The alternative is offer him what he's worth, and assume that he'll take it. PSG might give him 400k a week but no one else will, and if he wants to waste his peak years in France that's up to him. Does anyone on here understand negotiating? Rashford has some leverage because his contract is running down, we have leverage because he probably values staying in the area where he was born and grew up, and staying in the best league more than a bit of extra money in france. France's taxes on high earners is also higher than ours I believe. This isn't like Saudi money vs 300k a week. It'd 300k a week vs 400k a week but moving to a new country, a weaker league away from your boyhood club to a country with slightly higher taxes om high earners
Marcus Rashford new contract thread | It's officially signed
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
- Status
The alternative is offer him what he's worth, and assume that he'll take it. PSG might give him 400k a week but no one else will, and if he wants to waste his peak years in France that's up to him. Does anyone on here understand negotiating? Rashford has some leverage because his contract is running down, we have leverage because he probably values staying in the area where he was born and grew up, and staying in the best league more than a bit of extra money in france. France's taxes on high earners is also higher than ours I believe. This isn't like Saudi money vs 300k a week. It'd 300k a week vs 400k a week but moving to a new country, a weaker league away from your boyhood club to a country with slightly higher taxes om high earners
They paid 40m for him when he was a totally unproven 17 year old. That was a crazy fee to pay purely for potential. Something tells me if we paid 40m for some kid you had never heard of you'd be throwing an absolute fit. He also took several years to become the player he is today.
You think we should let Rashford walk if he won't accept 275k per week, pay big money for a kid with literally 1 professional appearance (RM agreed to buy Vini 10 days after his professional debut), then wait 5 years for him to develop into a top level player, which he may or may not ever become? How do you not see that this would be a massive gamble, both in the financial and sporting sense?
Yet @jm99 is up and down this thread confidently proclaiming what amount different players do and do not deserve. He's asking everyone else to trust his gut feeling with no evidence or qualifications to suggest that he knows what he's talking about.FFS, why do people keep doing this!?
‘The NHS surgeon messed up the old lady’s operation’
‘Oh really!? How would YOU have conducted her hip replacement, in detail please?’
‘I can’t, it’s not my job’
‘Then the NHS did nothing wrong’
It’s so weird. We’ve had it all season with Weghorst - ‘so who else moved in January for the same or less money that would’ve been better!?’.
This might be the most hand-waving, out-of-touch, blithely optimistic thing anyone has said in this entire thread. The word "somehow" is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
We paid 25m with 15m in add-ons for diallo two years ago. No I'm not sayingwe should do that, I'm giving an example of professional scouts knowing more than random redcafe posters.
I think we should negotiate with rashford with a very upper limit of 300k. Let me ask when Bruno has to renew if he wants 500k a week do we pay it? If not who do we replace him with for less than 100m transfer fee and wages? If you don't have the immediate answer then paying him 500k a week is the sensible option obviously.
You know what's been a massive gamble that hasn't paid off, all the fecking contracts we've given out over the last decade, just about every single one of them,
Was 250,000 a week for martial smart? Because otherwise he'd have left oj a free
What about 90,000 a week for telles? 100,000 a week for Henderson, has he played a single game? 190,000 a week for maguire?
We have been bent over time and again because we have a reputation for paying ludicrous wages to average players, Woodward being gone was supposed to chsnge this. He's not an average player but 375k a week for rashford is just more of the same
We disagree. I think Rashford would take 275k - more than Kane, Son, Vinicius. You’re acting likes it’s a pathetic offer - it isn’t.
And I think that if determined, the club could get rid of Sancho.
Where there’s a will there’s a way.
If you pay Rashford 375k a week, what do pay an actual elite player?
What if Antony / Garnacho has a good season?
It’s called a wage structure for a reason - and Utd’s is broken.
People are arguing to pay Rashford according to a broken wage structure, we’re arguing to put the foot down now, and fix it.
It’s not even about Rashford for me, it’s about Utd fixing itself.
You really should apply for the director of football job in Man Utd. You got the talent.
No you should. Giving players any wages they ask for would not be out of place at the man united of the last decade. You and Ed Woodward would make quite a team, can't wait to see Maguire renewed on 250k a week in case he leaves for free
When Bruno has to renew he’ll be 32. Do you understand the difference between what a 25 year old is worth and a player in their thirties? Ultimately United either pay the market rate for the player or lose them for nothing. Thankfully those at United, understand this a little better than you do.
I'm not sure what your point is. Is it that
(a) Fans don't know real numbers so we cannot assess if a particular contract is good value?
(b) Individual contracts don't matter, it's fine to give one key player 380k p/w and another key player 200k p/w because it'll cost more to replace that player anyway?
There's some complexity in the 323 mil number. It includes salaries for everyone from the groundskeepers to the board of directors. Also benefits etc. If your claim is salaries are unknowable so we can't really have any debate on if a particular contract is too little or too much. We know approximately how much top players get paid. We can assume that Rashford's going to be paid 375k p/w all-in. We can also assume that Vini gets paid 330k GBP per week.
You acknowledge that there are some buckets. Instead of nitpicking mine, why don't you take a stab at describing sensible wage buckets that a club might use?
I am extremely happy with Edu's service and I have no advice for him how to do his job.
Again, those at United gave de gea 375k a week, sancho 375k a week, Martial 250k a week, spent 90m on Harry Maguire and gave him 200k a week. I'd hesitate before praising the financial understanding of those at United
Fair enough, I am extremely unhappy with some of the contracts that United have given to players who didn't deserve them.
The same posters who'll be wondering how we spent a billion over the last decade and ended up with this, will be the same ones supporting 20m a year to rahsford
He doesn't deserve 375k pw.
Would be so typical of many to perform in the penultimate year of their contract to land that big fat paycheck. Hoping he doesn't go back to being shit next season.
Would be so typical of many to perform in the penultimate year of their contract to land that big fat paycheck. Hoping he doesn't go back to being shit next season.
Yeah this is another thing so many have missed, it is not in any way uncommon for players form to drop off a cliff once they get their massive payday.
No, United have very little leverage. He isn't going to, and shouldn't, be letting United under pay him less, just because he is a local lad. Especially when there are higher earners at the club who offer far less. You think he, or his agent want to do a favor for The Glazer's, or for the next billionaires who buy United?
I don't know why you keep sighting PSG as the only option. No one but you is talking about Saudi.
What would Rashford cost on the open market? Easily 100mil if a club thought they could get him.
So wouldn't every top club want to get involved at 400k a week with no transfer fee? Because 400k a week, with no transfer fee is an absolute steel - it equates to a 50mil transfer fee and 200k a week which is peanuts in this market. Newcastle, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, City - thew would all want Rashford on a free.
That is why top players in their prime rarely get to leave on a free. Clubs are smart enough to get them signed up, because letting them go is tantamount to gross negligence.
If Rice was on a free today, clubs would be offering upward of 400k, so why would it not be the same for Marcus?
Wow some seriously interesting takes on here.
So most of the 'give Rashford the damn North Stand because that's easier to replace than him' posters are quoting PSG's salary offer as gospel. Fine, let's say it's the truth. 400k a week - he'd basically be the highest paid player in Europe (as City totally declaer the full extent of payments, ahem). Good for him. With some rough maths, across a 4 year deal that would be about 26m more at PSG than United's, say, paltry offer of just 275k. At the same time, he is a 20 something about to make, deep breath, 50m pounds (gross). That is legacy money, everyone member of his family and next generation need not worry kinda money. Is there that big a delta between well-invested 50m and well-invested 75m at his age? Kinda?
So the choice would be move to a crap league in a new city where you have no friends, family or speak the language. Or, settle for the kind of sum you'd have never imagined just 18 months ago, stay at your boyhood club where you're revered by all, surrounded by love and support.
It just seems like Marcus only has one choice there.
Now other clubs: you think Bayern are going to break their wage structure? Madrid are going to replace Vinicius? Barca are going to, erm, find 400k a f*cking week? Like hell they are. I'll fully admit Boehly's Chelsea would totally do it, hell they'd offer him 700k a week just because Boehly's fat fingers made a booboo. And that's kinda it imo.
I have to imagine that the group of sensible heads doing these talks will come up with a good salary for him to stay at United. It's the best result for all parties, and that has to mean something.
So most of the 'give Rashford the damn North Stand because that's easier to replace than him' posters are quoting PSG's salary offer as gospel. Fine, let's say it's the truth. 400k a week - he'd basically be the highest paid player in Europe (as City totally declaer the full extent of payments, ahem). Good for him. With some rough maths, across a 4 year deal that would be about 26m more at PSG than United's, say, paltry offer of just 275k. At the same time, he is a 20 something about to make, deep breath, 50m pounds (gross). That is legacy money, everyone member of his family and next generation need not worry kinda money. Is there that big a delta between well-invested 50m and well-invested 75m at his age? Kinda?
So the choice would be move to a crap league in a new city where you have no friends, family or speak the language. Or, settle for the kind of sum you'd have never imagined just 18 months ago, stay at your boyhood club where you're revered by all, surrounded by love and support.
It just seems like Marcus only has one choice there.
Now other clubs: you think Bayern are going to break their wage structure? Madrid are going to replace Vinicius? Barca are going to, erm, find 400k a f*cking week? Like hell they are. I'll fully admit Boehly's Chelsea would totally do it, hell they'd offer him 700k a week just because Boehly's fat fingers made a booboo. And that's kinda it imo.
I have to imagine that the group of sensible heads doing these talks will come up with a good salary for him to stay at United. It's the best result for all parties, and that has to mean something.
Like who?
You'll have to make a list for me of the players at Liverpool, Arsenal and Newcastle (and likely Chelsea) on 400k a week. Because obviously it's the sensible thing to do, so I'm sure all those smart footballing people are using your analysis all the time.
At our own club sanchez and de gea are really obvious examples, Maguire seems a lot worse here than at Leicester. Pogba basically played well whenever he needed a contract renewal then immediately dropped off. Hazard once he got the mega money at Madrid. I imagine there's more, those are just the ones that came to mind
We have enough evidence to suggest that he won't turn shit at the age of 25. His one and only poor season was when he was being coached by Ralf Rangnick for most of it, and where everyone had to adapt their game to suit Ronaldo.
It doesn't really translate like that though, Pogba was 29, clearly quitte talented and you'd imagine at minimum a 40 million pound player, not consistent but a talented midfielder that had shown great ability when paired with a decent water carrier, yet he's on 200k a week at juventus, basically the same as what you'd expect with a transfer fee.
More than anything it's about financial prudence, other than city who cheat, and are facing charges, and us, who are fecking idiots when it comes to negotiating, other league sides don't hand out 20m a year contracts, even salah isn't on that and he's far better and was also left with a year on his contract so you can't even argue its a different situation
Why should we pay 375k a week when Liverpool paid a far better player only 350k a week when both could leave on a free the next summer?
There are countless examples over the years mate. It’s a well known phenomenon in football.
Not one person has suggested the move should you let Rashford go on free, because you are trying to nickle and dime him
Don't know if you have been paying attention, but buying goals is expensive. 9 league goals from a 20 year old Danish kid from a middle tier Italian club and they want 70mil.
Forget PSG. Every top Prem club would be in for him on a free. Clubs don't just look at the salary, they look at the whole package and top quality, in their prime players never get to the stage where they end up as a free agent. And for good reason.
When was the last time a player from a top club, who recently scored 30 in a season, becomes available on the open market?
Again, Liverpool renewed salah, a player far better and more valuable than rashford on 350k a week with one year to go and he could leave on a free the next summer. Every single side in the world would have been in for salah, and he'd have walked into their team, there's not one club in the world he wouldnt have started for. So why the feck are we paying 375k a week to rashford? Because we're a badly run club with shit negotiators
Firstly, that Danish kid to date is worth exactly 17m, as that's what a club has paid for him. If someone comes in and buys a player with 9 goals for 70m, congrats, you have a data point.
Every top prem club would move for him? I guess we'd see. I seriously doubt the non-state-funded clubs would break their wage structure.
Also paying a resonably inconsistent player 50m is hardly nickle-and-diming.
Feels to me you play FM/Fifa more than look at what is actually happening across the football world. If what you're saying is correct, there would be dozens of players on more than 300k a week becasue of similar contract situations. The fact there isn't, suggests to me that clubs think about overall wage structure, actual competitive market forces and the reality of options a bit more.
As many sensible folk on here have said: United's finances are a mess because of decisions like what you're proposing. Rashford should get a lovely pay bump, legacy money and the club should lock him at where his performances across 3 seasons suggest: an almost but not quite elite level player.
There is a world of difference between Rashford and Pogba. Pogba was a problem we couldn't wait to get rid of. Rashford's goals just got us in the CL.
Re Salah, Liverpool are paying him 350k a week. 130k a week more than their next highest paid player - VVD. They obliterated their wage structure to do that.
Now, if we had the same kind of controlled salary structure, then it would be a different discussion.
But we don't. So we shouldn't expect Marcus to be paid less than others, just because now you decide to set a wage cap.
By your logic, should Marcus make more than Bruno?
Sancho and varane and de gea should not and I imagine will not get renewed on the same wages again. We can be very clear with rashford, 375k a week contracts were a Woodward thing and they wont be happening any longer,
Also Liverpool's wage structure is irrelevant, surely by your reasoning, salah could have went and gotten 600-700k a week elsewhere, there was talk of a 150m fee when Madrid wanted him, so not outlandish, but he didn't go on a free, he renewed at 350k a week. Yet you seem to think rashford, a homegrown local player, would leave us for an extra 100k a week, why didn't salah? He could have commanded way more than 350k on the open market, he's in the elite player category
I didn't say he was worth it. I said Atalanta were asking for it. And if United get him, it wont be anywhere near 17m.
I believe they would, because without a transfer fee, 400k a week, or more, looks like good value.
When players are on a free, you can pay them more. The dressing room can accept that.
Where United have made mistakes is offering the high salary plus the high transfer fee. Sancho is the prime example. Casimiro is class, but for how long? Varane the same. No resale value on diminishing players, who lets face it, only came to United because they were surplus at Real.
Mute point, because he is about to the clubs top earner! ETH and the suits think he justifies it. A couple of guys on the internet thinks he is not! What you gonna do?
De Gea's last great season as 2017/2018. He'd already fallen off cliff well before he signed that contract in Sep 2019. It was absolutely madness.
Sanchez was also showing signs of decline but everyone thought he was pissed off and wanted out of Arsenal but no his legs had already gone.
Maguire was fine when played in a low block and would be today. He's just not a player for a high line.
Pogba was just entirely inconsistent iirc. I really don't remember there being any correlation with contracts and Hazard was injured for basically a whole year after he signed and was never the same player again.
So I don't think any of those examples fit the criteria at all.
De gea wasn't great 18/19 but he's clearly totally fallen off a cliff since then to the point that virtually every fan wants rid of him at this point.
I mean if you try to excuse every example then fair enough, even look at Lukaku, great for Everton gets his big payday, nowhere near as good.
Under a different manager. Do you deliberately make up numbers or do you not have a clue?
Their wage structure is very relevant. Liverpool went 1/3 over the top of it for Salah. That is a massive gesture of support, appreciation and confidence in Salah to do that.
United wont be breaking theirs for Rashford. Instead you want to pay Rashford 100k a week less than Sancho and hope he likes it!
Make is make sense man!
Again, Mo Salah is five years older than Rashford. You blatantly continue to ignore that there are a myriad of factors that go into a players contract.
Do you think ten Hag is negotiating contracts or something? We've had a decade of handing out massive contracts and seeing virtually no return for it, we've spent over a billion to have a team a few points ahead of Newcastle who've spent about 180m and were on the verge of relegation 18 months ago.
Not offering players 375k is an example of financial prudence, salah could have commanded far more than rashford and Liverpool only paid him 350k a week when the alternative was leaving on a free, it's a lot, but salah is probably a top 5 player in the world, at least at the time of the contract, how does rashford get more?
You've been arguing what it would cost to replace them and what they could earn on the open market, both those cases salah is way more than rashford, i doubt you even could replace salah. We should be looking to move sancho on, not have more players getting his obscene wages. We need to move towards financial prudence, and awarding contracts based on Woodward paid, is not that
It would have still cost more to replace him and he'd have been able to earn more as a free agent than rashford, he's also miles ahead of rashford as a player.
I think he encourages the board to get the deal done. Do you think he just sits there twiddling his thumbs and having zero input?
As said above, Salah is much older than Rashford and that affects a players value and salary as they will naturally decline with age. That’s why he only got a three year deal.
In three years we’ll still have a sellable asset. Liverpool won’t. That’s yet another factor. One that you will continue to ignore because you’re just a little bit clueless.
Salah’s deal was reported as £350k plus bonuses. How do you know he gets more?
DDG regressed massively the following year and has been in slow decline since. It's just getting quite obvious to everyone now, especially with the style of play.
Lukaku just wasn't good enough to make the step up and his poor technique was found out. He had one season where he got 25 just before moving to United but 12 - 18 was standard for him in the PL so that one season was the outlier.
Most of the stuff you're bringing up to back up the various points you keep pivoting to don't hold up to scrutiny for me. And to go back to the main point no contract has been signed and we have no idea what his salary will be. All we've got is reports of could be one of the highest earners therefore could be as high as 375k, with some only saying it'll be north of 300k, and you're going off on one when I've seen no concrete information at all.
- Status