Telegraph say £75k fwiw
Lingard signs new £100k 4 year contract (Sky) | Official: Option to extend for a further year
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
- Status
I'm pleased he has signed on but think about £70-80K would be better.
Highest wage bill and 6th best team. But still some people bury their heads in the sand and refuse to see the problem.
Ridiculous wages for a young player who has yet to prove he belongs at Man Utd. He's been ok the last two games though so I hope this is the start of drastic improvement and goals
We are such a poorly run club it's hilarious. From hiring managers who don't fit our needs to giving out stupid contracts. We need a DOF badly.
People say it's not you money, but guess who pays for all the money our club wastes: you. And in return it gives you sadness as yoo watch your favorite team be mediocre. Right now the brand is strong so we have sponsorships, but with our continued failures it will dilute the brand. Financial power is becoming more equally distributed in the PL, sad to see us waste the only advantage we have.
People say it's not you money, but guess who pays for all the money our club wastes: you. And in return it gives you sadness as yoo watch your favorite team be mediocre. Right now the brand is strong so we have sponsorships, but with our continued failures it will dilute the brand. Financial power is becoming more equally distributed in the PL, sad to see us waste the only advantage we have.
Brace yourself for the 'my eyes > stats' brigade
Absolutely.
So it's 75k? What now?
He wouldn't get into Southampton's first team.
No statistics please. Redcafe is determining Lingard's proper level of wages.
Let's all sign a petition to Woodword. Cafe feels humiliated.
Let's all sign a petition to Woodword. Cafe feels humiliated.
So it's 75k? What now?
Sooner we get to £7.50 a week the better
£100,000 a week is a fecking scandal but maybe I'm just used to that being a lot of money? Maybe it's the going rate for squad players now.
Anyway I hope the other reported salary of £75,000 is correct.
Lingard is a decent squad player so I can see why we want him to stay on. He's never going to be a world beater but squads are built on players that can come in and do a job when the first team players are out.
Anyway I hope the other reported salary of £75,000 is correct.
Lingard is a decent squad player so I can see why we want him to stay on. He's never going to be a world beater but squads are built on players that can come in and do a job when the first team players are out.
It's not a good deal, but at the same time it's not something we as fans should care about right now. Lots of players need shipping out the door of this club, and Lingard is not one of them.
Did it not occur to you that it might be exagerrated? That it's less than £100k?
Agree, just not sure he's such a player.... hit and miss for me.
In the past, those 'squad players' where Lee Sharpe, Nicky Butt, Darren Fletcher, Chico, Ole, even David May, etc..... players who COULD and WOULD do a job when needed. Solid 7/10.
Sure the modern game means such players get these wages but concern is players start to come for the wages only..... then if they don't work out, we can't get rid.
Nice of him omitting the definition of a "chance created".
That's reasonable.
He's a good squad player who can have a match winning moments. He not too old at all, and always puts in a shift - for me 75k p/w doesn't seem excessive - indeed it seems like good squad consolidation as long as we bring in new 1st choice midfielders in the summer.
I've got no issue with it. Players who are less involved than him will be on similar.
How does that matter? Even if you take the most liberal definition of chance created (whatever that may be), it still would have applied equally to all players?
On what basis is 75k fine but 100k excessive? why does that extra 25k really matter?
The way people get so annoyed at what the club deem fit to play their players...
You'd think the money was coming out of their own pockets.
You'd think the money was coming out of their own pockets.
So anyone got a problem if it's £75k?
I mean, reading this thread has been a treat with one poster more hysterical than the other.
I mean, reading this thread has been a treat with one poster more hysterical than the other.
The wages are almost irrelevant. Him being on £20K, £50K or £100K a week won't really put a dent in your finances and it's all crazy money anyway.
Is he good enough for where you aspire to be? Do you want him to be part of your side for the next few years?
Is he good enough for where you aspire to be? Do you want him to be part of your side for the next few years?
Agreed.
No pain to my account so I could care less about his salary but him and Rashford are the last things that connect me to the club so I'm glad he's being valued.
These lists are never trustworthy. Noone actually knows the figures, so lists like these are often times compiled from various press reports.
I'm 100% certain this one is not accurate either.
I've seen lists which were so erratic that I am pretty sure they compiled the numbers from press reports varying net and gross figures.
As @Acrobat7 correctly pointed out in the Neymar thread recently, press reports in Spain and Italy routinely use net figures while in Germany and England they are gross figures, so if a journalist doesn't pay attention, there will be mixups. And I think we all know how much attention to detail most internet football 'journalists' pay. This on top of the general unreliability of wage figures floating around.
I would bet that the above list contains such confusion too, as I could well imagine Vidal is on 6.5 NET and not 6.5 gross. That's far, far too little. Similarly with Robben.
No way Robben only earns 7m€ before tax.
I guess he can take Young's spot.
I like him, but this kind of money for an inconsistent player?
The club surely has more money than sense
The club surely has more money than sense
Quite, do you want to sign him, please
On the basis of a fecking 33% increase. If you were to receive an hourly wage , would it not matter for you if you would get 75 or 100 pounds per hour? If you were to employ somebody, wouldn't it matter?
Any statistic is meaningless without a concrete definition.
The way the BBC is reporting it as "could earn him £100k a week" means that the weekly wage is nowhere near that.
I suspect it is in the region of £65-75k basic plus appearance fee, win/goal bonuses and then a yearly increase increment.
If he therefore stays at the club (meaning he is doing well), plays, scores and wins games then he'd deserve the full £100k. It's all relative of course.
I suspect it is in the region of £65-75k basic plus appearance fee, win/goal bonuses and then a yearly increase increment.
If he therefore stays at the club (meaning he is doing well), plays, scores and wins games then he'd deserve the full £100k. It's all relative of course.
We struggled to get rid of Cleverley because of his wages. This is basically the same situation only the wages are even more absurd.
Someone who seems not to know that Fergie never gave Lingard even 1 minute of playing time.
A man's gotta eat.
Especially Jesse.
Especially Jesse.
Football's gone insane, I remember Roy Keane fighting for that figure back in the day.
Now squad players of Lingard's level are commanding figures like that. No wonder football in England is totally fecked up, they are completely spoilt.
Now squad players of Lingard's level are commanding figures like that. No wonder football in England is totally fecked up, they are completely spoilt.
In football 25k is nothing though. Kids coming through with 0 experience get 20k these days.
Statistic isn't meaningless without a definition. It's meaningless if you don't put all data on the same base. So unless you use one definition for lingard and another one for mata and another for pogba mkhi and all, it's meaningful and can be compared
- Status