It’s not £200k a week though is it? Have any of you bothered to read the article? The £200k a week deal was the deal we pulled in favour for a lower one that’s more in line with a second choice keeper.
1
Season Average Rating
- Appearances
- 58
- Clean sheets
- 25
- Goals
- 0
- Assists
- 0
- Yellow cards
- 2
- Status
And people on here want him to stay. His own team mates are tired of him costing the but he deserves a new contract because feelings might get hurt otherwise.Has anyone bothered to think about how many people it would upset if he was our first choice next season or do you only care about Dave?
Insulting another member
Has anyone bothered to think about how many people it would upset if he was our first choice next season or do you only care about Dave?
It's a parody account you Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime.
You really believe that? Have a word with yourself.
Has anyone bothered to think about how many people it would upset if he was our first choice next season or do you only care about Dave?
These stats aren‘t representative of the whole picture. Making sense out of gk stats is not straightforward.
Stats like this make Ederson look like shit.
I‘m thinking this, and also the second goal in the FA final.
I'm more curious if the club didn't sign it after De Gea's stretch of bad games (which is the correct decision, executed in a distasteful manner), or if the club didn't sign the contract and came back with a further reduction, leading to De Gea losing his head in those last games. I hope it's the former, because the latter means that City's treble was self-inflicted.
Wouldn’t be surprised if it’s true!
If we take out henderson (cos we're a stupidly run club) the next number 2 gets around 70ishk right? So going from 375k to being offered 200k to them maybe 100k would be something. Even 100k is too much.
Imagine typing that whole embarrassing post only to find out the source of the story was some teenager in his parents house.
How do people spend all their time on the internet but can't check sources? Same goes to whomever posted that nonsense on here in the first place.
Offer sheets are different from contracts and paperwork necessary to register and sign the player.
I think there's a lot of truth, as always, somewhere in the middle and the papers are trashing United because why not, it's generating reaction after reaction.
We're all told that until you and the other side sign on the dotted line, you're free to do whatever. And the timing of this happens to be after the role Matt Hargreaves, now chief negotiator at United from his many years at adidas.
Breaking up is never fun and easy, so why should this be any different? Certain people at United have been ruthless, a bit distasteful it seems like, but the truth is somewhere in the middle.
How about you stop replying to my posts like your De Geas mother and let me enjoy a beer in the sunshine without your constant nagging?
Agreed, £100k is too much but is a massive climb down from £375k a week.
Needs to go we can’t continue hoofing the ball upfield for 90 minutes
It’s that simple
It’s that simple
A scenario I havent heard discussed is, what if we offered the deal in say January. De Gea doesnt sign it until May. The time between the offer and De Gea signing, his performances dropped. Are we not within our rights to change the terms? I dont see how we can off a deal and not honor it unless a lot of time has lapsed some how.
I remember for most of the season heaaring that De Geas contract was on the table and that he wasnt signing it.
I don't disagree with you, but I'm curious to know if we shot ourselves in the foot by messing with De Gea's state of mind when we needed him to stay absolutely focused. He has struggled with that in the last few seasons.
I feel like the tea lady in the canteen comes with the majority of the contracts we hand out.
Could this have been handled better by the club? Sure. We never should have offered him an extension in the first place. But now that we did, I'm happy the club seems to have offered him wages that match his recent performances. He has been stealing a living for years.
Personally, I couldn't care less that we backed down from our initial offer. This is a negotiation. Nothing wrong with adjusting our offer when his performances drop.
Personally, I couldn't care less that we backed down from our initial offer. This is a negotiation. Nothing wrong with adjusting our offer when his performances drop.
Let's stipulate that De Gea is trash and that he stole a living off us for the last decade and that we must get rid of him if we're to have any hope of progressing the ball up the pitch.
Are you really ok a business enterprise making a firm offer to a contractor or employee and then only after the contractor or employee signs the contract offer that the business enterprise offered it or him to withdraw that offer?
Fukkinell what a world we live in if the answer is now yes, that that it is a perfectly respectable business practice.
Had the second party rejected the offer by the first party, the first party is well within its rights to revise the offer -- either up or down -- as happens every minute of every day. But while an offer from the first party is pending and the second party accepts the offer, in writing, it is disgusting business practice for the first party to retract its own offer.
A meaningful distinction could be made if the offer was contingent on external conditions being met and were in fact not met. For example, an offer could and often does include a time clause -- valid for only 7 days or whatever -- and if the second party doesn't accept the offer within that 7 day period of time then the offer has expired and the two parties are essentially starting from scratch. This may well have been the case here -- that United offered an offer that was valid until a certain date and if De Gea signed the offer after that date then the first party has clean hands.
But we neither know that that was the case or not the case, but if is the case that De Gea had before him an offer from the club that met all the conditions set forth in the offer itself -- it must be signed at Old Trafford, for example, and the expiration date of the offer was June 30, and he signed that contract offer, as presented to him, it is shitbaggery in the extreme by the club to retract its offer after it was signed pursuant to the terms that the contract offer specified.
We agreed to reduced terms, but it's all a working document, not a full blown contract. Fewer years, and significantly reduced wages.
David was then playing for a contract and had zero assurances. It's clear everybody knew about the assurances part because it's reduced wages and length. His value literally is lower and is not valued the same, it cannot get any clearer.
Anybody can change the terms until it's impossible not to. Just look at what Chelsea is fecking around about with for Mount.
An new deal was put in place and agreed upon by both parties to proceed to the final stages, but during final review and redlining stages, something changed. The Onana discussions got hot and David's position got weaker by the day. Both parties flinched and now someone has become the hammer (United) and the other the nail (David).
But the only thing we've read is that United totally fecked him. I'm sure that isn't the full story and it's been skewed to put United in a bad light, which has been lapped up.
I think David has been as focused as he could possibly be. He's been here for so long and through so much that his focus in those moments of mistakes are just based on physical mistakes and mistakes from his physical shortcomings or abilities.
I would say that is by far the most likely situation, and it amazes me more people seem to be ignoring it.
From all accounts, we offered him a new contract quite a while ago. De Gea chose not to sign it. That's on him. He rolled the dice and thought he could either force us to offer a higher contract, or he could get a higher contract elsewhere. Instead it seems to have gone the other way but that is the risk he took. By the time he decided (right at the end of the season) to accept that contract, the manager and club were having second thoughts.
It's De Gea's fault he took so long to sign the contract that the club changed their plans. It's also De Gea's fault that his performances dropped off and likely influenced the club to change their plans.
Is it ideal? No. But a lot of people are going overboard with the 'disgusting way to treat a player' stuff.
I'm always taken back to that story of our scouts going to watch a game in Brazil and coming back raving about Andreas, a player who we already knew plenty about it!
Hook, line and sinker.
Has anyone bothered to think about how many people it would upset if he was our first choice next season or do you only care about Dave?
Got me! That's what I get for casually browsing the Caf while in the beer garden.So there is time till the end of tomorrow for extension to be signed, otherwise the contract will end…
If it all does come to an end and he leaves, I do think it will be bad he wasn't given a proper send off at Old Trafford. Regardless of your opinion on whether he should stay or whatever, the guy has won everything but the CL with us, multiple POTY awards and loads more. Will be a shame if he leaves this way and not given a proper goodbye in my opinion.
Yeah definitely agree with this, it would be a shame if he didn’t get a send off he deserves.
Unfortunately not every club legend gets to have the send off they deserve. Beckham was more worthy of a send off but he never got one.
At least De Gea is eligible to come back for a testimonial (if there's no bad blood between him and the club) so there's still an opportunity for him to say goodbye to the fans.
Was just writing the same thing, but about Cantona and Keano. Knowing that a player is leaving before the season ends is the exception. Its nice if you can do it & say goodbye, but its not like something everyone else gets that he is being denied.
Doesn't seem to be a line of clubs waiting to sign him. We know we have to replace him but the funds situation is iffy and a striker will likely prove more costly than we thought.
I could see him signing a 1 + 1 contract even after his deal has expired.
Even if this were true, you'd have to be an absolute cretin to think this was something to be happy about and not something potentially pointing at another round of unrest with the squad...again.
He's actually going isn't he. Surely they won't leave it until the final hours to announce a new contract. I've loved de gea, but a new keeper will change our style drastically I think. Hopefully someone not attached to the goal line and can control his box
I think he's going and I hope to see him get a good send off. Putting aside my thoughts on him as a player, I wish him the best in the future.
It all looks a bit messy but as much as I like De Gea and will genuinely be sad once he leaves, it'll still be a 100% right decision. He's been on a decline since 2018 (five years!) and not being good enough passing wise etc in this era of football isn't something we should be allowing if we have any kind of ambition.
Give De Gea proper send-off, sell Henderson and get a new GK.
Give De Gea proper send-off, sell Henderson and get a new GK.
Hope he gets a chance to say goodbye. So many memorable moments. At times, it seemed he was the only one stopping us from falling off a cliff. So many matches we had no business getting points from.
Horrible stuff, enjoy your ban.
Seems incredible we're just letting him go for free like this, unless we have a new signing pretty much done?
It's probably the right time, he had a strange season of a lot of good saves, but some absolutely woeful clangers. And most importantly we need a modern ball playing keeper.
It's probably the right time, he had a strange season of a lot of good saves, but some absolutely woeful clangers. And most importantly we need a modern ball playing keeper.
A friendly against his new club? Not sure what that would look like, otherwise.
- Status