Marcus Rashford new contract thread | It's officially signed

Status
Not open for further replies.
He's not worth the quoted amount, but what is the alternative? Selling him and buying a replacement in today's market (where Mount is being quoted at an idiotic price, in addition to United being stupid in the transfer market) would cost nothing less than £80m, with the added risk of bringing in a new player whom the club is not certain will work out.

He's not an elite player, but he's been capable over the years . The club has made its bed by offering other players daft wages, so might as well stick it out in this instance. Allowing him to leave will be costlier overall imo.
 
Hammondo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Good luck to them with that. Rashford has outscored Mane over the last four years by the way.
 
El Jefe said:
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.
Click to expand...
You’re comparing wingers to strikers. Compare him to people who play in the same position.
 
acnumber9 said:
You’re comparing wingers to strikers. Compare him to people who play in the same position.
Click to expand...
He played a big part of this increase-deserving season as striker and there's been stories he sees himself as a striker. So what are you talking about?
 
Rightnr said:
He played a big part of this increase-deserving season as striker and there's been stories he sees himself as a striker. So what are you talking about?
Click to expand...
According to this:

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/marcus-rashford/leistungsdaten/spieler/258923/plus/0?saison=2022

He played 19 games up front and scored 11 goals. He played 35 out wide and scored 18. So he’s more prolific up front so if he played up front as often as Lukaku etc he’d likely have more goals. It’s not difficult to understand here.
 
Not sure what anyone is complaining about, im just happy to get him tied to a new contract

When you look at the deals we handed to average performers like De Gea and Sancho then he's worth every penny
 
acnumber9 said:
Good luck to them with that. Rashford has outscored Mane over the last four years by the way.
Click to expand...
Surface level analysis by just comparing goals from individual players.

It completely overlooks the fact that Mane was a better allround footballer than Rashford, whose contributions and playing style was massively important to Liverpool's domination of possession, which resulted in far more goals for the team as a whole. Regardless of who actually ends up scoring.

Ronaldo also proved this point. He was by far our best goalscorer, yet he failed to make the team any better as a whole.

Haaland is the perfect example of this. Although he is by far the best striker in the world, City managed more than fine before he joined. They even scored more in previous seasons than they do now. They managed over a 100 goals and 100 points, with strikers not as prolific as Haaland.

You only look at how many goals a player scores, while not understanding that the most important factor is how many goals the team as a whole scores.

So there's a lot more to judging a players' worth and importance than just looking at their goals and assists. A lot, lot more.
 
He's 26 by October. So this is his big one, he's definitely top 3 post SAF united player and is currently one of our best player at the moment and going forward. This contract is a reward for loyalty and also represents his status within the club. This is different from the De Gea and Rooney one because they got theirs after their best years. While he's getting his entering his best years (hopefully).
 
Looking forward to getting him tied down. We for sure need a top class striker to playa long side him to have a chance and hope the right wing options improve which I think they will.
 
ifightdragons said:
Surface level analysis by just comparing goals from individual players.

It completely overlooks the fact that Mane was a better allround footballer than Rashford, whose contributions and playing style was massively important to Liverpool's domination of possession, which resulted in far more goals for the team as a whole. Regardless of who actually ends up scoring.

Ronaldo also proved this point. He was by far our best goalscorer, yet he failed to make the team any better as a whole.

Haaland is the perfect example of this. Although he is by far the best striker in the world, City managed more than fine before he joined. They even scored more in previous seasons than they do now. They managed over a 100 goals and 100 points, with strikers not as prolific as Haaland.

You only look at how many goals a player scores, while not understanding that the most important factor is how many goals the team as a whole scores.

So there's a lot more to judging a players' worth and importance than just looking at their goals and assists. A lot, lot more.
Click to expand...
Mane wasn’t better at setting up his teammates either. He may or may not have been better defensively but then he also had the benefit of playing in a settled team under a better manager. We’ve just seen how Mane coped outside of that comfort zone.

Like it or not, goals and assists will always be the most important metric for judging attackers.
 
roonster09 said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you recall I didn't say they should be used as gospel but it's reasonable enough to not be complete shit, that's my main point.

I think the higher end wages are usually reliable. The mid to low squad members are where there is usually a cloub around them. I've got no clue what Mctominay earns for example but contracts for DDG and Martial were pretty widely reported at the time. Same with Bruno, it was known that he joined on a wage less than our top earners which is why we gave him the early extension last year to bring his pay more in line with our top earners.

You can't believe everything listed in those sites but its not all crap in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
I am sure no one will agree with me but rashford is the most over rated player in england. Even callum wilson scored more than him with lesser players (and being rotated regularly with isak) around him and CW isn’t exactly a world class player. The craziest thing is that CW link up play is x10 better than MR as well. Man utd should sold him this season for 80m and buy someone like osimehn for 100-110m for lesser wages. You would have by far the better player, younger and will not break your wage structure
 
acnumber9 said:
According to this:

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/marcus-rashford/leistungsdaten/spieler/258923/plus/0?saison=2022

He played 19 games up front and scored 11 goals. He played 35 out wide and scored 18. So he’s more prolific up front so if he played up front as often as Lukaku etc he’d likely have more goals. It’s not difficult to understand here.
Click to expand...

He was our main goalscorer though regardless of where he played. Salah doesn't play up front for liverpool, Ronaldo didn't play up front for Madrid and Messi didn't usually play up front for Barca, mbappe doesn't play up front for psg. But these players are the ones the attack looks to, the ones they try to get into dangerous positions and give the ball to, the one the attack is built around, not playing up front isn't really that important in that context.
 
El Jefe said:
I definitely wasn't easy, my main point was

If you recall I didn't say they should be used as gospel but it's reasonable enough to not be complete shit, that's my main point.

I think the higher end wages are usually reliable. The mid to low squad members are where there is usually a cloub around them. I've got no clue what Mctominay earns for example but contracts for DDG and Martial were pretty widely reported at the time. Same with Bruno, it was known that he joined on a wage less than our top earners which is why we gave him the early extension last year to bring his pay more in line with our top earners.

You can't believe everything listed in those sites but its not all crap in my opinion.
Click to expand...

The difference in wages between Manutd and Liverpool as per them is 100 million, as per official wages it's around 10 million. How can it be anything but crap.

Like I explained, they just see numbers and dump them in their site without any context. That's why they are crap and get everything so horribly wrong.
 
acnumber9 said:
You’re comparing wingers to strikers. Compare him to people who play in the same position.
Click to expand...
This isn't 2005 anymore. Primary goalscorers can be compared whether they play centrally or out wide.

Ronaldo, Messi, Mbappe and Salah have all operated mainly off the wings and have scored as much as anyone else. Rashford is not a winger, he is a wide forward and actually got many games as a striker this year.
 
jm99 said:
He was our main goalscorer though regardless of where he played. Salah doesn't play up front for liverpool, Ronaldo didn't play up front for Madrid and Messi didn't usually play up front for Barca, mbappe doesn't play up front for psg. But these players are the ones the attack looks to, the ones they try to get into dangerous positions and give the ball to, the one the attack is built around, not playing up front isn't really that important in that context.
Click to expand...
That would be to ignore the fact he has a higher scoring ratio when playing up front this season. All those other players you mention are the main penalty takers for their teams. Stick Rashford on penalties and his scoring rate goes up too.
 
El Jefe said:
This isn't 2005 anymore. Primary goalscorers can be compared whether they play centrally or out wide.

Ronaldo, Messi, Mbappe and Salah have all operated mainly off the wings and have scored as much as anyone else. Rashford is not a winger, he is a wide forward and actually got many games as a striker this year.
Click to expand...
Two of the greatest to ever play the game and every one of them takes penalties. Compare him to the likes of Son, Mane, Sterling etc. He performs very well in comparison.
 
acnumber9 said:
That would be to ignore the fact he has a higher scoring ratio when playing up front this season. All those other players you mention are the main penalty takers for their teams. Stick Rashford on penalties and his scoring rate goes up too.
Click to expand...

37 yesr old Ronaldo had 15 in 30 in the league taking out penalties, better than rashfords's 17 in 35. 35 year old ibra had 15 in 28 if you take out penalties. For someone to get 400k a week I'd be expecting them to massively outperform two players more than half way through their 30s
 
jm99 said:
37 yesr old Ronaldo had 15 in 30 in the league taking out penalties, better than rashfords's 17 in 35. 35 year old ibra had 15 in 28 if you take out penalties. For someone to get 400k a week I'd be expecting them to massively outperform two players more than half way through their 30s
Click to expand...

Now it's 400k :lol:
 
jm99 said:
37 yesr old Ronaldo had 15 in 30 in the league taking out penalties, better than rashfords's 17 in 35. 35 year old ibra had 15 in 28 if you take out penalties. For someone to get 400k a week I'd be expecting them to massively outperform two players more than half way through their 30s
Click to expand...

Rashford is on £400k a week? I thought it was £375k
 
acnumber9 said:
Two of the greatest to ever play the game and every one of them takes penalties. Compare him to the likes of Son, Mane, Sterling etc. He performs very well in comparison.
Click to expand...
That's a fair point but I wouldn't make any of those players the main piece of my attack if I was looking to win big trophies nor would I pay them £375k a week.

Rashford needs a Kane, Salah or Aguero to lead just as the players above did. We've given him the status of a No.1 which has always been my problem.
 
ifightdragons said:
Surface level analysis by just comparing goals from individual players.

It completely overlooks the fact that Mane was a better allround footballer than Rashford, whose contributions and playing style was massively important to Liverpool's domination of possession, which resulted in far more goals for the team as a whole. Regardless of who actually ends up scoring.

Ronaldo also proved this point. He was by far our best goalscorer, yet he failed to make the team any better as a whole.

Haaland is the perfect example of this. Although he is by far the best striker in the world, City managed more than fine before he joined. They even scored more in previous seasons than they do now. They managed over a 100 goals and 100 points, with strikers not as prolific as Haaland.

You only look at how many goals a player scores, while not understanding that the most important factor is how many goals the team as a whole scores.

So there's a lot more to judging a players' worth and importance than just looking at their goals and assists. A lot, lot more.
Click to expand...
Do you actually believe replacing Rashford in are team makes the other players better?

On the bold part Ronaldo scoring goals didn't make the team worse, the team being shit did that. Hiring Ragnick did that, the players giving up did that. There's so much missing context to that statement.

You keep using Haaland as a example they've just come off of a TREBLE winning season. They might of done fine before he joined but adding him as literally meant they've won the lot. Do you think you would be able to find a City fan that would say they would have done the treble without his goals?
 
jm99 said:
37 yesr old Ronaldo had 15 in 30 in the league taking out penalties, better than rashfords's 17 in 35. 35 year old ibra had 15 in 28 if you take out penalties. For someone to get 400k a week I'd be expecting them to massively outperform two players more than half way through their 30s
Click to expand...
Look at what they were paid. Rashford has the upside of improving with age and experience too. Then take the fact that we would lose a massive asset for nothing in 12 months. Rashford may not ‘deserve’ that wage but the cost is less than replacing him.
 
jm99 said:
Oh, you're right that 1.3 million a year we'd save is a big difference. Fine, 375k I still think that's massively excessive
Click to expand...

Don't know why you're getting arsey and defensive about it. Wasn't making the argument that the money you added on was somehow going to bankrupt us as a club. I was more bemused why you felt the need to add another 25 grand onto his wage. Could almost seem like an agenda thing going on...
 
El Jefe said:
That's a fair point but I wouldn't make any of those players the main piece of my attack if I was looking to win big trophies nor would I pay them £375k a week.

Rashford needs a Kane, Salah or Aguero to lead just as the players above did. We've given him the status of a No.1 which has always been my problem.
Click to expand...
But Sterling is getting paid over £300k a week on top of the nearly £50m they spent to sign him. The road to improving our team isn’t by losing Rashford for free.
 
BusbyMalone said:
Don't know why you're getting arsey and defensive about it. Wasn't making the argument that the money you added on was somehow going to bankrupt us as a club. I was more bemused why you felt the need to add another 25 grand onto his wage. Could almost seem like an agenda thing going on...
Click to expand...

It's becusee 400k is a round number, nothing more insidious than that.
 
acnumber9 said:
Look at what they were paid. Rashford has the upside of improving with age and experience too. Then take the fact that we would lose a massive asset for nothing in 12 months. Rashford may not ‘deserve’ that wage but the cost is less than replacing him.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is the thing that seems to have been forgotten (or just ignored) in all of this. Yes, it's a massive wage, and Rashford can be a very frustrating player. No doubt. However, we're also a better team with him in it. Also, if we were to replace him, not only would we be paying that player close to what Rashford is now getting, but we'd also be paying a huge transfer fee for a wide-attacking player who can put up the type of numbers that Rashford put up last season.
 
acnumber9 said:
But Sterling is getting paid over £300k a week on top of the nearly £50m they spent to sign him. The road to improving our team isn’t by losing Rashford for free.
Click to expand...

Top 3 in PL as per Matt Law, top 2 was Ronaldo and Salah at that time.

 
sullydnl said:
It's sensible as long as you accept that you will by definition be less competitive in the transfer market and more likely to see your best players leave. And you take the increased risk of negative outcomes that correlates to as read. Along with the discontent of fans when a policy they might have supported in theory sees them actually miss out on or lose a player they wanted at the club.

As such it's rarely surprising when the wealthiest clubs don't opt to go that route.
Click to expand...
I get that and have said before that without his goals last year we simply wouldn't be in the champions league. Given the absolutely vital financial need for champions league football that's an argument right there for rewarding success. But there's no denying that the clubs wage structure has been an abomination over the past ten years or so, with often the highest wages in the league and a dismal return from that showing (no premiership or champions league wins, no real proper challenges, multiple top 4 fails). DDG, Sanchez, Ronaldo, Sancho, etc are/were on obscene wages. I was actually excited by the prospect of our players having slightly more reasonable contracts.

Just supposing we were in talks with Kane or Mbappe or someone of that class, do they look at Rashford's alleged wages and demand similar? I'm not saying they will but i'm genuinely curious to see if this has a knock on effect, especially considering that these examples are both better players than Rashford.
 
jm99 said:
It's becusee 400k is a round number, nothing more insidious than that.
Click to expand...

I just find it bizarre to round up by £25K. I mean, £375K is already a huge amount if you want to make the argument that it's too much.
 
BusbyMalone said:
Yeah, this is the thing that seems to have been forgotten (or just ignored) in all of this. Yes, it's a massive wage, and Rashford can be a very frustrating player. No doubt. However, we're also a better team with him in it. Also, if we were to replace him, not only would we be paying that player close to what Rashford is now getting, but we'd also be paying a huge transfer fee for a wide-attacking player who can put up the type of numbers that Rashford put up last season.
Click to expand...

Tbh it's more the domino effectm if rashford get 375k, why shouldn't Bruno, whichever striker we bring in will want close to that, then you have a whole team all on inflated salaries. If it was someone like mbappe fair enough, but rashford isn't good enough to justify that high a salary and giving him it would encourage the rest to act similar, knowing they can run their contract down and we'll buckle to the pressure
 
BusbyMalone said:
I just find it bizarre to round up by £25K. I mean, £375K is already a huge amount if you want to make the argument that it's too much.
Click to expand...

It's not though, when Ronaldo was reportedly on 480k here everyone called it 500k, I believe de gea is 375k, but also routinely is referred to as 400k, its not a bias against rashford, its standard practice
 
Status
Not open for further replies.