Maguire | he stays!

Dansk said:
Despite already being unreasonably rich, he chose even more money over dignity and integrity. He makes vastly more money in a week than a typical citizen does in a year. At that point, it's very much appropriate to criticise him for it. If we're talking about someone whose life can be changed by choosing money, it's perfectly understandable. That's not the case for Maguire. Going to West Ham wouldn't reduce the quality of life for him and his family. With the money he has already earned, staying at United means he gets to retire with 10% more wealth than if he had moved elsewhere. 10% more when he's already opulently rich and will never want for anything for the rest of his life, nor will his children.

At the end of the day, a footballer's club and its fans are the reason he's rich. When a player shits on the club and fans that ensured he'll have anything he wants for the rest of his life, just for the sake of getting even more, that justifies calling him out on it. The only sense in which he has a right to do what he's doing is the legal one, because contracts are binding. In every other sense, he's shitting on the hand that feeds him. If he was playing well and an asset to the club, it would be a different matter entirely. When he's dead weight and knows that him staying is a huge burden to the club, directly attributing to its problems, that is absolutely unethical.

He's within his rights to expect some measure of compensation, which has been offered. The club will have offered to buy out his contract at a respectable rate, giving him some portion of the money he would otherwise have earned. It's not even as if he's being asked to go for nothing. He knows that he's dead weight, he knows that staying makes it harder for the club to succeed, but he chooses to do so anyway because he can rake in a little more. He's legally allowed to do it, but that's where the justification ends.

He claims he wants to fight for his place in the team and whatnot, but nobody with any sense should believe that. He has been the worst player on the pitch in nearly any game he has played for over two years and has been informed that he's at the bottom of the hierarchy. All that talk of doing his part and earning his place back is just a cover for the less flattering reality: he'd rather sit on the bench for the rest of his career and make a bit more money, this already insolently rich man, than respect the club and the sport that has given him everything and going where he'll be of some use. English football and its global popularity is the reason his whole family is set up for a life of unimaginable excess and comfort. He should have some respect for that and go to a club where he can at least contribute to the sport that made this life possible for him, instead of being a leech on it.

If he had merely fallen short of expectations here at United, it might be a different matter. He didn't personally dictate those expectations, after all. But the fact is that he has been so unbelievably terrible, such a massive liability and directly contributing factor to this club's problems, that it's simply indecent of him to wash his hands of any responsibility and milk the club for all he can. It's just patently greedy and selfish. In staying, he ensures that we can't sign players we need, and is once more standing in the way of the club's success just so he can further enrich himself when he already has far, far more than anyone has any right to. He does not deserve any sympathy or understanding.
Click to expand...
Look, he's not good enough to play for United plain and simple. But, these financial decisions and putting the clubs decision making on him and blaming him for it is wrong.

He's trying to protect his future income and retirement which is just around the corner. Those financial goals that he and his family set based on the value of this contract won't be met unless the contract is fulfilled. He has every right to every penny that was promised and legally agreed on between club and player.

Also, when did he shit on the club? I'm not aware of anything he's said against the club and painted them in a negative light?
 
Conor said:
That literally constantly happens.
Click to expand...
And you are entitled to tell them to feck off and stay where you are if you have a contract. Nobody can make you leave. Nobody can make you take a lower pay if you have a contract set.
 
bosnian_red said:
And you are entitled to tell them to feck off and stay where you are if you have a contract. Nobody can make you leave. Nobody can make you take a lower pay if you have a contract set.
Click to expand...
Nobody said otherwise.

Maguire is well within his rights to continue to make himself available for training and selection, and collect his paycheck in the process. And the club is equally within its rights to continue to pay him his wages while making him unavailable for first-team selection and encouraging him to find a new club.
 
Big Ben Foster said:
Nobody said otherwise.

Maguire is well within his rights to continue to make himself available for training and selection, and collect his paycheck in the process. And the club is equally within its rights to continue to pay him his wages while making him unavailable for first-team selection and encouraging him to find a new club.
Click to expand...
That helps nobody. It's not a harmful situation if he stays. We'd just ideally like to move him on. He's not a problematic guy though. Just a mediocre footballer.
 
baskinginthesun said:
Look, he's not good enough to play for United plain and simple. But, these financial decisions and putting the clubs decision making on him and blaming him for it is wrong.

He's trying to protect his future income and retirement which is just around the corner. Those financial goals that he and his family set based on the value of this contract won't be met unless the contract is fulfilled. He has every right to every penny that was promised and legally agreed on between club and player.

Also, when did he shit on the club? I'm not aware of anything he's said against the club and painted them in a negative light?
Click to expand...

Yah... Poor Harry. Going over to WH and becoming a pauper and struggling the rest of his life.

Now if he stays he will be getting the usual CL bump-up (+25%) in salary despite contributing feck-all last season.

Poor Harry. He just can't win.
 
RedDevil@84 said:
Where did you get this info from?
Click to expand...
Guardian and other media are reporting the figure of 7m he wanted.
He had 2 years left on the contract so that means the club would pay him 67k per week if he decides to leave.

So the question is 70k to Maguire and sign someone for 120k or continue to give Harry his weekly 190k for two more years on the bench.
I know it sounds stupid to pay someone to leave, but the alternative is worse.

His remaining salary for this contract adds up to over 20m.
So paying him only 7m and getting 30m from WH would actually result in a 43m (fee/wage) package.
There certainly are clubs that can work out something with that budget. Not sure our management can, though....
 
Last edited:
bosnian_red said:
And you are entitled to tell them to feck off and stay where you are if you have a contract. Nobody can make you leave. Nobody can make you take a lower pay if you have a contract set.
Click to expand...
The only thing he's entitled to is his pay, plenty of people a company want out get moved to different offices and different positions. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it's a pretty normal thing to happen.
 
lilcurt said:
Maguire is an absolute gobshite, to think he was captain of the club. No wonder we could never progress.

Ten Hag made a mistake in all this as well by opening the door slightly in the press conference. I do wonder if Eric isn't confident in Murtough and Co being able to bring in his wanted replacement and so is hedging his bets with the devil he knows.
Click to expand...

I think ETH knew that the deal was pretty much dead by the conference.

Maguire doesn't fancy West Ham, wants his money and sees he can play a part with other players getting injuries/rest and making sub appearances, ETH seems to like bringing him on to head away crosses late on.
 
Eugenius said:
Yeah I'm sure you would leave the money on the table in the same position. As someone else mentioned, he's not exactly been on big money his whole career.
Click to expand...
I’ve left jobs to earn less money but have a better role. I’ve quit to work on better projects that are more interesting to me, even though I didn’t make as much. I don’t think that’s a rare thing. Especially if you’re making decent scratch in both jobs.
 
Last edited:
swissgenius said:
Guardian and other media are reporting the figure of 7m he wanted.
He had 2 years left on the contract so that means the club would pay him 67k per week if he decides to leave.

So the question is 70k to Maguire and sign someone for 120k or continue to give Harry his weekly 190k for two more years on the bench.
I know it sounds stupid to pay someone to leave, but the alternative is worse.

His remaining salary for this contract adds up to over 20m.
So paying him only 7m and getting 30m from WH would actually result in a 43m (fee/wage) package.
There certainly are clubs that can work out something with that budget. Not sure our management can, though....
Click to expand...
He just did not want to leave. Sounds like we didn’t want him to leave all that much either. It’s all very shocking but almost certainly true.
 
I saw Goldbridge criticising the club for the deal collapsing, but surely it’s fair if the club didn’t feel it right to pay £7-10m to get him out? Sets a bad precedent, although cutting off nose to spite face somewhat.
 
What's all this about the club.

Maguire said in his statement that he didn't even agree personal terms with West Ham in the first place. He just doesn't want to go, nothing to do with the 'pay off'.
 
Wing Attack Plan R said:
I’ve left jobs to earn less money but have a better role. I’ve quit to work on better projects that are more interesting to me, even though I didn’t make as much. I don’t think that’s a rare thing. Especially if you’re making decent scratch in both jobs.
Click to expand...
Were those lesser paying jobs in the region of 50% less?
 
M Bison said:
I saw Goldbridge criticising the club for the deal collapsing, but surely it’s fair if the club didn’t feel it right to pay £7-10m to get him out? Sets a bad precedent, although cutting off nose to spite face somewhat.
Click to expand...
its the clubs fault, they can pay for their mistakes. Theyve done it to countless players in woodwards era
 
The argument/situation would be different if the new owners were in control.

The idea of the Glazers giving a player 7 million to leave…I can’t see that ever happening.
 
Nicoseth said:
I want him to leave, but this hyperbole is ridiculous. Seriously? Worst ever?
Click to expand...

It's not hyperbole at all, yes worst ever - you have to take into consideration the whole package including the fee vs what was expected of him... So for me, yes worst ever. At least in my lifetime.
 
peridigm said:
That will change. He will be dropped for England soon I would imagine.
Click to expand...

Have you seen who the England manager is?!
He won't be changing his ways and will continue to pretty much pick the same players for every game.
 
lex talionis said:
The “don’t bother showing up to Carrington” approach would work.
Click to expand...

It really wouldn't. It'd just annoy his friends in the squad and cause disharmony.

I don't think he's suitable for the higher line we're trying to play, but he's still an established international footballer who has always given his best for the club. We need to treat him with respect. Getting a reputation for a club that shits on players when they want to move them on, isn't going to help us in the transfer market. Until he leaves, he's still part of the United family, once a red, always a red.
 
Marcelinho87 said:
It's not hyperbole at all, yes worst ever - you have to take into consideration the whole package including the fee vs what was expected of him... So for me, yes worst ever. At least in my lifetime.
Click to expand...
and the fact he was made captain...he certainly wont be remembered fondly
 
Eugenius said:
Yeah I'm sure you would leave the money on the table in the same position. As someone else mentioned, he's not exactly been on big money his whole career.
Click to expand...
Well it’s not just the money on the table though is it. It’s his playing career, England hopes, peaceful life? There should be a evaluation of what’s important and what each is worth. Obviously Money came out on top for him. So yeah totally on him.
 
Marcelinho87 said:
It's not hyperbole at all, yes worst ever - you have to take into consideration the whole package including the fee vs what was expected of him... So for me, yes worst ever. At least in my lifetime.
Click to expand...
It's not hyperbole, we've never had a defender this calamitous. He gets a lot of defence on here. Clubs of other fans think he's a joke.
 
People really still are not getting it are they. We cant sell him for whatever and just get rid. The way FFP works pretty much means we have to sell him for more than 26.6m as far as I understand it. Its not about what future savings or cost he might have to us. He costs us 13.3m per year based on a 6 year amortisation, so selling for less than that in terms of FFP means we have less money to spend. It is not clear what amount Harry wants, there are claims of 7m and 15m, either of which would be unsustainable for us as a club in terms of FFP. Add in that from then on all players would expect the same and you can see why he won't be paid off. It doesnt matter how we save in wages in the future for FFP.
 
swissgenius said:
Guardian and other media are reporting the figure of 7m he wanted.
He had 2 years left on the contract so that means the club would pay him 67k per week if he decides to leave.

So the question is 70k to Maguire and sign someone for 120k or continue to give Harry his weekly 190k for two more years on the bench.
I know it sounds stupid to pay someone to leave, but the alternative is worse.

His remaining salary for this contract adds up to over 20m.
So paying him only 7m and getting 30m from WH would actually result in a 43m (fee/wage) package.
There certainly are clubs that can work out something with that budget. Not sure our management can, though....
Click to expand...
I had the exact same thoughts with regard his contract. I'd pay him off and Tel him to do one.

Send him off how Farca sent Dembele on his way (yes, I'm that petty).
 
Even the Saudis haven't made an offer for him. Wow, speaks volumes.
 
swissgenius said:
Guardian and other media are reporting the figure of 7m he wanted.
He had 2 years left on the contract so that means the club would pay him 67k per week if he decides to leave.

So the question is 70k to Maguire and sign someone for 120k or continue to give Harry his weekly 190k for two more years on the bench.
I know it sounds stupid to pay someone to leave, but the alternative is worse.

His remaining salary for this contract adds up to over 20m.
So paying him only 7m and getting 30m from WH would actually result in a 43m (fee/wage) package.
There certainly are clubs that can work out something with that budget. Not sure our management can, though....
Click to expand...
We would not be able to spend that though, doesn't matter how much we save on future salary under FFP.
 
foolsgold said:
It really wouldn't. It'd just annoy his friends in the squad and cause disharmony.

I don't think he's suitable for the higher line we're trying to play, but he's still an established international footballer who has always given his best for the club. We need to treat him with respect. Getting a reputation for a club that shits on players when they want to move them on, isn't going to help us in the transfer market. Until he leaves, he's still part of the United family, once a red, always a red.
Click to expand...

Truth is, neither one of us know how warmly he has been received by his teammates over the last three seasons. He’s just demanded what is in effect a buy out of his contract otherwise he threatens to sit it out through the end of his contract, which I doubt sits well with his teammates. But we don’t know that.
 
Marcelinho87 said:
It's not hyperbole at all, yes worst ever - you have to take into consideration the whole package including the fee vs what was expected of him... So for me, yes worst ever. At least in my lifetime.
Click to expand...

You cant really compare unless you want to consider the real fees of transfers/wages from 30 years ago and what the same fee then (via inflation) would be like today.

Trevor Francis costs £1million in 1978 or '79... I forget. So how much will he have to cost today?

And then compare that with his performances and expectations.
 
bosnian_red said:
This mentality is embarassing.

The club gave him a contract, he is entitled to it. As Chelsea did to Lukaku. Chelsea don't want to sell him at a loss or a reasonable fee for others but refuse to let him train with the mains, it's disgusting treatment.

How would you like it if your work said feck your contract we want you out even if you didn't want to leave? You have to relocate across the country or to a different country on a lower salary? You'd tell them to feck off and you'd stay.
Click to expand...
If I tried to spike the water at my work I wouldn’t be allowed in the building either. We e literally paid extra money for him not to be in the building .

We arent Denying him money. It’s not a maguire circumstance where he has a place to go and just does t want a pay cut.

We had the permanent move he wanted lined up and HE broke transfer rules by contacting a different team without i firming other parties or seeking permission, and he destroyed the relationship he wanted.

He has been caught in several occasions openly trying to get players to down tools or cause other problems when in the building. This only got worse when he discovered he could face actual penalties for publicly disparaging his parent. club as part of his image and likeness contract agreement.

So, we will honor his contract, but he is NOT welcome near the team. And Chelsea shouldnt feel bad about that at all.
 
bosnian_red said:
This mentality is embarassing.

The club gave him a contract, he is entitled to it. As Chelsea did to Lukaku. Chelsea don't want to sell him at a loss or a reasonable fee for others but refuse to let him train with the mains, it's disgusting treatment.

How would you like it if your work said feck your contract we want you out even if you didn't want to leave? You have to relocate across the country or to a different country on a lower salary? You'd tell them to feck off and you'd stay.
Click to expand...

As usual football fans are embarrassing, if the player does the same thing to force a transfer then he is snake, shit cnut, mercenary and all that, but club can do that as long as the player is not highly rated or wanted by fanbase.

Maguire should be sold, there is no other way for this to end but this isn't a prison or azkaban. If then transfer isn't happening for various reasons then he should be part of the squad with little to no playing time.
 
Bluelion7 said:
If I tried to spike the water at my work I wouldn’t be allowed in the building either. We e literally paid extra money for him not to be in the building .

We arent Denying him money. It’s not a maguire circumstance where he has a place to go and just does t want a pay cut.

We had the permanent move he wanted lined up and HE broke transfer rules by contacting a different team without i firming other parties or seeking permission, and he destroyed the relationship he wanted.

He has been caught in several occasions openly trying to get players to down tools or cause other problems when in the building. This only got worse when he discovered he could face actual penalties for publicly disparaging his parent. club as part of his image and likeness contract agreement.

So, we will honor his contract, but he is NOT welcome near the team. And Chelsea shouldnt feel bad about that at all.
Click to expand...

What a bizarre post. Comparing someone poisoning the water supply at work with a player choosing not to be transferred because it makes him worse off.

And do you have any evidence for the rest of your post?
 
Redcy said:
People really still are not getting it are they. We cant sell him for whatever and just get rid. The way FFP works pretty much means we have to sell him for more than 26.6m as far as I understand it. Its not about what future savings or cost he might have to us. He costs us 13.3m per year based on a 6 year amortisation, so selling for less than that in terms of FFP means we have less money to spend. It is not clear what amount Harry wants, there are claims of 7m and 15m, either of which would be unsustainable for us as a club in terms of FFP. Add in that from then on all players would expect the same and you can see why he won't be paid off. It doesnt matter how we save in wages in the future for FFP.
Click to expand...
The wages do matter though. His wages falling off the books would be roughly 10m in savings this year, partially offsetting the asset write-down.
 
Marcelinho87 said:
Yes, Bailly could have been decent if not for injuries.. Had the odd mental moment but also defended very well at times - ultimately didn't play enough for me to judge him as a first teamer like I am Maguire.
Click to expand...
I have heard it all now
 
You must log in or register to reply here.