David de Gea image 1

David de Gea Spain flag

2022-23 Performances

View full 2022-23 profile

6.2 Season Average Rating
Appearances
58
Clean sheets
25
Goals
0
Assists
0
Yellow cards
2
Status
Not open for further replies.
Adnan said:
Completely agree. I was sick and tired of the situation as well and couldn't see how we were going to progress until we brought in a head coach with a defined way of playing the game. And then when that coach was brought to the club, I said on here that De Gea was in big trouble now. It took a season, but ten Hag realised pretty quickly at the back end of the season.

Everyone is absolutely replaceable and it would've been nice to see things end on a better note. But I'm not going to blame the people who have inherited the problems from the past under the ownership of the Glazers when it's been widely reported about budgets not being set in stone. I'm actually happy we're looking to progress post Woodward and Judge.
Click to expand...

I thought Dubravka would replace him, but that was blind hope more than anything else :lol:.

Anyway, hopefully the next step is a progressive one, a player that can do everything to a high standard and suits how ETH wants to play. It was obvious from a long way out that DDG was never going to adapt.
 
Ten Hag probably saved his job if he really stopped the madness with De Gea's contract extension. We should've got rid of DDG at least five years ago. Last contract he had was a mockery of Man United, other goalkeepers and football in general.
Of all the players in the last 10 years, he's the one who symbolizes Glazer ownership and decay of this club the most.
 
There's a difference between being ruthless and doing what's best for the club. Our behavior is disgraceful and this isn't the first time either. Rio wrote in his book that after the last game of the season Ed Woodward walked into the changing room and told him he was done in front of everyone.

Football is a business and nobody is owed anything, but we could've handled this without a hell of a lot more class than we did. I'm a huge fan of De Gea and will forever be appreciative for all he's done for us. Post Sir Alex, he was one of our true world class players that actually played like it and wasn't world class in name only.
 
It’s not a big deal for me. At the end the most important thing is what is best for the club and not if we could have treated DdG better. Bigger legends than him did not have the opportunity for a proper send-off when they left and they were not even close to earning 375 k every week or performing as badly as him.
He has been here for 10+ years so should be treated better? Well that’s the issue, he shouldn’t have been here for 10+ years.
I am glad our manager changed his mind or made a u turn instead of finalising a costly mistake just to look good.
Not ideal but things rarely are ideal when making such decisions.
Everyone wants us to be ruthless but then when we are ruthless with a past it player on astronomical wages, some want us to turn into a charity.
 
I don't really want to keep De Gea but if it's true the club shook on it and then tore up the agreement, it's a serious low blow which is not befitting of a player who has been here 10+ years.
 
TheGodsInRed said:
https://theathletic.com/2118700/202...-tottenham-ronaldo/?redirected=1&redirected=1

He used his lawyer to get more money and not Mendez's team after a contract was verbally agreed. Mendez missed out on his fees and dropped De Gea as a client, but believe what you want to make you feel better.
Click to expand...

Poor Jorge. How will he ever cope. Someone please pass the collection plate to get the poor guy some help

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/20242557/de-gea-sacked-jorge-mendes-man-utd-contract/
 
The conspiracy theorist in me reckons we’ve agreed a deal with De Gea so that when negotiating with Inter/Porto, we can say that we’ve agreed a contract extension with De Gea and won’t be spending stupid money on a keeper. Easy for those clubs to check that with his agent.
 
Its an odd way to present the story to be honest. If the contract was signed then it'd be done and dusted. If it was agreed and they changed their minds when his form fell off a cliff then bad luck but thats not particularly unreasonable. Maybe he wanted to keep his former contract for as long as possible and he could have agreed a new contract earlier. Fair but it backfired.
 
If the contract stuff is true then it's really embarrassing from the club. How do you negotiate like this with a player that has served the club for over 10 years, won numerous POTY awards and saved our asses many times? I know that he's not close to the level that he was in his prime, and that he should leave, but this is a terrible way of handling the issue.
 
It depends what his new contract was. He is on more than double of Alisson and Ederson. If they offered him even 200 and then woke up one day and said What the fk are we doing! Then offered 150 ish i.e in line with Alisson/Ederson etc then thats fair enough. You cant complain if you were on a ridiculous salary thats more than all the top goalkeepers and then play shit and the club offers you a renewed contract
 
Last edited:
If it’s a Ten Hag decision I’m fine with it. We’re trying to move away from giving massive sum contracts to players we need to move on just because of sentiment. It’s the reason we can’t sell players ffs.
 
Cloud7 said:
This is reassuring.

It shows that ETH is very much aware of our issues and is not blind to them, and he is also ruthless enough to be willing to do what is needed.
Click to expand...

I would like to think this is true.

But there's no possible scenario in which United (Arnold, Murtough) sanction a new contract for DDG only for ETH to go: "hey, wait, I don't fancy this guy as my long-term GK" which is reassuring.

It is the very opposite of reassuring. It would indicate that our supposed DOF and ETH are not on the same page, which is very worrying.
 
UpWithRivers said:
It depends what his new contract was. He is on more than double of Alisson and Ederson. If they offered him even 200 and then woke up one day and said What the fk are we doing! Then offered 150 ish i.e in line with Alisson/Ederson etc then thats fair enough. You cant complain if you were on a ridiculous salary thats more than all the top goalkeepers and then play shot and the club offers you a renewed contract
Click to expand...
If he was going to be No 1, but if he wasnt going to be No 1 then you cant have a backup goalie on 150k a week. The contract length as well. If it was for more than 12 months then there is an issue there with paying a backup big money for seasons.
 
Alvaro Maestre said:
Tells a story to any future player on how we treat our legends
Click to expand...
Alvaro Maestre said:
Tells a story to any future player on how we treat our legends
Click to expand...
This sentimentally bollocks needs to stop. De Gea has cost the club 100 million in wages over the last 5 years. He's a very rich man, while being very average at best for the club. We went out of 2 cup competitions because of de gea this year, and it's about time heads roll for poor performances.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
I would like to think this is true.

But there's no possible scenario in which United (Arnold, Murtough) sanction a new contract for DDG only for ETH to go: "hey, wait, I don't fancy this guy as my long-term GK" which is reassuring.

It is the very opposite of reassuring. It would indicate that our supposed DOF and ETH are not on the same page, which is very worrying.
Click to expand...

I actually think, given the overwhelming amount of evidence over the years as to how incompetent we are on an operational level, that that is EXACTLY what happened. Arnold/Murtough were probably thinking "of course we extend De Gea, he's been great for us blah blah blah" without really bothering to confirm with Ten Hag like they might on more fringe players. And then Erik found out and nixed the entire thing as he knew De Gea wasn't good anymore and a new keeper was vital, but the club had already offered the deal. Thus you get this weird limbo we have now where he hasn't been outright released, but sort of has a contract (?), but also doesn't have the backing of the manager.

It's a bizarre situation, and one only we could truly feck up.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
I would like to think this is true.

But there's no possible scenario in which United (Arnold, Murtough) sanction a new contract for DDG only for ETH to go: "hey, wait, I don't fancy this guy as my long-term GK" which is reassuring.

It is the very opposite of reassuring. It would indicate that our supposed DOF and ETH are not on the same page, which is very worrying.
Click to expand...

I mean, to be worried about that you would have to be on the line of thinking that Arnold and Murtough are good at what they're doing, which I am yet to be convinced of and I am almost sure whenever our new owner comes in they're both going to be canned. I can very much see them thinking DDG isn't a problem and he should be renewed, for ETH to then say no he shouldn't be.
 
From what's been reported so far. EtH didn't quite realise how bad De Gea was on the ball and we as a team were doing well up until around January and the keeper wasn't seen as a priority to upgrade. So extending De Gea as the #1 was seen as the normal thing to do with everything going well.

But the issues were about to be exposed away from home where we still had to play Liverpool, Arsenal, Brighton, Newcastle and a Cup final against City where our inadequacies in the build up got exposed further. Then ten Hag realised that he needed a new #1 GK. And then De Gea's contract had to reflect his status as the #2 keeper hence the club asked him to take another significant pay cut. I don't see a issue with that and unlike in previous years, the club didn't rush to sign off on a extension. They waited and that was a good move imo.
 
Adnan said:
From what's been reported so far. EtH didn't quite realise how bad De Gea was on the ball and we as a team were doing well up until around January and the keeper wasn't seen as a priority to upgrade. So extending De Gea as the #1 was seen as the normal thing to do with everything going well.

But the issues were about to be exposed away from home where we still had to play Liverpool, Arsenal, Brighton, Newcastle and a Cup final against City where our inadequacies in the build up got exposed further. Then ten Hag realised that he needed a new #1 GK. And then De Gea's contract had to reflect his status as the #2 keeper hence the club asked him to take another significant pay cut. I don't see a issue with that and unlike in previous years, the club didn't rush to sign off on a extension. They waited and that was a good move imo.
Click to expand...
I think it's more likely we never intended to re-sign De Gea. We just pretended to be interested to keep him motivated to play well until the end of the season. (I know it didn't work but....)
 
I know everyone loves to assume the worst in our directors but to my mind it's overwhelmingly likely that Ten Hag was told that the budget is going to be tight this summer due to FFP restrictions, and Ten Hag initially opted to stick with De Gea to prioritise other positions. His contract would've been negotiated accordingly.

In the intervening period, De Gea's performance levels (which let's face it were pretty crap towards the end of the season) and possibly also the fact that our top striker targets (Kane and Osimhen) have probably at once opened up more of the budget for the goalkeeper position and strengthened Ten Hag's conviction that another one is necessary. The board would then have adjusted their offer to reflect that.

It's not necessarily very nice to dick any of your players around like this but I don't necessarily think it demonstrates quite the incompetence that some are making out on here.
 
I think its great news that Ten Hag is being ruthless. we can't just keep De Gea because of what he's done in the past, he's not good enough any more it's time to move on
 
My guess is the club told ten hag he had limited funds, he thought he could get Kane or osimhen at first and was prepared to delay keeper for a bit, but then de Gea bottled many big moments and combined with us not being able to spend big meant ten hag didn't want him to be #1 at all anymore.
 
Belisarius said:
I think it's more likely we never intended to re-sign De Gea. We just pretended to be interested to keep him motivated to play well until the end of the season. (I know it didn't work but....)
Click to expand...
It's been reported since last year about De Gea being close to signing a extension. And with each passing month i'd say 'where's the extension', and then another report would come out telling us it's close now.

And about a month ago I said don't be surprised if we release him, which some people disagreed with due to the reports. And that is probably going to happen.
 
K Stand Knut said:
Am I allowed to call BS on this ‘exclusive’??

I fail to believe that all parties are not present together when these things are signed. Surely for something this big, we don’t send them out and have them signed individually with one party signing the document after the other, possibly not even on the same day.

Could this be DDG and his camp leaking something to make the club look bad when he signs for someone else but can claim that he really wanted to stay?
Click to expand...
Do you think they all get together in a big boardroom to do it? I’d say it would be remarkably normal for contracts to be sent to the players solicitor for signing and then returned to the club for them to do their part and register the player.
 
Ten Hag being behind it is more of a reason Dave should leave. We shouldn’t be renegotiating the offer. Look for a new keeper.
 
Idxomer said:
Ten Hag's mistake is that he thought he could change De Gea's as a keeper. He got him to sweep much more last season but sweeping wasn't his only flaw and the improvement wasn't that big.

I agree that Ten Hag should've realized before he needed a new number 1. He probably didn't expect that De Gea would let him down like that in those games you mentioned. We also don't know how much he's hampered by the club here and the budget.
Click to expand...
I guess it's a case of better late than never.
It's possible those above him and Eth are on different pages which is another issue itself.

I'd like to think we are doing better now (but we have over spent on Anthony and Martinez when we didn't need to imo,given how late we kept things)
And this ddg contract issue is another thing. We should have had a replacement keeper lined up, and a handshake to ddg with us not renewing. Let him be free to explore his options. Look to sell Henderson for 30, use that plus a bit more on a solid keeper who fits Eth style, get the striker sorted too, and possibly get another aged possibly free keeper (mold of Heaton, etc) as the backup and the third choice being youth
 
acnumber9 said:
Do you think they all get together in a big boardroom to do it? I’d say it would be remarkably normal for contracts to be sent to the players solicitor for signing and then returned to the club for them to do their part and register the player.
Click to expand...
I remember when they used to do the signing on the pitch!
 
TheGodsInRed said:
I couldn't care less about Mendez. Just saying De Gea isn't some saint that's only playing for his love of United. They had Woodward over a barrel and thanks to his incompetence, milked the club for years.
Click to expand...

How is that De gea's fault? He was doing his job better than everyone else at the club, was he supposed to take less just to spare billionaires a few million quid? Laughable take. Keep spewing more made up shit though.
 
De Gea signed contract. Ten hag decided he definitely wasn’t going to be first choice, explained to de gea and asked him if he still wanted the club to sign the contract, De Gea said no. Seems reasonable behaviour to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.