I agree. The fact that so many players who aren't good enough are sitting there on these fees is exactly the problem. The club is being ran dreadfully from top to bottom.
Dean Henderson | On loan at Forest | gives public outburst against United
- Thread starter Kush
- Start date
- Status
I agree. The fact that so many players who aren't good enough are sitting there on these fees is exactly the problem. The club is being ran dreadfully from top to bottom.
Then we should loan him with no option to buy. If he does well then we sell him for that price or even higher. He might even persuade ETH that he can become DDG's successor thus sparing us the need to replace him. If not, then he'll return in the same way he'd return if he fails to do well with Nottingham Forest. This move puts all the risk on us and all the benefits on Forest. If he does well then they'll buy him for a paltry 20m fee only to keep him/sell him up for a higher profit. If he fails then they'll send him back having spent just 50k a week on salary. We're doing this for a paltry 2.5m-2.6m a year
According to the report we'll be paying half his salary. If he fails then they'll send him back. All we would be sparing is 2.6m.
This. Don't know why our mangagment keeps making decisions against common sense economics
If he does well, why would he go back to Forest? I'm not sure I subscribe to the idea the risk is all on us.
Forest are never going to match his ambitions if he performs well above their level and other clubs will become interested - 20m will no longer be the fee. If he does average, they'll probably buy him and 20m is a good price. If he's turd then we've saved a slither of money, whilst giving him the opportunity to stake his claim as a top prem keeper.
Forest will have the right to buy him up for 20m which will tie both Henderson's and United's hands.
No it doesn't, he doesn't have to agree to a contract
The rumoured option to buy is dogshit.
If he goes there and plays well, which is more than likely, then we’re selling an asset for a poor price.
Henderson just needs games. He’s a better goalkeeper than Aaron Ramsdale and he went for more than that.
If he goes there and plays well, which is more than likely, then we’re selling an asset for a poor price.
Henderson just needs games. He’s a better goalkeeper than Aaron Ramsdale and he went for more than that.
It also doesnt sound plausible to say wages alone are why we cant sell him when even the most modest of fees could be easily put towards buying out his contract and breaking even. 100k is a lot but it's not some monumental difference that cant be covered by securing a fee. Even easier when you consider we wouldn't actually need to buy out the entire 100k/pw amount, instead only the difference between the new one and old one. It is in the long run going to turn out more expensive to have him depreciate somewhere else. He's still going to be on 100k next year so is the plan to continue loaning him every year till 2025? I don't know. It all leads me to the question are we actually trying to sell him or do we want to keep him around to succeed DDG in the long run?
The Serie A is littered by these sort of deals so I know a thing or two about how these work. Usually Nottingham Forest would come to an agreement with both the club and the player. Which means that yes, Henderson would have to agree now, the details of his contract if he was to be kept
100k is alot for a backup keeper but its not really that much anyway. To give some perspective DDG is on 375k a week while Bernard Leno is on 100k a week as well. I don't think that the salary is what is hurting United the most. Its more of the case that Henderson wants to play regular football. Thus in my opinion we should either send him on loan or we should sell him up. This option to buy nonsense is putting most of the risks on us while Forest is getting most of the benefits.
I'd also part ways, not good enough imo but everyone is assuming the club wants to do the same. The deal (assuming true) makes more sense if the club are trying to give him a life line. His value is unlikely to get any higher meanwhile his wage will be the same. If we had given up I'm not sure we'd consider loan offers only halfway through the window, we'd still be aggressively shopping him, in which case I'd assume even a 10m fee would be more than enough to buy out or subsidize the wage difference at his new club. At least I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt it's merely a difference in opinion. I however don't think he's a capable United number 1.
Last edited:
That's not how I understand option to buy, what you're describing sounds like obligation to buy. But if that is the case, then I definitely think it's dumb.
Bernard Leno is a german international and has been Arsenal's first choice goalkeeper for 3 season. He is on the same salary as Dean Henderson. Bernard Leno is available on the market this summer as well and he will be available probably around 20m given he has only 1 year left in his contract.
Please get rid of this clown. Too full of himself and could be one of the leakers in the dressing room.
Then if I'm Forest I say no thanks we'll find someone else. We want rid and have presumably decided he's not good enough.
What if he just performs like a £20m keeper? Why the assumption he'll be brilliant?
Fair enough. I am pretty sure that United can find someone who would want to loan a first team level goalkeeper for a year while we pay half of his salary. It would allow them to invest their limited funds elsewhere.
My point is that there are other no 2s who are paid 100k a week. If we are able to offload Martial then he's on nearly 3 times that salary.
Henderson is 25 years old, he's EPL proven and he's English. 1 good year elsewhere and his price will rise significantly the same when he did well at Sheffield United. So we should send him on loan and then we sell him up when the price is right.
The difference between obligation to buy and option to buy is that in the latter the buyer has the right to decide whether to activate that clause or not.
If 3 managers in a row don't even look at him as a serious candidate for the GK spot and would rather play the crap non-modern keeper in De Gea (according to caf) then maybe, just maybe, he's never been that good to begin with.
So you think Henderson would agree to go to a team that is likely going to get relegated?
He would have no choice. However most of the time he'll be bought and then sold to another club almost immediately
Fair enough, you seem pretty sure of it but it’s not something I ever really thought to be the case. Henderson would be a complete idiot to accept that deal. In fact, unless we agreed to keep subsidising his wages, I don’t understand how this is even being discussed between the clubs.
Put it this way, the best deal we could get out of Henderson now is a loan deal with option to buy. Nothing more nothing less. So we should accept it.
This is much better than putting a 100K/week player on the bench again for 1 year.
If we have another better deal we would have already done that. As it stands, this is the best we could get.
I say go for it. I read somewhere that Henderson was also one of the toxic player in dressing room last season because he wants to leave to get first team football.
If we keep him, the damages could be much more than just monetary.
This is much better than putting a 100K/week player on the bench again for 1 year.
If we have another better deal we would have already done that. As it stands, this is the best we could get.
I say go for it. I read somewhere that Henderson was also one of the toxic player in dressing room last season because he wants to leave to get first team football.
If we keep him, the damages could be much more than just monetary.
Last edited:
Currently Henderson's career is going nowhere. He's been sitting on the bench for the past two years which in football is the equivalent of an eternity. What he'll gain from Forest is regular first team football with all the exposure such a thing will bring while still being paid ridiculously good. As Taibi once said its far easier to look good with small clubs were the action is constant and there's little limelight then with big clubs. With the latter a goalkeeper would probably be out of the loop for 70-80 mins of the game only to be thrown in the deep end in key moments were a mistake would probably cost the club big . Every mistake would be magnified and the goalkeeper will probably get the blame. So there's every chance that Henderson would look better with the likes of Forest then with us (in a similar way to Foster and Taibi)
Now I don't know the exact details of the deal but its very rare for a player in given circumstances to accept a pay cut. Thus, Forest would probably commit themselves that if they activate the option to buy then they'll pay Henderson the salary he's currently on. Would a Championship club be able to provide such salary? If Henderson does well and Forest get relegated then there's a huge possibility for the latter to sell which in turn is a win win situation for both parties.
You hand your #2 GK a SIX year contract worth £120k a week and then get bemused no club is touching him with a barge pole? Pretends to be shocked
If he was on normal wages, we could have cashed out but his wages mean the level of clubs who'd be interested in him would be relying on us subsidizing his wages to make any sort of loan move possible. The club is looking to save £2-3m in salary and I don't blame them. Folks need to realize if we are agreeing on an option clause, it's because our hands are tied, and there's no other serious interest
Years of mismanagement will have cascading effect for few seasons, folks on here were living in cuckoo land when they thought we could raise £70-80m in players sales this season
The wages we pay to our fringe/squad players makes it impossible. And as days tick by, folks are also realizing that we aren't going to bring 5-6 players like many were expecting. Temper your expectations, everyone
If he was on normal wages, we could have cashed out but his wages mean the level of clubs who'd be interested in him would be relying on us subsidizing his wages to make any sort of loan move possible. The club is looking to save £2-3m in salary and I don't blame them. Folks need to realize if we are agreeing on an option clause, it's because our hands are tied, and there's no other serious interest
Years of mismanagement will have cascading effect for few seasons, folks on here were living in cuckoo land when they thought we could raise £70-80m in players sales this season
The wages we pay to our fringe/squad players makes it impossible. And as days tick by, folks are also realizing that we aren't going to bring 5-6 players like many were expecting. Temper your expectations, everyoneOption to buy seems absolutely pointless to me. Get a transfer agreed instead of just taking another year off his contract and reducing his value even more, or keep him as back up.
Yeah we need to raise some funds
Only at our circus would we bang an above average Premier league keeper on a long term 100k a week deal when we already have our first choice on keeper on over 3 times that for years.
Any idea that we'll be able to get a decent fee and his wages off our books are pure fantasy.
Any idea that we'll be able to get a decent fee and his wages off our books are pure fantasy.
Could it be that's the only way Forest would agree to this loan (while no other Club showing interest)? And, if he's doing well, more Clubs are eyeing him and he doesn't need to move to Forest by end of loan?
Mehh.. let's go with angle of a multi billion $ CEO or DOF as being stupid.
Shocking deal.
In this case, Forest would pay up the 20 and then simply sell him to one of those clubs for a swift profit.
It looks like it's Forest asking for the clause, hopefully we can either come to an agreement on a conditional obligation at a good price (e.g. If they stay up), or straight loan.
Sell for guaranteed 20m plus another 8m if they stay up. Add a percentage of any sell on fee.
You think a relegated club would pay £20 million for a GK and heading for the championship?
And if we get no offers? He is one of the highest-earning keepers in the premiership and has hardly played in a year, i don't seem teams banging down the door to give us money for him.
People are going mad at this, but it's pretty clear what we're hoping for...
His stock was at its highest 2 years ago, after a couple of good loan spells. We're hoping that he goes to Forest and does well. Then we can sell him next year. He has plenty of time left on his contract and this will free up his wages. It's really not that much of an issue. Either way, come next summer, we'll get £15-£20m + for an academy product. That's the kind of stuff that people praise Liverpool/Chelsea for.
His stock was at its highest 2 years ago, after a couple of good loan spells. We're hoping that he goes to Forest and does well. Then we can sell him next year. He has plenty of time left on his contract and this will free up his wages. It's really not that much of an issue. Either way, come next summer, we'll get £15-£20m + for an academy product. That's the kind of stuff that people praise Liverpool/Chelsea for.
Not a bad deal
People were going into hysterics about this last week and look at that. It looks like we are in fact not going to be paying any of his wages. People love a meltdown instead of waiting to see what actually happens.
- Status