, that they agreed a new deal and he signed it, but the club didn't.

If a company you work for offers you a new contract, you would expect their signature would be on there first as the offer is coming from them. You sign it and it's a done deal.

Offering someone a new contract and not signing it first just doesn't seem right.

Absolutely its a very weird situation