Dean Henderson | On loan at Forest | gives public outburst against United

Status
Not open for further replies.
devilish said:
Then sell him for 20-30m and we subsidize part of his salary. Alternatively we loan him with no option to buy. This deal is terrible and puts all risks on us. We're paying half his salary which allows Forest to sign a very valid keeper for a salary of 50k a week. If Henderson does well then they will buy him for ridiculous money which would allow them to sell him to somewhere else for a huge profit. Meanwhile if he fails then they'll send him back with his reputation in tatters just as Sevilla did with Martial.
Click to expand...
There's absolutely no positive about this deal. Very shocking and frustrating
 
jamesjimmybyrondean said:
There's absolutely no positive about this deal. Very shocking and frustrating
Click to expand...

DDG is 31 and is hardly the type of keeper ETH likes. Now imagine a scenario were we're looking to get rid of DDG next year and where Henderson does well. Forest buys him for 20m and ask us for 50m to have him back. We would look like proper idiots. There again after letting Pogba go for free TWICE then that's hardly surprising.
 
devilish said:
Then sell him for 20-30m and we subsidize part of his salary. Alternatively we loan him with no option to buy. This deal is terrible and puts all risks on us. We're paying half his salary which allows Forest to sign a very valid keeper for a salary of 50k a week. If Henderson does well then they will buy him for ridiculous money which would allow them to sell him to somewhere else for a huge profit. Meanwhile if he fails then they'll send him back with his reputation in tatters just as Sevilla did with Martial.
Click to expand...
£20-30m to who? Nobody is that desperate for a keeper, particularly one that has been on the bench for 2 years.
 
RedRover said:
Spot on. Forrest win whatever here. If he has a great season they buy him for £20 million and shift him on. if not, they send him back and United are lumbered with him on massive wages.
Click to expand...
What if he's just decent, not good enough for us but we either get £20m from Forest or £20m (or less) from someone else next season? It's not as simple as assuming he going to be brilliant or terrible.
 
devilish said:
DDG is 31 and is hardly the type of keeper ETH likes. Now imagine a scenario were we're looking to get rid of DDG next year and where Henderson does well. Forest buys him for 20m and ask us for 50m to have him back. We would look like proper idiots. There again after letting Pogba go for free TWICE then that's hardly surprising.
Click to expand...

We can pretty safely predict that won't happen because Henderson isn't good enough to warrant a 50m outlay to bring him back as our first choice to be Manchester United's next #1. If/when the time comes to replace De Gea, there will be other better options out there we can target.

Henderson got his shot here a couple of seasons ago because he was already a United player and De Gea was poor. Had Henderson not been a United player, we certainly wouldn't have been looking to install him as United #1 after one good season at Sheffield United. Once we sell him he loses the key aspect of his appeal, which was that he was already a Manchester United player.
 
I don’t think Henderson’s that good. I can see him having a Ben Foster-like career. Reliable PL keeper for the mid to lower PL teams but not quite good enough for the top tier.
 
From the geniuses that brought us Pereira to Lazio on loan with a €30million buy option, comes another dumb deal.

We genuinely could be the worst club in the world when it comes to selling players.
 
Forest are laughing. He plays a part in keeping them up as well as getting back in contention for England and his value shoots up.
 
Classic United, loan him, pay a load of his wages without even an obligation to buy, only an option for about £20million. Yet City sell one of their young keepers for £15mill.

This will keep happening until we actually bring young players and fringe players through on normal wages. Woody's legacy lives on
 
BarstoolProphet said:
On the surface that deal looks horrible for us, but maybe something has been going on behind the scenes that makes the club pretty desperate to get rid of Henderson? After all, there has been strong rumours that he is one of the main culprits behind the negative leaks these past two seasons.
Click to expand...

I've heard unsubstantiated rumours that he is a bit of a pr*ck so this move doesn't actually surprise me that much. I'm all for the club clearing house if there are negative influences within the squad - but don't fanny about and loan the guy. Sell him and move on.
 
littlepeasoup said:
I've heard unsubstantiated rumours that he is a bit of a pr*ck so this move doesn't actually surprise me that much. I'm all for the club clearing house if there are negative influences within the squad - but don't fanny about and loan the guy. Sell him and move on.
Click to expand...
He might be one of the leaks also
 
Idxomer said:
Ed Woodward's mismanagement will haunt this club for years.
Click to expand...

So true. We are terrible at selling players due to their inflated wages.

Bazunu is going to Southampton from CIty for 12m + addons and we are only able to manage a loan for Henderson.
 
sullydnl said:
We can pretty safely predict that won't happen because Henderson isn't good enough to warrant a 50m outlay to bring him back as our first choice to be Manchester United's next #1. If/when the time comes to replace De Gea, there will be other better options out there we can target.

Henderson got his shot here a couple of seasons ago because he was already a United player and De Gea was poor. Had Henderson not been a United player, we certainly wouldn't have been looking to install him as United #1 after one good season at Sheffield United. Once we sell him he loses the key aspect of his appeal, which was that he was already a Manchester United player.
Click to expand...

Well I wouldn't be that sure. If Henderson does well then his price will go up significantly. Ramsdale was meah at Sheffield United. He was sold to Arsenal for 30m. Add our sentimentality, the United tax and our inability to spot promising talent outside the UK and I can see that happening.
 
Why selling clubs accept this optional future fee bs where all power and zero risk is at buying club? Even that future fee buying club can lower next year.
Why not insist on clauses which will trigger fee? 20 games and you must buy him. Or something like that
 
Leftback99 said:
What if he's just decent, not good enough for us but we either get £20m from Forest or £20m (or less) from someone else next season? It's not as simple as assuming he going to be brilliant or terrible.
Click to expand...

The club won't get £20 million for him though will it - they're paying some of his wages, and will also have to bring someone else in to replace him as number 2 this year.

Also - if he's "decent" (whatever that means) who's going to pay £20 million for him? How many PL clubs don't have decent keepers already?
 
Lash said:
Little proof in that.
Click to expand...

One is playing regularly for a top 6 side and is traveling for England. The other is a reserve linked with a loan move to a newly promoted side. If he was better and cheaper he would have an ocean of clubs calling. He don't
 
RedRover said:
The club won't get £20 million for him though will it - they're paying some of his wages, and will also have to bring someone else in to replace him as number 2 this year.

Also - if he's "decent" (whatever that means) who's going to pay £20 million for him? How many PL clubs don't have decent keepers already?
Click to expand...
If Forest are happy with him and he establishes himself as a solid PL keeper (and they stay up) then they'll pay it. Otherwise someone else might.

The fact that PL clubs already have decent keepers like you say is exactly why we can't find a buyer for him. He's nothing special.

Sitting on our bench for £100k a week helps no one.
 
Andersonson said:
One is playing regularly for a top 6 side and is traveling for England. The other is a reserve linked with a loan move to a newly promoted side. If he was better and cheaper he would have an ocean of clubs calling. He don't
Click to expand...
VDS played for Fulham, one of the best keepers we've ever had. Statistically, Ramsdale is actually pretty crap and massively overhyped. I think if you even compare Hendo at Sheffield, vs Ramsdale, he also comes out on top. Just because Arsenal bought him, it isn't an indication of quality.

https://fbref.com/tiny/c2aUV - for reference,
 
I was hoping we’d raise funds with his sale. I think we will do well to sell anyone mind. No one can afford the stupid wages. It is worrying if the reports are true about needing sales to fund a forward etc

Unfortunately it will probably be spun that the players who don’t go on loan again will be like new players getting a fresh start under a new manager, so will negate the lack of new players coming in.

Time will tell I guess.
 
I can't believe what I'm reading with this. What on earth do we gain out of it? We loan them a keeper for a year and still have to pay some of his wages, and at the end of it they get to buy him for a very cheap price if they feel like it?

We'd be irresponsible not to get in a 2nd choice keeper this summer if we let him go. So it just adds to our shopping list and we've raised no funds in the process.
 
mikeyt said:
Classic United, loan him, pay a load of his wages without even an obligation to buy, only an option for about £20million. Yet City sell one of their young keepers for £15mill.

This will keep happening until we actually bring young players and fringe players through on normal wages. Woody's legacy lives on
Click to expand...
He is on very very high wages. Even 50k/week is very high for him for clubs outside of top 6.
 
So we are the one who are refusing to sell him? We have serious issues in cutting ties with academy player
 
mikeyt said:
Classic United, loan him, pay a load of his wages without even an obligation to buy, only an option for about £20million. Yet City sell one of their young keepers for £15mill.

This will keep happening until we actually bring young players and fringe players through on normal wages. Woody's legacy lives on
Click to expand...
This isn't simply Woodward. The wages are a problem but if we're serious about moving him we can surely find a buyer willing to pay enough of a fee that could be redirected towards subsidizing those wages. We could easily break even and still profit. With this forest deal I'm sure the club is aware how unlikely Forest will activate that 20m option. If I'm to guess I'll say someone still thinks he can be a United starting keeper and doesn't want to outright sell him yet.
 
Before everyone starts dumping on United, let's just take a step back. Romano's tweet is only about Sheffield Utd's opening bid.

There's nothing in there about United accepting. At this point, this story is no more real than Newcastle signing him for £40m.

 
Whoever thought £100k a week for a sub goalkeeper was a good idea needs to be tarred and feathered.
 
redcucumber said:
Whoever thought £100k a week for a sub goalkeeper was a good idea needs to be tarred and feathered.
Click to expand...
£100k a week is not a problem for a club like Man Utd with its resource. It is just hard to move him on while he is under contract. Even Saka doesn't earn that much being a starter for Arsenal.
 
ThierryHenry14 said:
£100k a week is not a problem for a club like Man Utd with its resource. It is just hard to move him on while he is under contract. Even Saka doesn't earn that much being a starter for Arsenal.
Click to expand...

Whether it was affordable or not. The wage given was ridiculous, like most decisions this club has made over the past decade.
 
ThierryHenry14 said:
£100k a week is not a problem for a club like Man Utd with its resource. It is just hard to move him on while he is under contract. Even Saka doesn't earn that much being a starter for Arsenal.
Click to expand...
We aren't an oil club. We really can't afford to be paying fringe players so much money if we are to be a sustainable and successful elite side. By not being able to move Henderson on due to his exorbitant wages, that's upwards of £30m we lose out on that should be reinvested in the team. It's a nightmare and the consequence of having the likes of Woodward in charge for so long.
 
I'm going to be generous and assume even our staff aren't stupid enough to accept an offer that gives another PL club the option to buy our goalkeeper for a relatively cheap fee of £20m if he does well, the option not to pay it if he doesn't perform well while reducing his transfer value due to having 1 less year on his existing contract and potentially underperforming during his time there, all while paying a percentage of his wage while he is being loaned there, and blocking the possible continuation of probably our only successful loan over the last 2 seasons. At worst I am hoping they will either remove any buy option or enforce an obligation to buy regardless of whether or not Forest stay up even if we have to contribute a % to the wage during the loan. Accepting the offer that is being reported would be absolute madness.
 
Dante said:
Before everyone starts dumping on United, let's just take a step back. Romano's tweet is only about Sheffield Utd's opening bid.

There's nothing in there about United accepting. At this point, this story is no more real than Newcastle signing him for £40m.

Click to expand...



You missed this part
 
redcucumber said:
We aren't an oil club. We really can't afford to be paying fringe players so much money if we are to be a sustainable and successful elite side. By not being able to move Henderson on due to his exorbitant wages, that's upwards of £30m we lose out on that should be reinvested in the team. It's a nightmare and the consequence of having the likes of Woodward in charge for so long.
Click to expand...
People dont seem to understand the days of profligate p*ssing money up the wall are over whether on fees, salaries are agents. Woodward has emptied the cookie jar and Glazers have no interest in filling it up again. A necessary but also painful reset. Of coure with proper owners and without half a billion of debt we would have more money to spend.
 
Leftback99 said:
If Forest are happy with him and he establishes himself as a solid PL keeper (and they stay up) then they'll pay it. Otherwise someone else might.

The fact that PL clubs already have decent keepers like you say is exactly why we can't find a buyer for him. He's nothing special.

Sitting on our bench for £100k a week helps no one.
Click to expand...

Giving a player only good enough to sit on the bench £100k a week helps no one and that's the point. On the same day City sell a player who has made no first team appearances (and spent last season in League 1) to a PL club for £12 million plus add ons, the contrast between us and other PL clubs is stark.

It's no wonder we can't get rid of deadwood when they're sitting on contracts of a lifetime.
 
I was among the very few here who wanted him sold when Chelsea made that offer for him. It simply didn’t make sense to waste him when were awarding Degea a new contract. But this is what United has become, a graveyard of quality players.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.