Marcus Rashford new contract thread | It's officially signed

[Crimson King]

He wouldn't get in their squad, he's not capable of playing the way they do

Neither was Haaland, or Grealish for over a season.

Pep would find a way to get him in.

 

[jm99]

Rashford deserves his salary. It is crazy money, but it's the going rate for a 25 year old who has just come off a 30 goal season. We would be lucky to have made the UEFA Conference League without his goals and the way we are moving in the transfer market this summer, we may need another 30 off him next year.

I too have a few doubts about him, but United have stitched themselves up by giving the likes of Sancho massive salaries. Very easy argument for Rashford's agents to make when you compare his output to that of Sancho. Saka just got 300k+ a week from Arsenal, which was his first big contract at the age of 21.

Instead of fans thinking about Rashford in years when we was playing injured and for inept managers, let's think about what he has just done under the instruction of ETH. Mayne this is the new norm for him?

While I'm not saying they don't mean anything 13 of those 30 goals came in thr league Cup, europa league and fa Cup. Compare that to kane who's a 30 league goal a season striker. 375k would be about right for him, not for someone who got 17 league goals

 

[Devil You Know]

Rashford deserves his salary. It is crazy money, but it's the going rate for a 25 year old who has just come off a 30 goal season. We would be lucky to have made the UEFA Conference League without his goals and the way we are moving in the transfer market this summer, we may need another 30 off him next year.

I too have a few doubts about him, but United have stitched themselves up by giving the likes of Sancho massive salaries. Very easy argument for Rashford's agents to make when you compare his output to that of Sancho. Saka just got 300k+ a week from Arsenal, which was his first big contract at the age of 21.

Instead of fans thinking about Rashford in years when we was playing injured and for inept managers, let's think about what he has just done under the instruction of ETH. Mayne this is the new norm for him?

It was only one inept manager he was poor under - Rangnick.

Under Ole and Jose he was putting up comparable numbers to last season.

 

[Posh Red]

He wouldn't get in their squad, he's not capable of playing the way they do

He definitely is capable

 

[ThierryHenry14]

I too have a few doubts about him, but United have stitched themselves up by giving the likes of Sancho massive salaries. Very easy argument for Rashford's agents to make when you compare his output to that of Sancho. Saka just got 300k+ a week from Arsenal, which was his first big contract at the age of 21.

It is just the market rate. I don't know what people are complaining about. Saka 21 is already on 290k. If he keeps up his performance and increase his output to match Rashford (40 Goal + assist) he will be asking for 400k+ for his next contract. You can offer Rashford 250k and he will just reject it and walk for free end of his contract, no matter how many years he has left in his current contract.

 

[gaffs]

While I'm not saying they don't mean anything 13 of those 30 goals came in thr league Cup, europa league and fa Cup. Compare that to kane who's a 30 league goal a season striker. 375k would be about right for him, not for someone who got 17 league goals

Kane is an out and out striker. He also had 5 penalty goals in the PL, where Rashford had 0.

You are discounting the league cup goals, even though 4 of the 6 came against PL opposition, including one in the final.

A players salary value isnt just goals scored or even contribution to the team. What would other clubs pay for Rashford if he were to go on a free? 500k a week? What would it cost United to replace him and his 30 goals from the left forward position? Name a player as productive from that position that wouldn't cost a 100mil transfer fee?

End of the day, United and other top clubs have set the market rates over the years. Rashford is just next man up.

 

[jm99]

Kane is an out and out striker. He also had 5 penalty goals in the PL, where Rashford had 0.

You are discounting the league cup goals, even though 4 of the 6 came against PL opposition, including one in the final.

A players salary value isnt just goals scored or even contribution to the team. What would other clubs pay for Rashford if he were to go on a free? 500k a week? What would it cost United to replace him and his 30 goals from the left forward position? Name a player as productive from that position that wouldn't cost a 100mil transfer fee?

End of the day, United and other top clubs have set the market rates over the years. Rashford is just next man up.

It's not discounting them but it's extra games. Over the last ten years lukakku, ibra and Ronaldo have all had better goal ratios.

And whether he played up front or not he was our main goal scorer, the guy we always tried to get the ball to in dangerous positions. Like salah, Ronaldo, Messi etc. Playing off the wings doesn't make you not the main goalscorer

 

[gaffs]

It was only one inept manager he was poor under - Rangnick.

Under Ole and Jose he was putting up comparable numbers to last season.

Personally, i would put Ole into the inept category, despite Rashford's output under him. But that is another discussion.

 

[gaffs]

It's not discounting them but it's extra games. Over the last ten years lukakku, ibra and Ronaldo have all had better goal ratios.

And whether he played up front or not he was our main goal scorer, the guy we always tried to get the ball to in dangerous positions. Like salah, Ronaldo, Messi etc. Playing off the wings doesn't make you not the main goalscorer

Pretty telling that you don't consider Rashford to be worthy of 375k a week, yet your points of comparison are the two best players of all time in Ronaldo and Messi?

 

[Big Ben Foster]

It is just the market rate. I don't know what people are complaining about. Saka 21 is already on 290k. If he keeps up his performance and increase his output to match Rashford (40 Goal + assist) he will be asking for 400k+ for his next contract. You can offer Rashford 250k and he will just reject it and walk for free end of his contract, no matter how many years he has left in his current contract.

This.

United does have a problem of paying inflated, above-market salaries to players who wouldn't earn anywhere near the same amount anywhere else (De Gea, Sancho, etc).

Rashford is not one of those cases. What he's being paid is what you'd expect to pay these days for an attacking player of his caliber and output.

 

[jm99]

Pretty telling that you don't consider Rashford to be worthy of 375k a week, yet your points of comparison are the two best players of all time in Ronaldo and Messi?

My points of comparison are a tacticak one not a quality one. Players coming off the wings can be the main attackers and goalscorers

 

[united_99]

While I'm not saying they don't mean anything 13 of those 30 goals came in thr league Cup, europa league and fa Cup. Compare that to kane who's a 30 league goal a season striker. 375k would be about right for him, not for someone who got 17 league goals

And while I am not saying all goals mean the same, and certainly even all league goals don’t mean the same, some of Rashford’s crucial league goals won us 19 points last season. Without them we would be on 56 points and 10th in the league. And that’s without penalties.

 

[gaffs]

It is just the market rate. I don't know what people are complaining about. Saka 21 is already on 290k. If he keeps up his performance and increase his output to match Rashford (40 Goal + assist) he will be asking for 400k+ for his next contract. You can offer Rashford 250k and he will just reject it and walk for free end of his contract, no matter how many years he has left in his current contract.

Agree. It is market rate. United fans are scared by the fact that we have given the likes of Sancho and Sanchez massive salaries. But that is not a reason to not give one to Rashford who has produced every season, bar 21/22.

I would much rather give a big salary to a known quantity like Rashford than tempt a new signing in with one, which has proved fatal for United time and again.

 

[gaffs]

And while I am not saying all goals mean the same, and certainly even all league goals don’t mean the same, some of Rashford’s crucial league goals won us 19 points last season. Without them we would be on 56 points and 10th in the league. And that’s without penalties.

Well, if Rashford was not playing, its not like we would have been playing with 10 men.

But the point is valid and one that his agents would have had a very easy time making.

 

[united_99]

Well, if Rashford was not playing, its not like we would have been playing with 10 men.

But the point is valid and one that his agents would have had a very easy time making.

True, but based on last season he was hardly taking away a spot from anyone who could have scored his goals instead.

 

[gaffs]

My points of comparison are a tacticak one not a quality one. Players coming off the wings can be the main attackers and goalscorers

And those you name always have a top striker or forward as a foil or link up man.

Rashford is doing it with Wout and Martial (if fit).

What do you think Rashford should be paid? Who is his best comp in world football?

 

[acnumber9]

My points of comparison are a tacticak one not a quality one. Players coming off the wings can be the main attackers and goalscorers

Main attackers and goal-scorers usually take the penalties.

 

[jm99]

And those you name always have a top striker or forward as a foil or link up man.

Rashford is doing it with Wout and Martial (if fit).

What do you think Rashford should be paid? Who is his best comp in world football?

I think abiut 275 a week. 400 is for kane, de bruyne level players the absolute best in the league, maybe 300 at a push rashford but he's a clewr level below those players who I'd say 400 is the upper limit and 350 the lower

 

[jm99]

Main attackers and goal-scorers usually take the penalties.

No, the best penalty takers on the team usually takes penalties, Gerrard took them over Torres at Liverpool

 

[acnumber9]

It's not discounting them but it's extra games. Over the last ten years lukakku, ibra and Ronaldo have all had better goal ratios.

And whether he played up front or not he was our main goal scorer, the guy we always tried to get the ball to in dangerous positions. Like salah, Ronaldo, Messi etc. Playing off the wings doesn't make you not the main goalscorer

You keep saying Lukaku had a better scoring ratio but he didn’t. Nor did he assist at the same rate.

 

[gaffs]

True, but based on last season he was hardly taking away a spot from anyone who could have scored his goals instead.

Agree. He was our cutting edge and often created his goals himself.

I was at Wolves away when he did just that.

 

[united_99]

Well, if Rashford was not playing, its not like we would have been playing with 10 men.

But the point is valid and one that his agents would have had a very easy time making.

Btw, just did the same with Martial and his 6 league goals last season amounted to zero league points. So while we certainly wouldn’t be playing with 10 men without anybody, some players’ contributions are more valuable than others’ and would therefore more likely be missed if they weren’t playing.

 

[acnumber9]

No, the best penalty takers on the team usually takes penalties, Gerrard took them over Torres at Liverpool

Those attackers you keep comparing him to take the penalties. Apart from Lukaku, who Rashford had a scoring rate last season then Lukaku managed for us. Repeating the same thing over and over doesn’t make you right.

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

That's true. There is a lot of doubling down on here. A few weeks ago I remember after we lost to Brighton and West Ham back to back, the usual suspects on here were dismissing his 40 goal involvements as a purple patch and asking 'what does he actually do asides from score and assist loads?'

It’s nonsensical.

A loud contingent made some rather ludicrous statements as fact, posters continue to debunk the loose noises yet here we are again.

The thing that makes it more laughable are a number of the people who can’t wait to tell you how limited Rashford is are the same people that spent years talking up absolute rubbish like Maguire.

Jebus what a disaster of a thread.

To all the "he's not worth that" posters: yes he is, by definition. That's what it'll cost us to retain him, and it would cost much more in transfer fee + wages to replace him with a like player if he walked. This is even ignoring the value he brings as a local boy who's probably our most marketable player.

For everyone yammering about £200,000 per week wage caps, that was never going to happen nor should it. Not unless you want us to have any ambition as a club anyway. This is basically advocating for us to be on the level of Spurs.

Honestly, the people who want us to sell him and replace him with someone like Garnacho, explain your thinking. You want to replace him with a cheaper player who in the best case scenario might someday be about as good as Rashford is right now? Why? So the Glazers can save some money? Even putting that money towards a CF or some other need would still leave a huge hole where Rashford used to be and wouldn't actually make us better.

I'll never begrudge a player for their wage, even the ones like Sancho and DDG who have very clearly not been value for money. Careers are short and I'd rather the people out on the field providing the entertainment have that money than the feckin Florida failsons.

Edit: people are also living in the past if they think these types of wages aren't going to be the norm for goalscoring wide forwards who are just hitting their prime at the highest level.

Good post.

 

[jm99]

You keep saying Lukaku had a better scoring ratio but he didn’t. Nor did he assist at the same rate.

Fair enough Lukaku scored 16 in 34, rashford 17 in 35, definitely worth 375k a week then

 

[gaffs]

I think abiut 275 a week. 400 is for kane, de bruyne level players the absolute best in the league, maybe 300 at a push rashford but he's a clewr level below those players who I'd say 400 is the upper limit and 350 the lower

Ok. 275k a week would put him right between Koulibaly and Gabriel Jesus!

Rashford's agents would get fired if they came back to him with that!

 

[jm99]

Ok. 275k a week would put him right between Koulibaly and Gabriel Jesus!

Rashford's agents would get fired if they came back to him with that!

Koulibaly is clearly overpaid, I don't think he should be much higher than Jesus, that's around the level I'd say, maybe 300 at a push, for reference there are only 12 players in the league on 300k and above, koulibaly is leaving and de gears contract has run out so really only 10.

 

[acnumber9]

Fair enough Lukaku scored 16 in 34, rashford 17 in 35, definitely worth 375k a week then

Yeah because that’s the only factor at play. You were wrong. Simple as that.

If Lukaku was as good as Rashford, at the same age, with the same value, he would be paid the same. He isn’t so he’s not.

You can stick your fingers in your ears for as long as you want. It won’t change the fact there is legitimate reason for Rashford to be offered that contract. It’s significantly cheaper than the alternative.

 

[jm99]

Yeah because that’s the only factor at play. You were wrong. Simple as that.

If Lukaku was as good as Rashford, at the same age, with the same value, he would be paid the same. He isn’t so he’s not.

You can stick your fingers in your ears for as long as you want. It won’t change the fact there is legitimate reason for Rashford to be offered that contract. It’s significantly cheaper than the alternative.

OK then, de gea was worth 375k a week because that's what he was paid. Great argument

 

[acnumber9]

I think abiut 275 a week. 400 is for kane, de bruyne level players the absolute best in the league, maybe 300 at a push rashford but he's a clewr level below those players who I'd say 400 is the upper limit and 350 the lower

So the rumoured contract is £375k. The difference between what you think he’s worth over what he is allegedly getting is £25m over a five year contract. How much do you think it would cost to sign a player of Rashford’s standing, off the back of 30 goals and 11 assists at his age? Anything less than a £25m fee renders your argument utterly pointless. And that’s before we factor in the wages we’d be paying this new player.

 

[acnumber9]

OK then, de gea was worth 375k a week because that's what he was paid. Great argument

You really aren’t grasping basic economics here. See my post above.

 

[CloneMC16]

I don't think he's worth 375k, but losing him on a free would be terrible. Just paying it is the better option. Replacing him will cost £100m. We gotta hope that he can keep this level up over the next few seasons.

 

[jm99]

So the rumoured contract is £375k. The difference between what you think he’s worth over what he is allegedly getting is £25m over a five year contract. How much do you think it would cost to sign a player of Rashford’s standing, off the back of 30 goals and 11 assists at his age? Anything less than a £25m fee renders your argument utterly pointless. And that’s before we factor in the wages we’d be paying this new player.

Again that Isn't the issue, it would have cost more to replace de gea un terms of fee plus wages than than the 80m we spent, that didn't make it a good idea. And it isn't good practice to let our players know that if they run down their contracts to a year remaining they can totally fecking gouge us and we'll pay it to avoid paying a transfer fee to replace them

 

[jm99]

I don't think he's worth 375k, but losing him on a free would be terrible. Just paying it is the better option. Replacing him will cost £100m. We gotta hope that he can keep this level up over the next few seasons.

My issue is if other players see this work, what's to stop them running their contract down to a year left then getting an enormous contract so they don't leave on a free? They'll all do it if they know we'll pay

 

[ThierryHenry14]

My issue is if other players see this work, what's to stop them running their contract down to a year left then getting an enormous contract so they don't leave on a free? They'll all do it if they know we'll pay

Nothing. It is the same for every football player in every football club right now. There are lots of "free" players Man Utd can sign this summer.

 

[united_99]

My issue is if other players see this work, what's to stop them running their contract down to a year left then getting an enormous contract so they don't leave on a free? They'll all do it if they know we'll pay

Running your contract down would hardly be ground breaking. A lot of players at a lot of clubs do this more and more.
And in each case the club needs to decide if they want to offer them big wages to keep them or if the club is fine to let the player go because they would be easier/cheaper to replace than someone like Rashford.

 

[jm99]

Nothing. It is the same for every football player in every football club right now. There are lots of "free" players Man Utd can sign this summer.

That's what I'm saying though, this is football now, players will run down their contracts, we can't let them hold us to ransom though. We need a clean break from the Woodward philosophy

 

[ThierryHenry14]

That's what I'm saying though, this is football now, players will run down their contracts, we can't let them hold us to ransom though. We need a clean break from the Woodward philosophy

No one is holding any club ransom. It is just a job.

 

[acnumber9]

Again that Isn't the issue, it would have cost more to replace de gea un terms of fee plus wages than than the 80m we spent, that didn't make it a good idea. And it isn't good practice to let our players know that if they run down their contracts to a year remaining they can totally fecking gouge us and we'll pay it to avoid paying a transfer fee to replace them

What would you do if faced with this decision if he rejected the offer? De Gea didn’t have the market value Rashford does and nobody would’ve paid him that salary. That isn’t the case with Rashford. It’s the sound financial decision and the right footballing decision.

That’s modern football. Mbappe has a year left on his deal and will be doing exactly the same. We either keep up or fall further behind.

 

[jm99]

Running your contract down would hardly be ground breaking. A lot of players at a lot of clubs do this more and more.
And in each case the club needs to decide if they want to offer them big wages to keep them or if the club is fine to let the player go because they would be easier/cheaper to replace than someone like Rashford.

But if we show we won't break, even if that means losing a player on a free, players won't play those kinds of games with us. We get bent over a barrel in every negotiation and that really has to change