Marcus Rashford new contract thread | It's officially signed

[jm99]

Of course it isnt. As I said, whenever you're presented with one argument you start with the other one.
Goals, transfermarket, age, Ballon D'Or, goals per minute, competition, pure winger or not.
And round and round in circles.
How many PL goals is one winner in CL worth?

The argument is that rashford isn't good enough to warrant 375k a week, his stats aren't, and his all roundd performances aren't either. He isn't consistent enough, when he's good, he's very good, when he's poor like last season, he struggles to do the basics like beat a man. And being locked into a 4 or 5 yesr contract at 20m a year when he blows so hot and cold isn't the best idea. Its only going round in circles because you keep trying different angles to justify it,nhis stats don't justify it, his all round performances don't justify it and his lack of consistency doesn't justify it either

We're talking about 20m a year here and people are acting like offering him 15m a year is the same as spitting in his face

 

[Giggsy13]

Given the likelihood we aren’t singing a top draw striker, we need Rashford locked up on a deal. PSG are lurking and a real threat to sign him now that they’ve brought in Enrique.

 

[Real Name]

The argument is that rashford isn't good enough to warrant 375k a week, his stats aren't, and his all roundd performances aren't either. He isn't consistent enough, when he's good, he's very good, when he's poor like last season, he struggles to do the basics like beat a man. And being locked into a 4 or 5 yesr contract at 20m a year when he blows so hot and cold isn't the best idea. Its only going round in circles because you keep trying different angles to justify it,nhis stats don't justify it, his all round performances don't justify it and his lack of consistency doesn't justify it either

We're talking about 20m a year here and people are acting like offering him 15m a year is the same as spitting in his face

We were talking about comparisons with Vincinius. I wasnt trying to justify anything.
As I said, you dont rate him and your agenda is very clear so you'll twist and turn everything so it can fit.

 

[jm99]

We were talking about comparisons with Vincinius. I wasnt trying to justify anything.
As I said, you dont rate him and your agenda is very clear so you'll twist and turn everything so it can fit.

I have no agenda, I do rate him. Thinking he's worth 275-300k a week is not an agenda. I think 375k a week is way too much.

 

[Doracle]

The argument is that rashford isn't good enough to warrant 375k a week, his stats aren't, and his all roundd performances aren't either. He isn't consistent enough, when he's good, he's very good, when he's poor like last season, he struggles to do the basics like beat a man. And being locked into a 4 or 5 yesr contract at 20m a year when he blows so hot and cold isn't the best idea. Its only going round in circles because you keep trying different angles to justify it,nhis stats don't justify it, his all round performances don't justify it and his lack of consistency doesn't justify it either

We're talking about 20m a year here and people are acting like offering him 15m a year is the same as spitting in his face

The reality is that you are spending ages running down one of our best players purely to justify an argument over whether he’s worth £16m or £20m. Seems like overkill really, unless you have some other reason to spend probably a 100 posts telling us why you don’t think he’s good enough.

 

[jm99]

The reality is that you are spending ages running down one of our best players purely to justify an argument over whether he’s worth £16m or £20m. Seems like overkill really, unless you have some other reason to spend probably a 100 posts telling us why you don’t think he’s good enough.

That's the kind of attitude that's resulted in us spending a billion in transfer fees and more than that in wages over the last decade with a couple of second rate trophies to show for it

 

[acnumber9]

It's not that these goals are inherently worth less, it's that he hasn't shown enough in the league, where it really matters to warrant this. The cups are a nice extra, but it's natural to have questions for someone scoring 1 in 1 in the league cup or europa league and 1 in 2 in the premier league

But a goal against Forest in the league cup is as difficult or easy as it is to score against them in the league. Is it easier to score against Barcelona than it is to score against Shaktar Donetsk? What about his record v PSG? Rashford isn’t a flat track bully.

 

[Real Name]

I have no agenda, I do rate him. Thinking he's worth 275-300k a week is not an agenda. I think 375k a week is way too much.

So says every man who has an agenda.

 

[Withnail]

It had rashford at 80m and vinicius at 150m. 80m for rashford seems about right. If he wasn't our player I certainly wouldn't want us to spend 100m on him

This is another one from a different site that I think is quite week respected, and takes contract into account more, mbappe was only around 65m or so on this one and vinicius is ranked as the most valuable in the world, rashford isn't mentioned

https://football-observatory.com/Most-expensive-players-Vinicius-Junior-at-the-top

When I looked them up it gave a range and that was what I got but I see your figures now.

However, that really wasn't the point I was making. Again, You just ignore the thrust of my whole post and concentrate on the bits that back up your view.

It's what you've been doing for the past 20hrs so why am I surprised. We'll leave it there. I've no interest in continuing a conversation when you're not arguing in good faith.

 

[jm99]

But a goal against Forest in the league cup is as difficult or easy as it is to score against them in the league. Is it easier to score against Barcelona than it is to score against Shaktar Donetsk? What about his record v PSG? Rashford isn’t a flat track bully.

I'm not saying he's a flat track bully but his lack of consistency is an issue in the league and shows itself over 38 games

 

[jm99]

So says every man who has an agenda.

Judging by the way you're desperate for the club to pay him as much as possible it seems you have an agenda of your own

 

[Real Name]

Judging by the way you're desperate for the club to pay him as much as possible it seems you have an agenda of your own

Suure. Sure.
If it was only me you could say I'm seeing things but other posters noticed the way you post so its all pretty obvious.

 

[jm99]

Suure. Sure.
If it was only me you could say I'm seeing things but other posters noticed the way you post so its all pretty obvious.

And several other posters have raised similar concerns about this contract, you've labelled them haters, or having an agenda. Apparently no one can have genuine concerns over giving an 80m pounds contract to rashford

 

[Real Name]

And several other posters have raised similar concerns about this contract, you've labelled them haters, or having an agenda. Apparently no one can have genuine concerns over giving an 80m pounds contract to rashford

Theme is you constantly knocking of Rashford or has been for the last 2 pages, not the contract.
Saying he wants to rinse the club for 400k in a thread about his goal celebration is very much a hate.

 

[jm99]

Theme is you constantly knocking of Rashford or has been for the last 2 pages, not the contract.
Saying he wants to rinse the club for 400k in a thread about his goal celebration is very much a hate.

I'm replying to people quoting me. You seem unable to understand the concept of jokes or sarcasm or any of that, look at the way you and thay other poster rushed to say I wanted mount for 70m and ignored how obviously sarcastic it was. Nothing could be a clearer example of an agenda

 

[Bilbo]

Nobody on here is aware of any of the actual terms of this contract, so what exactly is there to argue or feel emotional about, other than its great news if one our best players commits to the club long term?

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

I was able to see the sarcasm there in the other thread so maybe you need a day off.

Do you know what, I’m going to take the L on this one.

I went from seeing him chat crap about paying Rashford something he wouldn’t accept to him spouting off about Mount so didn’t quite take it in.

I’ll take the day off after your next one.

 

[jm99]

Nobody on here is aware of any of the actual terms of this contract, so what exactly is there to argue or feel emotional about, other than its great news if one our best players commits to the club long term?

This isn't football manager, thr money you spend actually matters, and locking yourself into 20m a year for 4 or 5 years will impact our ability to spend even just in terms of ffp.

 

[Real Name]

I'm replying to people quoting me. You seem unable to understand the concept of jokes or sarcasm or any of that, look at the way you and thay other poster rushed to say I wanted mount for 70m and ignored how obviously sarcastic it was. Nothing could be a clearer example of an agenda

When it comes from a poster who has histrory about Rashford its not sarcasm. For instance if you wrote something like that it wouldn't be sarcasm.
As for the last sentence you're right, your posts are clear example of an agenda.
Cheers.

 

[Bilbo]

This isn't football manager, thr money you spend actually matters, and locking yourself into 20m a year for 4 or 5 years will impact our ability to spend even just in terms of ffp.

Obviously money spent matters, but we don't know how much money we are spending on this contract. That's the point. It's hysterics based on a headline

 

[jm99]

When it comes from a poster who has histrory about Rashford its not sarcasm. For instance if you wrote something like that it wouldn't be sarcasm.
As for the last sentence you're right, your posts are clear example of an agenda.
Cheers.

You clearly have a pro rashford agenda where you won't hear any criticism of him, and think anyone who doesn't think we should give him 20m a year is a hater

 

[jm99]

Obviously money spent matters, but we don't know how much money we are spending on this contract. That's the point. It's hysterics based on a headline

You're right, we don't, we're debating whether the speculated number would be worthwhile or not. It would be a pretty dull discussion forum if we didn't have debates like these

 

[Gavinb33]

That's the kind of attitude that's resulted in us spending a billion in transfer fees and more than that in wages over the last decade with a couple of second rate trophies to show for it

How much will it cost to buy someone to replace Rashford + wages and then how much is this contract going to cost above whatever arbitrary figure you think he is worth and there you have the reason why he is getting what he is getting

 

[Red in STL]

This thread needs to be renamed to the Marcus Rashford contract agenda by jm99

 

[Strelok]

No offense but this jm99 guy does remind me of this:

A blonde was driving down the motorway when her car phone rang. It was her husband, urgently warning her, “Honey, I just heard on the news that there’s a car going the wrong way on the M25. Please be careful!” “It’s not just one car!” said the blonde. “There’s f*ck*ng hundreds of them!”

 

[jm99]

How much will it cost to buy someone to replace Rashford + wages and then how much is this contract going to cost above whatever arbitrary figure you think he is worth and there you have the reason why he is getting what he is getting

That logic is why we gave de gea 375k a week for 4 years. You won't find many defending that decision now

 

[Frank White]

For play to @jm99 no idea how he's still going. Most be a new record for the most post saying basically the exact same thing on the Caf?

 

[jm99]

For play to @jm99 no idea how he's still going. Most be a new record for the most post saying basically the exact same thing on the Caf?

No the people replying saying he does deserve 375k a week have tied it

 

[Frank White]

No the people replying saying he does deserve 375k a week have tied it

Should have been clear, by a singular poster.

 

[jm99]

Should have been clear, by a singular poster.

Not my fault people keep quoting me, I'm far too stubborn to let someone else get the last word

 

[Gavinb33]

That logic is why we gave de gea 375k a week for 4 years. You won't find many defending that decision now

No that contract defied logic because no keeper should ever be your highest paid player, every forward you'd sign for big money would want a commensurate contract you wouldn't pay any keeper that deal at all

 

[El Jefe]

KDB
Haaland
Salah
Kane
Rodri
Casemiro
Saka
Dias
Alisson

I'd argue all of the above are better than Rashford in their roles than Rashford is in his. He probably scrapes the top 10 in the PL but even then there's players like Odegaard, Bruno and Reece James that could argue they should be in there.

Rashford is a very good player but he's not someone deserving of a top 3 wage in the league in my opinion.

 

[Rhyme Animal]

@jm99 in this thread

Spoiler

 

[roonster09]

I don't think he deserves to be the biggest paid player in Europe and probably world.

 

[jm99]

No that contract defied logic because no keeper should ever be your highest paid player, every forward you'd sign for big money would want a commensurate contract you wouldn't pay any keeper that deal at all

The logic was it was 80m and based off what kepa had gone for and Allison, that replacing him would be more costly in terms of fee plus wages than paying the 80m. The same logic you're using here

 

[Real Name]

I don't he deserves to be the biggest paid player in Europe and probably world.

 

[Real Name]

You clearly have a pro rashford agenda where you won't hear any criticism of him, and think anyone who doesn't think we should give him 20m a year is a hater

Keep making things up.

This was a lot of fun, cheers.

 

[clarkydaz]

People were up in arms when he was given 200k a week and the no 10 shirt. It's just what this club does

 

[gaffs]

KDB
Haaland
Salah
Kane
Rodri
Casemiro
Saka
Dias
Alisson

I'd argue all of the above are better than Rashford in their roles than Rashford is in his. He probably scrapes the top 10 in the PL but even then there's players like Odegaard, Bruno and Reece James that could argue they should be in there.

Rashford is a very good player but he's not someone deserving of a top 3 wage in the league in my opinion.

Thats not what its about though. Players are given salaries based upon many circumstances.

United must consider that 375k a week is fair value when considering what it would cost to replace him. Where else would United find a player capable of scoring 30 goals a season from, at this price?

 

[jm99]

Thats not what its about though. Players are given salaries based upon many circumstances.

United must consider that 375k a week is fair value when considering what it would cost to replace him. Where else would United find a player capable of scoring 30 goals a season from, at this price?

Its maybe not necessarily a like for like, but can the 80m we would give rashfoed help us secure kane? Obviously it doesn't cover the whole fee but it's quite reductive to say we need to replace rashford for the 80m wages and transfer rather than adding that number to our budget, and going for kane instead of hojlund or whatever. 80m is an awful lot to be locked into, if he reverts to last seasons form it would be a disaster