Marcus Rashford new contract thread | It's officially signed

[jm99]

No one is holding any club ransom. It is just a job.

Its a figure of speech, fecking hell

 

[CloneMC16]

My issue is if other players see this work, what's to stop them running their contract down to a year left then getting an enormous contract so they don't leave on a free? They'll all do it if they know we'll pay

Nothing. For elite players, it's a legitimate strategy. If they're clearly good enough, we'll end up paying what they want. If they're that good, and we refuse to pay, another club will pay them what they want. If what they're asking for is completely unreasonable for their talent level, and they're not one of the best players in our squad, we let them leave.

 

[ThierryHenry14]

Nowadays transfer fee the way I see it is just the cost to obtain a player's service, plus the wage on top of it for the duration of the contract. Don't see it as an investment or any return value from it.

 

[gaffs]

Koulibaly is clearly overpaid, I don't think he should be much higher than Jesus, that's around the level I'd say, maybe 300 at a push, for reference there are only 12 players in the league on 300k and above, koulibaly is leaving and de gears contract has run out so really only 10.

Rashford came with no transfer fee. Jesus was 45mil from City. Spread that 45mil across the length of his contract and it costs Arsenal an additional 175k a week for Jesus. That nets out at 450k a week for Jesus.

There is an argument about half of the players in the league being worth what they are paid. Regardless of who you think is worth what, it is how the market works.

The market dictated what Rashford got and he got it. Same goes for anything in life.

 

[united_99]

But if we show we won't break, even if that means losing a player on a free, players won't play those kinds of games with us. We get bent over a barrel in every negotiation and that really has to change

Nah. Players will still “play those kind of games”. Always. And Rashford is certainly not worth the risk. The club is welcome to try out this strategy/experiment with some less important player if needed.

 

[Gabriel Djemba-Bebe]

My issue is if other players see this work, what's to stop them running their contract down to a year left then getting an enormous contract so they don't leave on a free? They'll all do it if they know we'll pay

Well they would first have to actually perform to Rashford's level in order warrant an enormous new contract. Otherwise they would be let go on a free like several other ex-United players over the past couple of years.

 

[gaffs]

Nowadays transfer fee the way I see it is just the cost to obtain a player's service, plus the wage on top of it for the duration of the contract. Don't see it as an investment or any return value from it.

You bake that into the gross cost for a player. Which is why a player on a free can commands more. Shout out to Zlatan and Mino!

 

[jm99]

Rashford came with no transfer fee. Jesus was 45mil from City. Spread that 45mil across the length of his contract and it costs Arsenal an additional 175k a week for Jesus. That nets out at 450k a week for Jesus.

There is an argument about half of the players in the league being worth what they are paid. Regardless of who you think is worth what, it is how the market works.

The market dictated what Rashford got and he got it. Same goes for anything in life.

But again the market dictated what de gea was worth, was giving him 375k a week for 4 years a good decision. He must be worth it, because we paid it right?

 

[jm99]

Well they would first have to actually perform to Rashford's level in order warrant an enormous new contract. Otherwise they would be let go on a free like several other ex-United players over the past couple of years.

Like de gea?

 

[gaffs]

Btw, just did the same with Martial and his 6 league goals last season amounted to zero league points. So while we certainly wouldn’t be playing with 10 men without anybody, some players’ contributions are more valuable than others’ and would therefore more likely be missed if they weren’t playing.

Agree.

Just shows his useless Martial is.

A traffic cone on the half way line would be more effective. At least it wouldn't be caught offside!

 

[Doracle]

Like de gea?

De Gea was on the decline when we gave him that contract. Is Rashford?

 

[jm99]

De Gea was on the decline when we gave him that contract. Is Rashford?

The point is de gea didn't warrant that enormous contract but he got it anyway

 

[gaffs]

But again the market dictated what de gea was worth, was giving him 375k a week for 4 years a good decision. He must be worth it, because we paid it right?

No, that was wrong because DDG was given way above what other top keepers in the league were given. With Rashford there are comps in the league - Sancho, Sterling, Salah, Grealish - which have dictated market rate.

He was United's best performing player at the time and would have used that fact that Alexis Sanchez was on a massive salary as leverage. Back then, other clubs would have taken him.

Yes, DDH has been overpaid, but at least he has given us good service for the length of the contract.

 

[gaffs]

But if we show we won't break, even if that means losing a player on a free, players won't play those kinds of games with us. We get bent over a barrel in every negotiation and that really has to change

They wont play those game with us. They will just go elsewhere. Glazers take more money. We become Spurs!

 

[Gabriel Djemba-Bebe]

The point is de gea didn't warrant that enormous contract but he got it anyway

I might be wrong, but I think we've learned from the De Gea contract in 2019. Since then, we've let Lingard and Pogba go on a free when it would've been easy to cave to their wage demands. The club acknowledged that those player's overall performances didn't warrant a new bumper contract. Whereas Rashford has clearly earned this new contract and is at an age where he should reach his peak during the next few years.

 

[jm99]

They wont play those game with us. They will just go elsewhere. Glazers take more money. We become Spurs!

Or we sell players if they get to 2 years left and won't renew we shouldn't ever let it get to 1 year, because then they have the leverage, thats how serious clubs operate

 

[jm99]

I might be wrong, but I think we've learned from the De Gea contract in 2019. Since then, we've let Lingard and Pogba go on a free when it would've been easy to cave to their wage demands. The club acknowledged that those player's overall performances didn't warrant a new bumper contract. Whereas Rashford has clearly earned this new contract and is at an age where he should reach his peak during the next few years.

Rashford has earned a new contract and 300k a week as an upper limit would be deserved, 375k isn't, he hasn't been performing at the level of de bruyne

 

[ThierryHenry14]

They wont play those game with us. They will just go elsewhere. Glazers take more money. We become Spurs!

I don't understand what the fuss is about. Both Man Utd and Rashford are happy to extend the contract. Players and their agents are always trying to look for the best financial package for their short career. It is not a game. Clubs do the math and see the cost, return, and risk to retain a player's service.

 

[jm99]

No, that was wrong because DDG was given way above what other top keepers in the league were given. With Rashford there are comps in the league - Sancho, Sterling, Salah, Grealish - which have dictated market rate.

He was United's best performing player at the time and would have used that fact that Alexis Sanchez was on a massive salary as leverage. Back then, other clubs would have taken him.

Yes, DDH has been overpaid, but at least he has given us good service for the length of the contract.

But the other players getting paid 375k are only really de bruyne and haaland (on the books at least). I think sancho as well but he's clearly overpaid. Rsshford is not de bruyne or haaland

 

[jm99]

I don't understand what the fuss is about. Both Man Utd and Rashford are happy to extend the contract. Players and their agents are always trying to look for the best financial package for their short career. It is not a game. Clubs do the math and see the cost, return, and risk to retain a player's service.

Both man united and de gea were happy to extend his contract, so what's the fuss. Acting as if clubs are infallible, particularly given how fecking fallible we've shown ourselves to be over the last decade is ridiculous

 

[ThierryHenry14]

Both man united and de gea were happy to extend his contract, so what's the fuss. Acting as if clubs are infallible, particularly given how fecking fallible we've shown ourselves to be over the last decade is ridiculous

Now you are talking about the risk after contract renewal. There is always a risk. Just like Adebayor and Aubameyang. Arsenal was extremely happy to extend their contracts at the time, but this is a different issue. These 2 players earned their contract at the time as well.

It is a job market. If Man utd doesn't want to pay the market rate, then players and their agents will try their luck in open market. If they can't find a better offer elsewhere they will want to stay. There is no game. See the current De Gea contract negotiation with Man Utd.

 

[acnumber9]

Or we sell players if they get to 2 years left and won't renew we shouldn't ever let it get to 1 year, because then they have the leverage, thats how serious clubs operate

Serious clubs pay up when it comes to renewing contracts.

 

[jm99]

Serious clubs pay up when it comes to renewing contracts.

Didn't real Madrid tell Ronaldo they wouldn't pay up, and Ramos. Whereas Barca paid Messi and others whatever they asked and one club now has great finances and the other is having to try and sell the club's tea room to fund any summer spending.

 

[jm99]

Now you are talking about the risk after contract renewal. There is always a risk. Just like Adebayor and Aubameyang. Arsenal was extremely happy to extend their contracts at the time, but this is a different issue. These 2 players earned their contract at the time as well.

It is a job market. If Man utd doesn't want to pay the market rate, then players and their agents will try their luck in open market. If they can't find a better offer elsewhere they will want to stay. There is no game. See the current De Gea contract negotiation with Man Utd.

No we're not talking abiut the risk after renewal, I'm pretty sure most people thought 375k a week for de gea was crazy at the timr

 

[Withnail]

Both man united and de gea were happy to extend his contract, so what's the fuss. Acting as if clubs are infallible, particularly given how fecking fallible we've shown ourselves to be over the last decade is ridiculous

DDG's contract was ridiculous as nobody is paying keeper's anywhere near that money. We really didn't have to go that high at all as he wouldn't have gotten that much anywhere else. Players in Rashford's position after scoring 30 goals are a different kettle of fish.

 

[jm99]

DDG's contract was ridiculous as nobody is paying keeper's anywhere near that money. We really didn't have to go that high at all as he wouldn't have gotten that much anywhere else. Players in Rashford's position after scoring 30 goals are a different kettle of fish.

But son's had better seasons and isn't on 375k, I don't think kane is either, though it would be the upper end of what would be acceptable for him. As I said 300k would be a lot but just about OK, 375k is ridiculous he isn't as good as kane, de bruyne, haaland, that's the type of player that 375k should be reserved for

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

Yeah because that’s the only factor at play. You were wrong. Simple as that.

If Lukaku was as good as Rashford, at the same age, with the same value, he would be paid the same. He isn’t so he’s not.

You can stick your fingers in your ears for as long as you want. It won’t change the fact there is legitimate reason for Rashford to be offered that contract. It’s significantly cheaper than the alternative.

Give up, you can’t argue against stupidity. It’s a sad day when people can’t even admit to being wrong on a faceless internet forum.

 

[Withnail]

But son's had better seasons and isn't on 375k, I don't think kane is either, though it would be the upper end of what would be acceptable for him. As I said 300k would be a lot but just about OK, 375k is ridiculous he isn't as good as kane, de bruyne, haaland, that's the type of player that 375k should be reserved for

Son/Kane should be on higher wages but they're dragging their heels at Spurs and we really don't know what the City players are really on.

We also don't know the structure of Rashford's deal. What I've seen being reported is that it would take him "closer to the club’s highest earners who are on £375,000-a-week" or "could be as high as 375k".
There also could be bonuses and incentives in there for all sorts of criteria and the top figure could well be lower than 375k. It smacks of the press talking DDG's salary and running with it.

 

[acnumber9]

Didn't real Madrid tell Ronaldo they wouldn't pay up, and Ramos. Whereas Barca paid Messi and others whatever they asked and one club now has great finances and the other is having to try and sell the club's tea room to fund any summer spending.

When he was 33. When he was younger they renewed his contract twice. They wouldn’t have let him leave for free at 26.

 

[acolyte]

But if we show we won't break, even if that means losing a player on a free, players won't play those kinds of games with us. We get bent over a barrel in every negotiation and that really has to change

Great plan, we won't pay top wages so we won't keep top players. Sure we might have them when they're cheap and unproven but after they perform for a few years and ask for improved terms we chuck them to an actual big club who'll pay the wages big players demand. Then we can just be Spurs North.

Rashford has earned a new contract and 300k a week as an upper limit would be deserved, 375k isn't, he hasn't been performing at the level of de bruyne

Who came up with this 300k number? What is it based on? It sounds completely arbitrary and based on your whims.

Unless you can name a player who's ACTUALLY ATTAINABLE this summer who would cost less than £375k/week in TRANSFER FEE + WAGES and would perform AT LEAST AS WELL as Rashford has right away, this whole conversation is pointless anyway.

 

[acnumber9]

Give up, you can’t argue against stupidity. It’s a sad day when people can’t even admit to being wrong on a faceless internet forum.

True.

 

[jm99]

When he was 33. When he was younger they renewed his contract twice. They wouldn’t have let him leave for free at 26.

Didn't Madrid let varane leave at 28 rather than pay his wages, same with casemirro at 30? This is what well run clubs do, they identify replacements early, they don't let players run down their contracts

 

[jm99]

Great plan, we won't pay top wages so we won't keep top players. Sure we might have them when they're cheap and unproven but after they perform for a few years and ask for improved terms we chuck them to an actual big club who'll pay the wages big players demand. Then we can just be Spurs North.


Who came up with this 300k number? What is it based on? It sounds completely arbitrary and based on your whims.

Unless you can name a player who's ACTUALLY ATTAINABLE this summer who would cost less than £375k/week in TRANSFER FEE + WAGES and would perform AT LEAST AS WELL as Rashford has right away, this whole conversation is pointless anyway.

No we should pay top wages, for top players, rashford isn't in the de bruyne or haaland or kane category.

What if rashford wanted 500k a week over 4 years? That's 100m, would we get a replacement in transfer fee and wages for less? So we should just pay that too?

 

[acnumber9]

Didn't Madrid let varane leave at 28 rather than pay his wages, same with casemirro at 30? This is what well run clubs do, they identify replacements early, they don't let players run down their contracts

They did. But you were talking about Ronaldo and Ramos. What wages do you think Casemiro and Varane are on and were we wrong to sign them?

 

[acolyte]

But son's had better seasons and isn't on 375k, I don't think kane is either, though it would be the upper end of what would be acceptable for him. As I said 300k would be a lot but just about OK, 375k is ridiculous he isn't as good as kane, de bruyne, haaland, that's the type of player that 375k should be reserved for

Son and Kane aren't on that much because they're at Spurs and Spurs don't have ambitions to be among the best. They also signed their contracts years ago and footballers wages keep going up.

And if you're taking the City players' quoted wages at face value you're just not living in the real world.

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

No we should pay top wages, for top players, rashford isn't in the de bruyne or haaland or kane category.

What if rashford wanted 500k a week over 4 years? That's 100m, would we get a replacement in transfer fee and wages for less? So we should just pay that too?

Neither has Saka has had literally done less than Rashford & this place cream themselves over.

Given the the time left on his contract he holds the upper hand, he should have been extended at the end of the 20/21 season.

The argument ‘he isn’t De Bruyne or Haaland’ is genuinely one of the dimmest I’ve seen.

 

[jm99]

They did. But you were talking about Ronaldo and Ramos. What wages do you think Casemiro and Varane are on and were we wrong to sign them?

Well I don't know what casemiro is on, again 300k a week wouldn't be unfair, varane is close by 375 I think, which for me is a bit high, but he also won 4 champions leagues and the world cup, so I think he has the right to ask for a bit more than a guy who's trophy cabinet consists of a league cup or two and the europa league

 

[acolyte]

No we should pay top wages, for top players, rashford isn't in the de bruyne or haaland or kane category.

What if rashford wanted 500k a week over 4 years? That's 100m, would we get a replacement in transfer fee and wages for less? So we should just pay that too?

He doesn't want 500k a week though does he? So why are you making up imaginary scenarios? At that cost you maybe could get a replacement who would be as productive. At 375k though (which is where we are in the real world of 2023) you can't.

 

[jm99]

Neither has Saka has had literally done less than Rashford & this place cream themselves over.

Given the the time left on his contract he holds the upper hand, he should have been extended at the end of the 20/21 season.

The argument ‘he isn’t De Bruyne or Haaland’ is genuinely one of the dimmest I’ve seen.

I wouldn't want saka at 375k a week either. People on here rage agaisnt Woodward financial incompetence then don't see anything wrong with throwing a near 20m a year contract at Rashford

 

[jm99]

He doesn't want 500k a week though does he? So why are you making up imaginary scenarios? At that cost you maybe could get a replacement who would be as productive. At 375k though (which is where we are in the real world of 2023) you can't.

Because if the only metric is what would replacing him cost, then you could argue that 500k a week would be worth it, when it clearly isn't. Which 30 goal player is available for less than 100m for a transfer fee and wages over a 4 year contract? That's why it's stupid to say let's base it only on what it would cost to replace him. How much more will it cost when every other player adds 50k a week onto their demands to renew when they see what rashford gets