Most big clubs pay these sort of wages these days so I don't think it's anything out of the ordinary particularly for a star attacking player.
Marcus Rashford new contract thread | It's officially signed
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
- Status
He was always getting 300 plus. Hopefully some of it is performance based but as long as he improves it will be money well spent. This contract is where Marcus Rashford will stake his claim in United history. Will it be more inconsistency and flashes of brilliance, part of mediocrity or will he elevate to become our all time top scorer and help us win big trophies? I trust ETH to keep him hungry and motivated and with Garnacho fighting for that spot the competition should help Rashford.
I'm happy he's staying. Rashford is red and one of our own.
I'm happy he's staying. Rashford is red and one of our own.
Keeping Rashford means more than just ”keeping Rashford”
He is a great player who is a true red and a MBE. Losing him would not be good for our image at all.
Very happy to keep him and hope (if he continues to be good enough) he will stay here his whole career.
He is a great player who is a true red and a MBE. Losing him would not be good for our image at all.
Very happy to keep him and hope (if he continues to be good enough) he will stay here his whole career.
It’s probably closer to the truth. Remember that when the media report on United players they report everything all in (bonuses etc) yet when they report on other teams they report the basic figure. It’s infuriating
not to mention conveniently quoting euro figures in pounds
Yep another sneaky tactic
When we let a players contract run down, he basically holds all the cards in the contract negotiations. Especially good players that are getting offers from abroad.
Marcus may be worth a little less or a little more, but ultimately the only important factor is not losing him. To replace him would f up our transfer window and anyone coming in with similar output would want the same wages.
Now let's get him a striker to play off of and lets hope he can repeat this season's heroics.
Marcus may be worth a little less or a little more, but ultimately the only important factor is not losing him. To replace him would f up our transfer window and anyone coming in with similar output would want the same wages.
Now let's get him a striker to play off of and lets hope he can repeat this season's heroics.
Yeah, I imagine the max figure some places are quoting are what he'd get if he triggered all the incentives that week. Like actually playing/scoring, etc.
I know it's still a lot, but if there's one player in the squad at the moment who deserves to be overpaid it's probably him. He came through the youth team and worked his way up to this, contract by contract.
It's not his fault we'd already broken the wage structure so much. If the club had been better run and cared for (honestly, feck the Glazers) the top level our players would expect would be lower than this.
Have you seen the actual standard of our finishing this season?!
Who exactly replaces 30 goals?
Theoretically you are indeed right, so theoretically you make a good point, and I would agree you, theoretically.
Practically, though...
I get your point, just as you get my point. The comparison might not be the best, but you decided to just latch onto that and conveniently ignore the rest, because the facts are definitive.
I was talking about this just this season. Out of interest seeing as your a numbers guy whats this season look like when you remove his goals?
On the bit about his goals not improving us correct me if im wrong but didnt he have one of the best records for match winning goals this season? If so his goals staistically won us games no?
Also on the bolded part couldnt disagree more you genuienly believe if you replaced Rashford with Sancho we score more or just as many and the team plays better?
As for breaking are wage structureagain Sancho is on 350k at the moment this wage structure is fecked already and more than likely bringing in a replacement would mean 70m min and probably 200k+ a week see Antony for example.
to answer your question about this season:
We've averaged approximately 1.6 goals per game this season.
The numbers are pretty much exactly the same with or without Rashford, so much so that any small discrepancy is so minute it's inconsequential.
Granted, as you said, it would be better with a bigger sample size, as Rashford pretty much always plays when fit.
I definitely think Rashford is an important player, and his pace makes him valuable against certain opponents. He is especially dangerous when we mainly play on the counter, or when he comes on as a late sub and can run against tired defenders. He's the last person you'd want on your flank when you are too tired to sprint back.
Against well organized teams that also mantain a well organized backline with not too much space behind, he offers very little. His hold up play, press resistance and decision making is objectively and statistically poor. You can use stats to see that, but that's not necessary, because even the most tactically inept fan can see this by just watching him. Even his biggest fans know that is true. It's why even those who love him to bits, often get frustrated when watching him. He makes a lot of poor decisions, and he does so in almost every single game. He rarely has an OVERALL good game where he is bang on with his decision making, even in the games he scores.
You know this is true, as you and everyone else can see it clear as day every time he plays. It's especially evident when watching him from the stands. You then clearly see all the passing lanes and options he frequently ignores or fails to spot, before eventually running into dead end channels or straight into defenders, proceeding to give the ball away. This is something everyone knows, and it's just plain bad footballing. Not only from a technical level, but it also displays very poor tactical understanding. He will gladly waste the ball away, when other players are in better positions to create goal scoring opportunities. That is inexcusable. You simply can't defend or ignore that.
His ability to dribble past defenders is not good, yet he never stops trying it. In fact, he has the most attempted dribbles in the entire league this season. That does sound quite impressive at first glance... But when you also see that his dribling success is much lower than those who also tries to dribble a lot, it becomes nothing but a dreadful statistic. It's the equivalent of being the player to try the most passes, while also mostly misplacing those passes. It's just poor footballing and decision making.
His style of play is very good on the counter, but comparably also very poor and detrimental in a team that wants to keep possession to dominate the play and build up attacks to produce more frequent and effective chances.
To illustrate this, try picturing swapping Grealish for Rashford in City's team. Grealish hasn't scored anywhere near as much Rashford... Yet he has been instrumental to City's success at keeping the ball in the team by not giving it away. That might not seem so important on its own, but it's when you look at the bigger tactical picture that you really understand exactly why that is crucial...
People will say that Haaland is more important than someone like Grealish. Okay... Yes, he is indeed very important. But City were just as dominant in the league before Haaland, and in some seasons, even more so. They've had seasons with over 100 goals and points, without Haaland. So he isn't the key to their league success, even though he is their main goalscorer. That's not to say he isn't fantastic, and very important. He absolutely is both! But people don't look past the goals when trying to tactically understand teams. When Haaland didn't play, City still scored tons of goals.
The success of City isn't mainly down to their striker. They've scored more goals in several seasons without Haaland. Their main key is the other players who are able to keep the ball circulating, and not giving it away very often. That's exactly how they create so many chances for each other, and this season, mainly Haaland.
Enter players like Grealish, who don't score as much as Rashford. His style of play is exactly what makes those types of chances for Haaland. Same goes for the other City players, like KDB and the rest, who all have this very trait, that Rashford so sorely lacks.
So if you put Rashford in a better side, he won't be nearly as effective. He would in fact be detrimental to the other players, because the best teams don't rely on counterattacks, and Hail Mary attempts of constantly hitting it long over defenders in the back channels. Instead, they slow down the game, control the tempo, then increase the tempo by passing the ball and rotating positions, until the opposition is out of balance and have lost their structural formation... Then they strike! They will of course counter on occassion, but not too much. The main objective is to create as many chances in a game as possible, and the most reliable way to achieve this is to keep possession and not play a game of high risk/high reward every single time, like we often do. This was perfectly illustrated when City completely tore Real Madrid's counterattacking to total shreds and pieces in the semifinal. United play like a worse version of Real Madrid, because of players like De Gea, Rashford, Fred, and Wan-Bissaka... who simply don't have the passing ability, press resistance, ball control or decision making to play in a possessional and positional-based style that is set up to dominate play.
Just to be perfectly clear because I'm sure you're probably hopping mad that I mentioned Rashford in the same vein as someone like Fred: Rashford is way better than the other players mentioned there. Way, way better. I'm clearly talking about a limited set of crucial attributes, and not their entire skillsets.
By the way, tou falsely made the claim that I argued Sancho is better than Rashford, which is something I never said. I just pointed out the fact that in the (admittedly few) games Rashford didn't play, we didn't even end up needing him, as we scored just as much as we did when he played. Yet again, the sample size is low, but it's still not irrelevant. But your point about a bigger sample size being better is certainly true. It's just hard to measure that, because he virtually plays every game anyway.
Your point about some if his goals being decisive and important in securing wins is very good. That's a completely valid argument, and can't be argued. That's well done. By no stretch of the imagination am I saying or even implying that Rashford isn't good, or important. He evidently is both. So I agree, his goalscoring is at times key.
So to summarize:
1) I think it's smart to keep Rashford, because he has extreme pace, which is a rare and useful trait. He also has a powerful, if not a blt erratic shot on him.
2) I wouldn't play him all the time like has been, but instead use him in games where he really suits the opposition. I'd also bring him on as a late sub in certain games, because he can really hurt a tired defense.
3) I'd want to bring in someone with the tactical and technical ability like Grealish, who will better suit the style we are trying to evolve under Ten Hag. And also to create competition for Rashford. Sancho is the closest we have to that, but he is too timid and not assertive enough to really do it consistently. Seems like a mental thing for Sancho. He is also on way too high a wage, just to be clear.
4) And not least, I wouldn't make Rashford the top earner in the entire league. That's seriously insane. Not to mention how that will continue our awful trend of demolishing our wage structure, making it virtually impossible to ever sell our players. If we keep this up, all of our best players will almost always run out their contracts and leave on a free. We've had this problem for 15 years, and contracts like these will ensure that it will continue for the next 15 years. The fact the we pay higher wages than City and Liverpool, is just indefensibly poor decision making. The very small group of fans defending that practice, are seriously deluded, or just a bit daft.
Sorry for the long post. I thought you raised some proper questions, and I wanted to give you a proper answer, at least as much as I can do.
Last edited:
This is what Rashford said himself a couple of months ago when one of the rag papers said he was asking for £350K a week.
I don’t believe the £375K a week thing and no doubt it’ll be massively incentive based but much like the rag papers calculate our transfer fees by including add ons and wages so it looks a ridiculous fee I think they’re doing the same with Rashford’s contract too.
What I do hope though is that Rashford signing a new contract and Garnacho also doing so would mean us moving Sancho on as. If Greenwood comes back plus Antony, Diallo and Pellestri we’re more than covered across the wings and Sancho just looks too lightweight and bottles everything whether it be a shot or a tackle.
Reaching 30 goals was a great feat but too much importance is being placed on the number when analysing how good Rashford actually is. Scoring 30 goals in a season doesn't suddenly make you world class or above criticism.
Lukaku in 2017/18 had 27 goals and 7 assists, 5 contributions under than Rashford with 260 less mins.
Ibra in 2016/17 had 28 goals and 10 assists, 3 contributions under Rashford in 450 less mins.
I don't think either of these seasons were that great from the two above but remember people banging the drum of their numbers especially Lukaku when he was criticised after the season by some.
The reason these weren't that impressive is if you're the main goal scorer in a top team that is geared to play to your strengths any good striker that plays a shit tonne of minutes should be good for at least 25 goals in all comps.
To Rashford's credit he had a two month period where he separated himself from the seasons Ibra and Lukaku had. In that period he was the multifunctional attacker who deserved to be in conversation with the game's elite but after that he was back to the almost one-dimensional Rashford we've seen for years.
I say this to say Rashford should be a complementary piece in a title winning attack not the centrepiece. We've paid him like he's the main guy.
Lukaku in 2017/18 had 27 goals and 7 assists, 5 contributions under than Rashford with 260 less mins.
Ibra in 2016/17 had 28 goals and 10 assists, 3 contributions under Rashford in 450 less mins.
I don't think either of these seasons were that great from the two above but remember people banging the drum of their numbers especially Lukaku when he was criticised after the season by some.
The reason these weren't that impressive is if you're the main goal scorer in a top team that is geared to play to your strengths any good striker that plays a shit tonne of minutes should be good for at least 25 goals in all comps.
To Rashford's credit he had a two month period where he separated himself from the seasons Ibra and Lukaku had. In that period he was the multifunctional attacker who deserved to be in conversation with the game's elite but after that he was back to the almost one-dimensional Rashford we've seen for years.
I say this to say Rashford should be a complementary piece in a title winning attack not the centrepiece. We've paid him like he's the main guy.
Well they will be looking to get players on the level of Salah and Mane, and he is not. Even last season when Salah is far past his best, he was better than Rashford.
Haaland 375K per week
I don’t know what people were expecting. Rashford is 25 and just had a career year. On the open market he’d easily get 350k+. This is gonna be the biggest contract of his career he rightly deserves to be the highest paid player at the club and the club aren’t gonna risk losing him over it.
Haaland 375K per week
Honestly, we all know it’s absolute nonsense, but hey, if it helps the argument let’s just pretend Haaland is on 365k
fecking people
Ronaldo’s Arabian contract or the money given to Benzema or offered to Modric is much more likely a better reference for Haaland’s contract.
No he wasn’t. And Mane wasn’t in the level of peak Liverpool Mane when they signed him so your argument falls flat.
Would cost the club far more to let him go on a free and finance a replacement deal.
Also makes me think there's an even greater chance of DDG leaving this summer.
Also makes me think there's an even greater chance of DDG leaving this summer.
So you believe Gakpo is a level above Rashford then?
Never reference 100+ rule breakers when making a fecking comparison man
I did put apparently.I think £375k is Haaland's base and through their dodgy methods, reduced haaland's transfer fee and paid him the difference as a signing on bonus. I believe his transfer fee is quoted at £51m but before it was known to be about £70m.
My guess is he probably gets £375k as a base and another £350k+ as a signing on bonus, before any other clauses like goals scored etc. Fair to say he's earning a shit tonne.
Last edited:
Honestly, we all know it’s absolute nonsense, but hey, if it helps the argument let’s just pretend Haaland is on 365k
fecking people
Ronaldo’s Arabian contract or the money given to Benzema or offered to Modric is much more likely a better reference for Haaland’s contract.
Surely the argument is that if city are paying haaland under the table it's because you can't operate within the rules and pay him as much as they actually are? So whatever they're paying him off the books is irrelevant to what we can offer rashford, unless we decided to star paying players off the books as well, which I assume none of want. And, operating within the rules, 375k for rashford is far too much
Honestly, we all know it’s absolute nonsense, but hey, if it helps the argument let’s just pretend Haaland is on 365k
fecking people
Ronaldo’s Arabian contract or the money given to Benzema or offered to Modric is much more likely a better reference for Haaland’s contract.
It's so obvious that it's bs but people pretend it's not.
Maybe that's what Spotrac or Capology said. 2 of the shit sources and people use that as some sort of official wage.
He was notably better, and any time you buy a player you expect it will take time to settle in, and you have an expected development.
No but I could see him being better in time. Also what are his wages?
Do you think Rashford is good enough to be a starter for any of the top 6 clubs?
Newcastle, Liverpool, Brighton.
That is not the same as saying they would take him and play him in the first 11.
He’d start for City and be one of their best players.
That's what I thought. Like others have said, it is more than likely the maximum base contract with extra paid depending on targets and performance.
Rashford earned those wages by bagging over 34 goal involvements in 3 out of his last 4 seasons. If Gakpo got those numbers in the Premier League over the next few seasons then I'm sure he'd get a similarly hefty pay rise in a few years time.
While it's not possible to know the actual wages paid to every player, those sites do give a near reliable basic wage packet for most players.
I think its a bit unfair to just label them shit sources when many of the wages listed there have been quite commonly reported. DDG's salary for example was widely known and its the same with many other players.
Of course teams like City game the system so theirs are probably horseshit but I wouldn't say its the same for all teams. European teams especially are quite transparent with basic wages.
Look at the list for United players and which of them seem unreasonable or made up.
What we probably don't know is the additional payments for clauses in the contracts.
In this very thread I showed how shit they are. No, they don't get anything right, they are just shit.
Please link me to the post I'm interested to know why you think this.
Do you believe DDG wasn't earning £375k a week?
Watch the actual goals back. There's a single penalty in there, and maybe two or three tap-ins. The rest are quality goals - many very high quality goals - and many of them were created pretty much solo by him whether through beating a couple of men, a mazy run, a trick, a shot from distance or whatever. It's an extremely high quality 30 goals and very visibly a set of goals scored by a creative attacker mostly playing off the wing.
Anyone acting as if it was somehow easy for him to put up the numbers he has is ignoring the factual evidence of the goals themselves.
It's also good news for the team, because if we can find a solid, clinical proper #9 to score 20 league goals next season, it's unlikely those goals will necessarily take away from Rashford's. There's a whole category of goalscoring that we just didn't do very well most of the time last season, and that's free 'goal difference' up for grabs if we find the right player to put those chances away.
Come on mate I'd expect better from you.
This doesn't necessarily mean the numbers are shit you just aren't comparing like with like.
First off basic wages and actual payments are very different, this has been highlighted already. Goal bonuses, appearance fees, fines, image rights etc are variables that are added on to basic wages. These are things we will never know.
The swiss ramble excerpts from the accounts are wages and salaries for all staff not just playing staff. Back office, match day staff, scouts, coaches and players. This is why the numbers are much higher than reported in sportrak and capology.
Lastly there's also the issue of bonuses from winning the league like Liverpool did in 2020 or reductions in player salaries when we don't qualify for CL. Looking at headline salary figures and comparing them needs a lot of context for the comparisons to make sense.
Those two websites show basic wages what you shown is actual payments. There's a difference.
Very good points, lots of his goals were indeed high quality this season.
But, I urge you to bookmark this post you made. Because I simply can't see how that claim will come to fruition.
I'm confident that if we bring in a 20+ league goals striker, that Rashford won't hit those same numbers.
Bookmark this, and we can pick this up in 12 months. If you were right, I'll be happy for us fans, Rashford and our team, and I will gladly admit I was completely wrong. Nothing would be better.
This is my prediction: Rashford will fall off a cliff again. Then he will pick himself back up for a string of games, and yet again fall off a cliff. I can easily see that being his entire career projectory. I think many fans who now sing his praises will yet again turn on him in a few years, when he will be stuck here on those wages, whilst constantly underperforming. Our fanbase are largely swayed by recency bias, and will happily change their opinion with whatever's fashionable.
I think Marcus Rashford is the epitome of a pretty good footballer who is wildly inconsistent. And no, I don't solely judge players on their G/A. That's nothing more than lazy surface level analysis. He needs to improve his overall game drastically, and I think that's highly unlikely to happen. And I'm pretty sure that he also won't be to able to produce the same amount of goals on a consistent basis.
Once again, if I end up being wrong, feel free to come back and quote my wrong predictions. I'll be more than happy to admit I was wrong.
Last edited:
So all the staff work only for ManUtd and no one works for Liverpool? I also expected lot from you but looks like you like these sites so you might not like someone calling out for what it is.
Difference between Manutd and Liverpool official wages was around 10 million, as per these shit sites it is around 100 million. So how exactly are they reliable?
Also your lastly point, that's the reason I took that particular season where both clubs finished in the same position and won nothing. So don't come up with "they have bonuses" thing. Every club has it, it's just that how the wages are reported by journalists are different. Can't blame them when people lap it up all the time. Both clubs qualified for CL by finishing top 4. So that's the best season to compare like for like.
Also with all due respect please spare me with all these "basic wages" "bonus wages" thing. I know that and I have been posting about them for more than 5-6 years now. People just look at numbers and follow that blindly like a sheep. The wages reported by journalists are heavily PR influenced. Some clubs report only basic wages and for some clubs they report complete package including appearance fee, loyalty bonus, signing on fee bonus, image rights everything. So for one club they report minimum that the player gets and for the other player they report the max that player can get if they hit all possible targets. How is that a fair comparison?
The 2 websites are just crap and just copies the numbers they find online posted by random journalist. So the report "TAA will get at least 45K per week" when he signed his first contract will be reported as TAA - 45K per week by these 2 shit sites. Brandon Williams reported wages comes with a tag, "he can earn up to 65K per week" reading that it's so obvious that he should hit all his bonuses to reach the max figures. These 2 shit sites copy that as Brandon Williams - 65K per week.
End result? The same site reports wages differently, reading that people lose their mind. So no they don't report basic wages.
- Status