Well done, way to totally miss the point.
David De Gea | Free agent | Said his goodbyes
- Thread starter roonster09
- Start date
- Status
Have no sympathy for him considering he pulled the same shite by agreeing a contract and then asking for more at his last renewal
What goes around comes around
What goes around comes around
A slow drift into nothingness with regards to his contract is also a summation of his time with us, specifically the last 5 years.
A contract is only a contract when both parties have agreed to the contract, and in this contract that means with signatures affixed to a document.
Putting aside the shiteness or greatness of De Gea, what's curious about this situation is -- and we're all going off media reports and nothing else -- is that the club made an offer to the player and that the player accepted the offer. An offer is only an offer, at least in this context, when it is in writing and even then only when a signature is affixed to the document which contains the elements of the offer. If it's just a term sheet without a signature, it's not an offer. It's just a term sheet. A term sheet only becomes an offer when a signature is affixed to it. This happens in life millions of times every day.
If the offereror (the party who submitted the offer) submits an offer (which only becomes an actually offer once the offeror signs the offer), the moment the offeree (De Gea in this case) signs the offer, the offeror is a party to a valid contract and is bound by the terms of the contract.
If it is actually the case that United did not first sign the proposed contract that it expected De Gea I just don't have the words to describe the shittiness of playing that game, but De Gea can't complain as his lawyers must have known that it was not a genuine offer since it wasn't signed. And if it is the case that the appropriate United executive did sign the offer but then after De Gea signed somehow rescinded their offer, the shittiness quotient is through the roof.
It's one thing for a drug dealer on the street to pull back their offer for the price of an ounce of crack and jack it up, but this is Manchester United we're talking about. You wouldn't even do this kind of thing to a youth player, let alone to a player who's been with the club over a decade.
The truth must be that United never made a firm offer to Dave and that there was never an actual document presented to him for his signature.
That we presented him an offer with our signature and he signed (and then we pulled the offer) is unlikely just for the fact that he could take us to court in this case to force to honor the contract or pay compensation.
Regarding an “offer” without our signature as far as I understand it is DDG’s camp word vs United word - as his camp says that there was a formal offer that he signed (and we did not) and we dispute that and just say that there are ongoing contract negotiations.
I think it is more likely that either there was just a draft contract distributed without signatures to which DDG agreed verbally but then we decided not to proceed, or maybe just a verbal agreement on terms without the contract and we decided not to proceed. In both cases we would have a full right to do so.
But in my view we should not be offering him a new deal at all (same as Pogba last year). Unfortunately this trend of being averse to making a definitive decision on letting someone go still continues.
Awfully melodramatic and fabricated. Our last premier league winner, fa cup, League cup , Europa league, golden glove and some genuinely exceptional seasons during the worst ten years of Manchester United since the 80s.
He sees out his contract and moves on heads high.
Did that really happen?
A poor man's Roy Carroll at his best according to these comedians.
Good explanation and very plausible. Possibly everyone is talking about a term sheet rather than a formal offer. And possibly Dave (eventually) agreed to the terms (possibly in writing) and then, possibly, the formal offer was delayed due to the change of personnel in United’s office and subsequently was not issued; instead, Dave was sent a new term sheet.
I never used the word “possibly” so much in my whole life. But it’s plausible and, if approximating the truth, it’s a little on the shitty side. Either way, the main error on the club’s side was issuing Dave with the first, more-generous, term sheet, imo.
We want the world record for the best paid reserve goalkeeper as part of our Brewster’s Millions-style approach to our wage bill.
Oddly enough, could see De Gea going to Inter if Onana leaves.
Nah, he is off to Spain, his missus wanted him back to Spain for quite a while.
More likely it's the press trying to generate column inches in their reports. It's completely obvious to everyone that he is toast.
If he had an offer over 200k/week from anywhere else he would have taken in by now. Given his age and drop off in form i wouldn't be surprised if he ends up somewhere being paid less than 100. Would a CL side in spain take him on more?
Thanks!fair play to you. you are an absolutely top, top, top red and i bow down before you
Seriously, I do believe that the wretched stewardship of the club by the Glazers has (maybe inevitably) led to a conspiracy-obsessed fanbase for whom the club can never do anything right.
As far as I’m aware, they have said absolutely nothing about De Gea’s situation. A few journalists have “reported” some unattributed stuff that might be viewed as putting the club in a bad light and loads on here gleefully leap in with “joke of a club” comments.
Weirdly, an equal number of posters have taken it upon themselves to don the Top Red mantle in response to mild cricicism of the club by Henderson.
My take on De Gea is that he was world class for many years but hasn’t been great since 2018. And I’m sufficiently un-Top Red to believe that it’s bonkers to blame him for the ridiculous salary Woodward gave him. I also believe him that much of his decline began with sacking Franz Hoek and appointing Jose in 2016. Is that critical enough of the club for you?
It does seem most likely that terms of an agreement were proposed to Dave, that he took his time in considering whether to say yes or no, then when he said yes the terms were withdrawn…orally.
Do we know the original source of the claim that Dave “signed” the contract offer the club presented to him, which was immediately rescinded by the club once Dave signed it?
Yeah.
I didn’t know he, allegedly, had signed something until someone in this thread stated it as a fact, without mentioning the source. But in the end it’s something of an irrelevance whether he signed it or not, I’m thinking.
Maybe it’s just me but Dave never looks particularly happy. Does Manchester feel like a happy home to him? If not, he probably sells himself to the highest bidder and heads back to Spain in a couple of years.
I don't see a single CL side anywhere signing him unless it was for dirt cheap.
So till late April, we had no contract signed. I doubt anything changed on that front beyond the verbal agreement.
The club changing their offer isn't great but nothing was signed. He can take some of the blame for that considering the club had been in negotiations with him for months before that.
Was listening to The Athletic's United podcast earlier and while Andy Mitten said he heard it was verbally agreed but not actually signed, Whitwell said they were "absolutely sure" when they wrote the story that De Gea had actually signed something and they had continued to hear this from people up until the night before whenever they were recording the podcast.
Not that it really matters too much. Nobody is arguing that United did anything wrong legally and nobody is disputing that they agreed a contract with De Gea and then rescinded the offer.
Not that it really matters too much. Nobody is arguing that United did anything wrong legally and nobody is disputing that they agreed a contract with De Gea and then rescinded the offer.
Oh look at that, the club isn't just to blame..
Exactly. It is similar to Ronaldo situation. People suggesting that the likes of Inter or Athletico might be interested in having him as first choice are living in 2018.
I would be surprised if he gets much better offers than lower table Spanish clubs for 5-10% of his United salary or Saudi Arabia.
You never know of course - but these days there is hardly anty CL club in decent European leagues that would throw money at an obviously declining player purely based on past reputation and not looking at the stats etc. We were one of the last to do so (hopefully not anymore).
FA cup final might have been the last straw. Garnacho was electric when he came on (and so close to getting the equalizer) that it wasn't inconceivable we might have snatched the game had we done better with that second goal and with our build up play from the back.
Everything is merely alleged when it comes to the UK so I'm having a hard time believing that Dave would have "signed" anything that wasn't signed already by the offeror, the club itself. That just isn't done. And if it is the case that the offer was signed by the club, then Dave signed it, then then the club purported to rescind the contract it had already signed, that's not only shitty business but a breach of contract that was lawfully entered into. What saves the club from a potential breach of contract lawsuit is that it knows Dave is not going to file a breach of contract lawsuit while he's seeking employment by the club.
Still, this is no way to conduct business.
The club wants to keep all options open, which is reasonable. However, if the decision had been internally to not renew the contract under new terms club management should have advised Dave that they thank him for his services but that his services are no longer required. And if they do want to keep Dave after all this drama then complete the paperwork and tell Onana thanks but no thanks. Or, if they want to keep Dave AND bring in Onana (which would be daft, but maybe not) then complete the paperwork with Dave and do the deal with Onana. But treating Dave in the manner that the UK media have characterized the current state of the situation is appalling.
The whole truth of it is sketchy imo. Either way, I wouldn’t say I’m appalled. I’m pretty sure players and clubs alike, the world over, change their minds and decide not ratify a verbal agreement from time to time.
As for what the club should do, I’m fine with signing a better keeper than Dave (who wouldn’t be?) and I’m fine with Dave sticking around to compete with the new guy. Dave is free, he can listen to offers and can accept whatever he likes. Good for him.
His legacy of keeping us as a quarter finalist and top 4 challenger for the last 10 years.
Does he get a testimonial?
But if was an actual contractual offer, and not merely two lawyers haggling over terms, that was rescinded once accepted, that really is appalling. In whatever line of business, you do not do that. Offers that are not signed are withdrawn everyday, but offers that area accepted are done deals.
What does happen all the time is that an offer can be drafted with a contingency clause. United could have presented an offer, and maybe it did, that stipulated that the offer is only binding if signed before a certain date. Basically a sign it now or feck you clause. But the media haven't reported that. What they've reported is that Dave signed an offer that was still a valid offer and that after he signed it the club decided it was no longer interested in the deal that it offered. If that's not appalling, that's at least highly unethical.
No clue why anything would still be 'up in the air' at this stage.
It's more than time to turn that page and start a new chapter
Yeah, if that’s what happened it is unethical because, having signed the document; Dave is effectively in limbo - he is committed but the club are not which seems as if it ought to be illegal. Dave’s obligation probably could be voided in court, if the offer / contract wasn’t withdrawn, but unpleasant for him regardless. If this sort of malarkey was unchecked, clubs could routinely offer players favourable terms to get them signed up (dissuade them from joining other clubs) and then withdraw at the last minute, offering a much worse deal.
Still, if United withdrew then Dave is not bound and can do what he likes. I suppose the extent to which this is unethical or immoral depends on how long we kept him on the hook with a one-way commitment. It also depends on the actual facts of the case, which have been subject to contradictory press reports and general speculation.
After reflecting on this a bit, there is a lack of honour and integrity from the club in not standing by their offer. But I don’t have that much sympathy for Dave, really, because it sounds like he played hardball when a little more humility was appropriate. And I don’t see that he is in a worse position now than if no offer had been made at all.
He’s been highly paid and and has done his best. His time as no1 at United is over; all good things come to an end. All said and done, it’s a bit of a mess but it’s not a big deal.
The reason the club has had some 'messy' departures is that Woodward handed out stupid contracts to mediocre players who are genuinely surprised to find that no one is willing to match their previous wages. See also: Lingard, Pogba.
We'll keep him if we can't sign Onana. It seems Onana's availability triggered the process of replacing De Gea.
Who gets testimonials these days? Players are loaded
Unless its charity based, no point.
That’s clearly not the issue with DDG though. He’s out of contract and the club is under no obligation to extend or find another club willing to pay him ridiculous wages. That’s what makes the whole DDG situation uniquely stupid, even for United.
We're close to signing Onana. Doesn't seem like anything is up in the air as far as Ten Hag is concerned. He knows what he wants
- Status