Marcus Rashford new contract thread | It's officially signed

Status
Not open for further replies.
jm99 said:
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
Click to expand...

It would be more like 100m for 5 seasons for Rashford at 375k.

Kane would be 100mil fee plus 62mil over 4 years (based on the Casemiro contract, which may not be enough for him).

If 100mil for 5 seasons is a lot to be locked into for a 26 year old, what is 160mil+ for a player that will be 30 at the start of the season?
 
gaffs said:
It would be more like 100m for 5 seasons for Rashford at 375k.

Kane would be 100mil fee plus 62mil over 4 years (based on the Casemiro contract, which may not be enough for him).

If 100mil for 5 seasons is a lot to be locked into for a 26 year old, what is 160mil+ for a player that will be 30 at the start of the season?
Click to expand...

That's true but kane isn't a player that relies on physicality and he's a lot better.

What i was meaning is that our budget for the summer striker might extend to say hojlund for fee and wages but not quite kane, but if we don't give rashford his contract we could push the boat out and get kane. Not that those are specifics, I'm not saying we can't afford kane without him, I'm saying if he turned down 275-300k a week, the savings can go back into the budget, we don't have to replace him from that 80m or 100m. It just means we have more to spend on a top striker or the like.

Again my preference is absolutely to renew him just not for that much
 
jm99 said:
That's true but kane isn't a player that relies on physicality and he's a lot better.

What i was meaning is that our budget for the summer striker might extend to say hojlund for fee and wages but not quite kane, but if we don't give rashford his contract we could push the boat out and get kane. Not that those are specifics, I'm not saying we can't afford kane without him, I'm saying if he turned down 275-300k a week, the savings can go back into the budget, we don't have to replace him from that 80m or 100m. It just means we have more to spend on a top striker or the like.

Again my preference is absolutely to renew him just not for that much
Click to expand...

We would all love him to be on less so the budget can go further. But that is not the reality.

Yes, United have given out salaries previously that now look too high. With how tight the budget seems now, with FFP and The Glazers being tighter than ever pre sale, im sure they have crunched the numbers on this and evaluated all the pro's and con's of this deal, including potential replacement options - even if they are not like for like.

There will have been a negotiation - this has been going on for a long time. Rashford's people may have been wanting even more. It seems that they have come to an agreements that both are happy with and United keep a player who has had his best ever season under our best manger since SAF.
 
jm99 said:
Again my preference is absolutely to renew him just not for that much
Click to expand...
Why can't you admit that you're advocating for him to leave on a free? He's not going to accept 275-300k just because that's all you think he deserves.

jm99 said:
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.
Click to expand...
How are you qualified to determine what a player is worth exactly?

jm99 said:
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
Click to expand...
"No u", the post
 
El Jefe said:
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.
Click to expand...

Forwards and player who score/assist usually (almost always) are on higher wages than defensive midfielders, defenders or goalkeepers. Rodri, Casemiro, Dias and Allison might be better in the sense that they are more important to their teams but they arent forwards. Might not be fair but its understandable that Rashford will receive more money than some of them. Thats how the market works i guess.

Also wasnt there a tweet that Haaland received 675k a week yesterday? That does make Rashford his contract look fair....
 
Stadjer said:
Forwards and player who score/assist usually (almost always) are on higher wages than defensive midfielders, defenders or goalkeepers. Rodri, Casemiro, Dias and Allison might be better in the sense that they are more important to their teams but they arent forwards. Might not be fair but its understandable that Rashford will receive more money than some of them. Thats how the market works i guess.

Also wasnt there a tweet that Haaland received 675k a week yesterday? That does make Rashford his contract look fair....
Click to expand...

Most of City's players are on higher wages than they report. There's no way KDB isn't the best paid player in league, at least until Haaland signs that new contract without the release clause they're putting in front of him.
 
Stadjer said:
Forwards and player who score/assist usually (almost always) are on higher wages than defensive midfielders, defenders or goalkeepers. Rodri, Casemiro, Dias and Allison might be better in the sense that they are more important to their teams but they arent forwards. Might not be fair but its understandable that Rashford will receive more money than some of them. Thats how the market works i guess.

Also wasnt there a tweet that Haaland received 675k a week yesterday? That does make Rashford his contract look fair....
Click to expand...

Very true. As much as Rodri is a top player for City that Pep would want to keep, if he were to leave, he could be replaced. Especially in a side that is more geared towards the player than the individual.

That is an issue with United for years. Our way of playing is more geared towards the players, which makes our star performers more valuable. Hopefully that is starting to change under ETH.

With the scarcity of top quality forwards right now, they are becoming like NFL QBs. Not enough to go round, thus the price to obtain or retain one is getting inflated.
 
jm99 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. In an ideal world we would pay Rashford around the figure you mention. It's what a well run club would be able to do. However considering the special circumstances of our owners being parasites and clueless , our negotiations and transfer/contract being shite and rashford being a homegrown marketable youth thst explains the extra 50-75k bump he will end up getting. Nothing is confirmed yet though. I think somewhere around 300k is still possible
 
acolyte said:
Why can't you admit that you're advocating for him to leave on a free? He's not going to accept 275-300k just because that's all you think he deserves.


How are you qualified to determine what a player is worth exactly?


"No u", the post
Click to expand...
So are you the one who still agrees that it was an excellent decision to hand Sancho a 350k pw contract? Or 375k pw for DDG?

Just go though some other posts where people have clearly mentioned that there are better players than Rashford in the league who would earn less than what the club has offered.

We keep coming back in circles. Probably 3 years down the line posters could be talking about how moronic this contract was and how its impossible to sell him. Not that I want him to fail, this contract would mean nothing if we win a title or a UCL but it does set a precedence for future deals.
 
AFC NimbleThumb said:
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.
Click to expand...
Haha fair enough :D
 
At the end of the day, he will extend with us and imo this is the right thing to do for all parties involved but it all comes down to the gross mismanagement of the squad.

We lost 3 forwards and didn't replace any on them. We signed 2 RWs when we didn't for over a decade. If we had a few more WC players for the position Rashford plays in, he would not have been in such a strong bargaining position.
 
ayushreddevil9 said:
So are you the one who still agrees that it was an excellent decision to hand Sancho a 350k pw contract? Or 375k pw for DDG?
Click to expand...
Am I? I don't remember ever saying anything like that. For the record, I think signing Sancho from Dortmund was a good idea at that time (because he was young and had been one of the best players in his age group in Europe) and resigning DDG was a bad idea at that time (because he was aging and already in decline). Neither of those past deals, regardless of how they've turned out, have any bearing on how Rashford will play for the next few years and whether or not it's a good idea to give him a big new contract now.

ayushreddevil9 said:
Just go though some other posts where people have clearly mentioned that there are better players than Rashford in the league who would earn less than what the club has offered.
Click to expand...
Who cares? Even if those players are actually better than Rashford, their circumstances and the circumstances of their clubs when they signed those deals aren't the same as ours in the summer of 2023. You and jm99 keep trying to compare to this player or that player as though all these contracts happen in a vacuum, when the truth is these situations aren't directly comparable.
 
acolyte said:
Am I? I don't remember ever saying anything like that. For the record, I think signing Sancho from Dortmund was a good idea at that time (because he was young and had been one of the best players in his age group in Europe) and resigning DDG was a bad idea at that time (because he was aging and already in decline). Neither of those past deals, regardless of how they've turned out, have any bearing on how Rashford will play for the next few years and whether or not it's a good idea to give him a big new contract now.


Who cares? Even if those players are actually better than Rashford, their circumstances and the circumstances of their clubs when they signed those deals aren't the same as ours in the summer of 2023. You and jm99 keep trying to compare to this player or that player as though all these contracts happen in a vacuum, when the truth is these situations aren't directly comparable.
Click to expand...
Other teams also sign best young players but they dont hand 350k pw contracts to them. Its amazing how everyone just ignores the mistakes made in the past and advocate that its a good idea when the same thing happens again.

And everyone would care once the club breaks its wage structure just like it did a few years ago under Woodward.
 
Will be interesting to see what will be offered to Rashford with some signs that the club is finally looking to reduce the wage structure since Bruno’s contract renewal last year.
 
I think it’s all more or less agreed but will be officially done and announced once the new signings are sorted (so they don’t take Rashford’s new contract as reference point in their own negotiations).
 
ayushreddevil9 said:
Other teams also sign best young players but they dont hand 350k pw contracts to them. Its amazing how everyone just ignores the mistakes made in the past and advocate that its a good idea when the same thing happens again.

And everyone would care once the club breaks its wage structure just like it did a few years ago under Woodward.
Click to expand...
Wise words, this.

Everyone agrees that our wage structure is completely off the charts, and that it hinders us selling on players and making any kind of profits in the market.

Yet, the same people think giving Rashford a mega contract is a good idea.

Makes absolutely no sense. If we are to have any hope of turning the tide, we need to pay the same wages that City, Liverpool and Arsenal do.

Haaland and Salah are clear exceptions. They are more than justified beint at the top end of the Prem's wage list. They are some of the best players in the world for the last 3-5 years. Rashford isn't anywhere close to that level, nor anywhere near that level of consistency.

Not to mention, what if Rashford completely falls of a cliff and underperforms for long stretches of time? Y'know, like he often does, and how Sancho has done. We would be stuck with him, on those silly wages, and his value would drop immensely.

I can totally see that happening. Wouldn't surprise me at all.
 
He'll become one of the highest paid players in the league and fans will scream in joy like teenage girls. Because United and everyone associated with the club don't learn anything, even after 10 years of evidence of how not to run a club
 
Let’s hope he doesn’t sign it and then we offer him less afterwards.
 
ifightdragons said:
Wise words, this.

Everyone agrees that our wage structure is completely off the charts, and that it hinders us selling on players and making any kind of profits in the market.

Yet, the same people think giving Rashford a mega contract is a good idea.

Makes absolutely no sense. If we are to have any hope of turning the tide, we need to pay the same wages that City, Liverpool and Arsenal do.

Haaland and Salah are clear exceptions. They are more than justified beint at the top end of the Prem's wage list. They are some of the best players in the world for the last 3-5 years. Rashford isn't anywhere close to that level, nor anywhere near that level of consistency.

Not to mention, what if Rashford completely falls of a cliff and underperforms for long stretches of time? Y'know, like he often does, and how Sancho has done. We would be stuck with him, on those silly wages, and his value would drop immensely.

I can totally see that happening. Wouldn't surprise me at all.
Click to expand...

Yeah this is it. People want a well run club, they complain about why we can't be like Liverpool, the way they have a wage structure and have actually competed with City but spending half the money we have. Then they think 20m a year for a player who's definitely not a top 5 player in the league is an appropriate contract.

You can't have it both ways, if you want to be a well run club, sometimes you run the risk of players leaving because you won't pay obscene wages. With Saudi Arabia offering every Tom, dick and Harry 500k a week plus tax free, if you're always going to match what players can earn elsewhere you're going to end up with a sky high wage bill and not much return to show for it
 
jm99 said:
Yeah this is it. People want a well run club, they complain about why we can't be like Liverpool, the way they have a wage structure and have actually competed with City but spending half the money we have. Then they think 20m a year for a player who's definitely not a top 5 player in the league is an appropriate contract.

You can't have it both ways, if you want to be a well run club, sometimes you run the risk of players leaving because you won't pay obscene wages. With Saudi Arabia offering every Tom, dick and Harry 500k a week plus tax free, if you're always going to match what players can earn elsewhere you're going to end up with a sky high wage bill and not much return to show for it
Click to expand...
Yup. You're going to end up like Barcelona basically.

Complete shambles agreeing to such wages, and not stopping the insanity now, and in years to come.
 
Wasn't Ronaldo on 400k a week and Sanchez and De Gea on 375k? It seems about fair for his current performances although it is a worry whether he can be consistent.
 
Newtonius said:
Wasn't Ronaldo on 400k a week and Sanchez and De Gea on 375k? It seems about fair for his current performances although it is a worry whether he can be consistent.
Click to expand...

And those wages were emblematic of the problem with the Woodward era. We shouldn't be continuing them. Ronaldo you could try and argue had enough marketability to offset his massive wage but tbh I don't really believe that individual players ever shift the needle that much, shirt sales the club don't see that much, sponsorships don't move that much based on players.

400k a week should be reserved for someone like de bruyne, or if we signed kane, someone who'd be top 5 in the league and have a genuine shout of top 10 in the world
 
Stadjer said:
No. Barcelona gives out wages that they cant afford. Manchester United can afford to pay very high wages.
Click to expand...

Barcelona had higher revenues than us, pre covid it was something like a billion in revenue a year. They got crippled by an ever increasing wage bill, they were afraid to lose Messi and gave him contracts that kept increasing so that the last one was 550m over 4 years, which meant players like griezmann were asking for 800k a week, de Jong getting 400k a week, basically any first teamer could expect 350k a week minimum. That's how a wage structure works, people see what others are paid and adjust their demands accordingly.

But the idea that we can afford more than Barca is crazy, they had the highest revenues in the world, but a shit wage structure that fecked them, particularly during covid
 
Stadjer said:
No. Barcelona gives out wages that they cant afford. Manchester United can afford to pay very high wages.
Click to expand...
What are you on about?

1. Barca are in a financial crisis because their wage bills have been insane for many years.

2. We can't really "afford" anything, we are almost a billion in debt. Anything we spend, is less money put towards removing debt. We currently sustain ourselves on credit. The income we make is not put towards debt, but instead spent in wages and transfer fees, not to mention dividend pay outs for our owners. So while we can spend huge on wages, it just adds to our disastrous debt, as well as cripple us in regards to FFP, becsuse we make our players impossible to sell at a profit.

You have to actively avoid trying to understanding basic economy, to not get why these proposed wages for Rashford is a huge problem. Not perhaps as an isolated event, but certainly as a precedent and contract negotiations to come.

City and Liverpool spend way less on wages than we do, and yet have better players. It's so obvious that these types of contracts are a fundamental part of our failure in the transfer market. We can't move on players on a profit, and we can't buy the players we need, because we are f'd in regards to FFP, seeing how we make profits in the market, but plenty of deficit.

How hard is this to understand?
 
I don't think he deserves to be the biggest paid player in Europe and probably world.
[/QUOTE]

Is this satire?

Mbappe and Neymar make more way more than him.
 
Sky1981 said:
Questions should be is Rashford top 5 or even top 10 stikers in the world

Part of his appeals is he's homegrown and our poster boy. But on abilities he's far from 375k per week.
Click to expand...
If you look at his G+A tally of last season, yes he is top 10 strikers in the world.
Whether you believe he can sustain that level of form over the next seasons is another subject.

Also, as far as I know, the news only mention that he would be in the bracket of the highest earners at United. And if I remember correctly, Casemiro, who is in the top bracket, has wages that are highly incentivised.
So my guess is that Rashford’s new contract will follow the same structure, hence the time it takes to reach full agreement.
 
AndySmith1990 said:
He'll become one of the highest paid players in the league and fans will scream in joy like teenage girls. Because United and everyone associated with the club don't learn anything, even after 10 years of evidence of how not to run a club
Click to expand...

Or we lose him for not offering contract that he wants and the same folks can moan about how shit our attack is and how we have to spend 100+ million to sign a decent attacker.
 
roonster09 said:
Or we lose him for not offering contract that he wants and the same folks can moan about how shit our attack is and how we have to spend 100+ million to sign a decent attacker.
Click to expand...
Then they would moan about how shit/waste of money that attacker is when he can't score 30 goals a season.
 
roonster09 said:
Or we lose him for not offering contract that he wants and the same folks can moan about how shit our attack is and how we have to spend 100+ million to sign a decent attacker.
Click to expand...
Sure, because that's the only option. We either overpay Rashford or we pay £100m for a new player.

Presumably it's not possible for United to scout well, make sensible signings for sensible fees on sensible wages, and ultimately build a good, functional team through being smart and well run

I wonder how other big clubs manage to be so much better than us whilst still spending less than us. We should ask them
 
AndySmith1990 said:
Sure, because that's the only option. We either overpay Rashford or we pay £100m for a new player.

Presumably it's not possible for United to scout well, make sensible signings for sensible fees on sensible wages, and ultimately build a good, functional team through being smart and well run

I wonder how other big clubs manage to be so much better than us whilst still spending less than us. We should ask them
Click to expand...

Like which clubs?

Like City who paid 100 million for Grealish and around 350K per week
Haaland who was signed for significant amount of money and unknown wages ranging from half a million to 900k.

Or like Arsenal who offered around 180-200k to Martenelli, his first good productive season
Or Saka who is paid around 300K after his second good productive season.

or Chelsea who spent god know what on players who barely scores a goal

We will have to hope to hit a jackpot like Liverpool did with Salah or Mane.

Just look at Muani, one good season and his price is 100 million, Hojlund barely had a full season and his price is more than 60-70 million.

What you said is also possible but it's a risky move, something that we can't afford to take as Rashford is our only proven goal scorer.

Also the clubs that are better than us don't lose their best attackers, instead they keep adding better players to their already good squad. On the other hand we have ManUtd fans who are praying that we lose our only reliable and proven goal scorer.
 
Last edited:
roonster09 said:
Like which clubs?

Like City who paid 100 million for Grealish and around 350K per week
Haaland who was signed for significant amount of money and unknown wages ranging from half a million to 900k.

Or like Arsenal who offered around 180-200k to Martenelli, his first good productive season
Or Saka who is paid around 300K after his second good productive season.

or Chelsea who spend god know what on players who barely scores a goal

We will have to hope to hit a jackpot like Liverpool did with Salah or Mane.

Juts look at Muani, one good season and his price is 100 million, Hojlund barely had a full season and his price is more than 60-70 million.

What you said is also possible but it's a risky move, something that we can't afford to take as Rashford is our only proven goal scorer.

Also the clubs that are better than us don't lose their best attackers, instead they keep adding better players to their already good squad. On the other hand we have ManUtd fans who are praying that we lose our only reliable and proven goal scorer.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t have said it better
 
roonster09 said:
Like which clubs?

Like City who paid 100 million for Grealish and around 350K per week
Haaland who was signed for significant amount of money and unknown wages ranging from half a million to 900k.

Or like Arsenal who offered around 180-200k to Martenelli, his first good productive season
Or Saka who is paid around 300K after his second good productive season.

or Chelsea who spend god know what on players who barely scores a goal

We will have to hope to hit a jackpot like Liverpool did with Salah or Mane.

Just look at Muani, one good season and his price is 100 million, Hojlund barely had a full season and his price is more than 60-70 million.

What you said is also possible but it's a risky move, something that we can't afford to take as Rashford is our only proven goal scorer.

Also the clubs that are better than us don't lose their best attackers, instead they keep adding better players to their already good squad. On the other hand we have ManUtd fans who are praying that we lose our only reliable and proven goal scorer.
Click to expand...

Nail. Head. Great post.
 
AndySmith1990 said:
Sure, because that's the only option. We either overpay Rashford or we pay £100m for a new player.

Presumably it's not possible for United to scout well, make sensible signings for sensible fees on sensible wages, and ultimately build a good, functional team through being smart and well run

I wonder how other big clubs manage to be so much better than us whilst still spending less than us. We should ask them
Click to expand...
Rashford is not overpaid mate. He earned it and deserves it. And the chance we find the next Rashford is quite small but still much bigger than the chance we could be come a smart and well run club under the current ownership.

Then like @roonster09 has very well said above even as well run as City still need to spend massively on transfers and wages. I mean even officially it's already huge let alone their "under the table" spendings. The model you talk about is basically impossible in the PL. You simply couldn't be afforded time and space for that nowaday. In fact as a top club in the PL you could barely allow to blood your youngsters without taking a hit in performance and points let alone the huge amount of playing time required to develop them into world class players. And a big if they would become one. There're like 6,7 clubs fighting for a CL spot. It's just too competitive.

That model might work in a less competitive league like the Bundes, L1 etc. Bayern for example could afford that time and space and still win the Bundes every years. Then even in those leagues you can see the likes of Dortmund who follow that model and they haven't won shit after Klopp left and doesn't look like they'd win anything in the foreseeable future . You do that in the PL and you won't see any CL football for years until, again a big if, those young players become what you think they might be. Not gonna work mate it's as simple as that.
 
roonster09 said:
Like which clubs?

Like City who paid 100 million for Grealish and around 350K per week
Haaland who was signed for significant amount of money and unknown wages ranging from half a million to 900k.

Or like Arsenal who offered around 180-200k to Martenelli, his first good productive season
Or Saka who is paid around 300K after his second good productive season.

or Chelsea who spent god know what on players who barely scores a goal

We will have to hope to hit a jackpot like Liverpool did with Salah or Mane.

Just look at Muani, one good season and his price is 100 million, Hojlund barely had a full season and his price is more than 60-70 million.

What you said is also possible but it's a risky move, something that we can't afford to take as Rashford is our only proven goal scorer.

Also the clubs that are better than us don't lose their best attackers, instead they keep adding better players to their already good squad. On the other hand we have ManUtd fans who are praying that we lose our only reliable and proven goal scorer.
Click to expand...

It should be obvious. If we don't prepare to pay premium wage with a year left on his contract, might as well sell him now. Because he'd 100% reject the the lowball offer, where he could just get a hefty signing-on fee somewhere else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.