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.
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.
Salah’s deal was reported as £350k plus bonuses. How do you know he gets more?
In 3 years he’ll likely have a minimum of 2 years and an option for an additional year.Or in 3 years he'll run his contract down and leave for free unless we give him 500k a week, why wouldn't he, he knows we'll pay ludicrous sums if he tries to run his contract down,
Salah could have gotten 600k a week at Madrid if he ran his contract down, replacing him would cost way more than replacing rashford.
And you’ve been told countless times that not giving him the contract would cost considerably more.I'm saying he shouldn't get more than 300k, if that's what it ends up being ill be happy. What annoys me is all the posters whi no doubt criticised Woodward, now praising the exact same financial incompetence
In 3 years he’ll likely have a minimum of 2 years and an option for an additional year.
Could they? Or are you just making shit up?
And you’ve been told countless times that not giving him the contract would cost considerably more.
Is that something else you’re making up?Well the Fee talked about for slaah was in the range of 150m when Madrid were interested, it's not ridiculous to think he could get 600k on a free when Bale got the same with an100m transfer fee
Is that something else you’re making up?
You are advocating spending more money by replacing him and having added risk that it won’t work out. Are you Kwasi Kwarteng in disguise?We've spent a billion with nothing to show for it over the last decade partly because of this attitude
I think it is.No it isn't.
So answer this, what's the maximum contract you'd have been willing to give rashford given the cost of replacing him. 400k? 450k? 500k?
I think it is.
I’d give him the amount that reflects his current standing and what gives us the most net benefit. I wouldn’t quibble over a difference of £25m over five years if the alternative was going to cost me an additional £100m. Because anything less than that would be financial incompetence of the highest order.
3 years before he signed his contract. It’s not really relevant is it?Google salah real madrid 150m, you'll find plenty of links.
So 500k then? That's an extra 25m over 5 yeses compared 375k well, it'd actually 30m, but compared to 100 it's still nothing right?
3 years before he signed his contract. It’s not really relevant is it?
I’d pay the least it would take if it was giving the most net benefit. You need to learn what being cost effective means before you start talking about financial competence. Your solution to years of financial mismanagement is to spend more money on a potentially inferior player.
With de gea off his contract, varane hopefully doesn't get renewed at 350k a week, ideally we'd shft sancho, we'd want to move back towards a wage structure. Again look at Liverpool, they've been a far better team than us, with far better players and pay lower wages than we do, because they're well run and have a wage structure. And offering 20m a year contracts to any player who threatens to leave on a free is not how a well run club operates. Look at Madrid, flo does not bow to player power and as a result they're the best run club in Europe, their rivals who let player power run amok are probably the worst run club in Europe.
But Rashford isn’t getting £500k a week. He’s getting around the amount we give to new signings. When signing players you can afford to be stricter with salaries because you’re not faced with the financial loss of losing an asset.The issue is these contracts don't work in isolation, if you give rashford 500k a week because it's cost effective, your wage structure now incorporates 500k a week and the next signing decides thats what they want. And the one after, and your money you saved not replacing rashford is now spent in the inflates contracts of other players
It also totally ignores the concept of negotiation. It might cost us more to replace rashford, but he might place a value in staying in England, staying in the Premier league.
With de gea off his contract, varane hopefully doesn't get renewed at 350k a week, ideally we'd shft sancho, we'd want to move back towards a wage structure. Again look at Liverpool, they've been a far better team than us, with far better players and pay lower wages than we do, because they're well run and have a wage structure. And offering 20m a year contracts to any player who threatens to leave on a free is not how a well run club operates. Look at Madrid, flo does not bow to player power and as a result they're the best run club in Europe, their rivals who let player power run amok are probably the worst run club in Europe.
Such a well run club that finishes the season out of the champions league spot and drops from 92 points to 67 points in one season.
But Rashford isn’t getting £500k a week. He’s getting around the amount we give to new signings. When signing players you can afford to be stricter with salaries because you’re not faced with the financial loss of losing an asset.
Liverpool have been a better team than us because they had a better manager. We’ve seen the effect of Liverpool not giving a contract to Mane. They’re a worse team. For us it would be even worse because Rashford has much more time left in his career.
You haven’t been involved in the negotiations. Maybe we’ve negotiated him down. Nobody here knows. You talk about what Rashford may value and then compare us to Real Madrid. Some players value living in Madrid more than they would Manchester and they offer guarantee of playing Champions League every year and almost guaranteed success. United can’t do that currently and as a result have to use money as a motivator. The road to being more attractive to new players isn’t to lose one of your best.
We aren’t shit because we’re giving Rashford this contract. What would make us more shit is losing him.Yes they have a better manager, they've also spent about half of what we have, even less for net spend, becuase they don't get bent over at every negotiation. We could have spent a billion better if we didn't overpay constantly, we wasted about 30m pm Antony just because of how late we waited. We're terribly run.
The amount we give to new signings we shouldn't be, Newcastle finished within 5 point of us and arsenal finished ahead. Neither have any players on 375k a week. I think there's abiut 4 players in the league on that much, sancho, de bruyne, haaland and maybe varane. You'll notice for other clubs it's the two best players in the league, for us it very much isn't because again, we're shit at negotiating
We aren’t shit because we’re giving Rashford this contract. What would make us more shit is losing him.
Rashford has scored more goals in the last two days than De Bruyne has. See, we can both pick arbitrary time periods to suit our argument.He hasn't done anything to warrant a top 5 contract in the league, over the last two seasons he has 35 goals, that's good but it isn't 20m a year good
35 in all comps, 21 in the league. For comparison Ronaldo has 19 in the league the last two seasons and he left before the world cup and was 37
Rashford has scored more goals in the last two days than De Bruyne has. See, we can both pick arbitrary time periods to suit our argument.
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?
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).
Ozil, Aubameyang, Salah for most part last season, Shaw multiple times, Sanchez? If you dig deeper you will find many.Like who?
Of all things clear this one is not.We're being told, and people on here are saying that it's fair, that rashford is getting 375k a week. Whether it's true or not doesn't matter, we're discussing whether it's merited and it clearly is not
Yeah, they love the 'purple patch' stuff they peddle out. Oh and he's in fine form every time he needs a contract apparently.The posters who keep peddling the 'on the back of one good season' myth are honestly shameless.
He had 2 very good seasons prior to the shit-show that was the 2021-2022 season. Why is that constantly being ignored?
And who's to say that Rashford can't improve? For the first time in his career, he's got a progressive-forward thinking manager. He managed to bounce back extremely well this season when most thought he was finished. He can go up another level with the right platform.
The posters who keep peddling the 'on the back of one good season' myth are honestly shameless.
He had 2 very good seasons prior to the shit-show that was the 2021-2022 season. Why is that constantly being ignored?
And who's to say that Rashford can't improve? For the first time in his career, he's got a progressive-forward thinking manager. He managed to bounce back extremely well this season when most thought he was finished. He can go up another level with the right platform.
Of all things clear this one is not.
Name them.There are countless examples over the years mate. It’s a well known phenomenon in football.
He's right the mount deal really should have been done by now. The window's been open and entire week, we should have just paid Chelsea 70m they ask for, feck negotiating or any of that shit, we've only bid 50m, which proves we don't have any money at all to spend
Hi all.
The same guy saying we shouldn’t pay Rashford a few more thousands a month has been in another thread saying we should splash the cash because the windows been open for a week.
They say criticise the post, not the poster. Your posts are. . . idiotic.
How much would you offer him?It's clear that he's not worth more than someone like salah. People look at Liverpool, real and Bayern over the last few years and the comments are always the same (apart from feck the dippers obviously), people always say Woodward or Arnold or whoever should look to these clubs as an example of how to be run well. None of them would give rashford 20m a year, not a single one
How many times has Shaw has renewed his contract. Salah scored like 35 goals I think last season.Ozil, Aubameyang, Salah for most part last season, Shaw multiple times, Sanchez? If you dig deeper you will find many.
Don’t try to play it off lad. You’re spouting nonsense in multiple threads.Can you really not understand Sarcasm. I'd have thought the bit at the end saying that bidding 50m for a player in the first week of the window proves we have no money might have tipped you off
How much would you offer him?
Also how do you know if he asked for that, you're posting in the sense of the club just giving him what he wanted. How possibly could you know how did the negotiations go. Also as for Salah, you're looking at it too simple, Rashford is younger and still has a high ceiling although going by some of your or others' posts he's shit.
