Marcus Rashford (out)

[iKnowNothing]

I’m not expert with this stuff but please humor me..

From what I’m seeing online, Rashford is on 350k a week, and his contract runs until June 2028. That’s approximately 42 months from now. 4 weeks a month is 42*4 = 168 weeks.

Assuming there are no performance or appearance related clauses in his contract, at 350k a week, he stands to earn 350k * 168 = 58.8 million by June 2028. He will be 30 years old by then and probably play 3-4 years more at the highest level. So presumably in 2028, he’ll get his last significant contract as a free agent aged 30.

Now, let’s assume he wants to play regular football and let’s say joins Arsenal on a 4.5 year deal at 250k a week - on Declan Rice wages. Then his hypothetical contract at Arsenal will run for 54 months and he’ll make 54 million. He’ll be out of contract by age 31 (or 32), with probably no big contract coming his way.

Of course if his contract has some performance and appearance related clauses, he will get slightly less at United. But it does appear that just sitting on his contract is the better deal for him. I wouldn’t be surprised if he pulls a Bale at Madrid for the rest of his contract at United, all the while focusing on off field stuff.

 

[The Firestarter]

That salary really makes the club look like a fool... no one in the world outside of City and maybe Madrid can afford that. And they don't want him. Imagine having an asset with ONLY TWO potential customers in the world. Half of that and there'd be plenty of clubs interested. We deserve it.

Add to that Casemiro and Antony's wages and we look like the dumbest company even outside the football world.

 

[Acheron]

Of course if his contract has some performance and appearance related clauses, he will get slightly less at United. But it does appear that just sitting on his contract is the better deal for him. I wouldn’t be surprised if he pulls a Bale at Madrid for the rest of his contract at United, all the while focusing on off field stuff.

Keeping him and not playing him would be the worse case both for the player and the club. If he doesn't play his career as a footballer would be basically finished. Not playing would hurt his image and other sources of income such as sponsors. Then it would also be bad for the team to pay a huge salary for a player who isn't playing.

An agreement has to be reached where the club let him go for a reasonable offer but he also needs to adjust his salary pretensions if he wants to play regular time as a footballer.

 

[redDNA]

This is what one geht's when one over indulge a player, we gave him a massive wage, made him the 'Poster boy' of the club,while being average.

Now he thinks that he is better than he is,no wonder he strolls around the pitch thinking that he is prime CR7.

West ham is his level, if he want to really stay/play in europe he should lower his expectation and wages.

Other alternatives are Saudi, or play with the reserves for three years, maybe that will give him more time to go to Belfast or US.

 

[NK86]

Keeping him and not playing him would be the worse case both for the player and the club. If he doesn't play his career as a footballer would be basically finished. Not playing would hurt his image and other sources of income such as sponsors. Then it would also be bad for the team to pay a huge salary for a player who isn't playing.

An agreement has to be reached where the club let him go for a reasonable offer but he also needs to adjust his salary pretensions if he wants to play regular time as a footballer.

That’s how most fans see it. If he is so delusional that he will not budge from his current salary, then let him train with the reserves and do not register him next season. The club needs to take a hard stance on how much they are willing to give leeway to an underperforming player who also does not seem to be committed to the cause.

 

[EnviedRed]

Plenty of talents have stood out in crap teams. Speaking of Liverpool, they were crap when Suarez was tearing it up for them. Arsenal were fairly crap when Robin Van Persie was tearing up the league also. Even if you look at some International teams like Poland who are average, Lewandowski has 84 goals in 156 international appearances. Stop making excuses for a decent talent at best, who is incredibly self entitled and lazy.

You named outliers and have conflated that with 'plenty'. The exception doesn't disprove the rule.
Suarez and RVP are 2 of the best ever strikers and their teams weren't as bad as this current team. We have 23 points in 20 matches with a negative goal difference. All of our players are inconsistent. We are a historically bad team for a club of our size.

You think Lewa playing against Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Moldova helps his goal scoring record? Because I do. Poland are better than many of the teams they play. You aren't making the point that you think you are.

As I said before, Postecoglou said that Salah would struggle at Spurs because the elements aren't there for him to perform but I'm sure you think you know more than a manager.

The best players generally play in the best teams. Most players levels will drop as the team performs worst. We can always name exceptions that doesn't mean the rule is no longer true.

 

[bb8]

Yes, but the key words in my post you quoted were "fund his wages" and that prospect has me concerned.

Let's take it as a given fact that Rashford is on 350k/week and let's stipulate that Rashford will not accept a wage cut. It might be less since we're not in the CL but let's stick with that number. My understanding is that Arsenal's highest paid player is Havertz at 280k/week. If Arsenal were willing to pay us 10m and pay Rashford 280k/week, meaning of course we eat 70k/weekly that might be good business on our part, but it's hard to believe that Arsenal would be willing to dig that deep into their pockets for a player who has badly underperformed for quite a long time now, has had only one great season, and isn't at all built for Arsenal's tactics under Arteta.

The calculus changes is Rashford is willing to accept a substantial wage cut to to join a club like Arsenal or West Ham, the latter being an even more unlikely destination. There may be a second tier club willing to spend that kind of money, but Rashford envisions himself as a top tier player, unworthy of clubs like West Ham or possibly even Arsenal, who have incredibly won even fewer trophies than United in recent years despite how horrifying our overall play has been. Arsenal supporters are ridiculously abusive toward their own players, a fact which I wasn't aware of until the last 48 hours. I really don't think Rashford would be wise to go to a club like Arsenal right now, a club which is reeling and their manager is under pressure. And with the reputation that Rashford has for being an overpaid, underperforming partyer, going to Arsenal even on loan would be disastrous for him...and we certainly can't expect United to underwrite this folly unless it is for the express purpose of tanking the rest of Arsenal's season. I can't think of any reason why Arsenal would want Rashford, or how West Ham would be willing to take on his astronomical wages, or why United would be willing to cover the wages of Rashford while playing for West Ham.

Fair points. I didn't even see us getting as much as you proposed. £10M loan fee plus £280k a week for 20 weeks is £15.6M. That's a lot!

I figured we could get £8M or so total (loan fee plus any wages). That would cover all his wages the rest of the year. I think that's reasonable to expect.

Of course we as fans want him gone, but I think a loan with option or straight loan is more likely. I see Arsenal as a potential fit with Saka and Jesus both hurt. £8M for them is reasonable and low risk to pair Rashford with Havertz, Martinelli, and Trossard, their only other healthy forwards. Rashford may even be better than 1-2 of them.

I imagine the sticking point in negotiations is we're trying to get an obligation to buy built in. I imagine Arsenal would ball at that, as would I. But you'd think we could work out a loan to cover all (or nearly all) his wages at least.

To me, that is far better than Rashford sitting the sidelines the rest of the year. Theres a fair chance he rebuilds some of his value in a better squad, and in the meanwhile we get wage coverage. If things work out poorly, it'll be hard to sell him in the summer. But it'll probably be hard to sell him anyway if he goes 9 months without playing football, and we could always try to reintegrate him next summer if there are no takers.

This all assumes Rashford is basically done at United for now. If we could reintegrate him now, I'd be more judicious in negotiations. But if not, covering his wages the rest of the year in a straight loan deal would be sufficient for me.

 

[elisha27]

Fair points. I didn't even see us getting as much as you proposed. £10M loan fee plus £280k a week for 20 weeks is £15.6M. That's a lot!

I figured we could get £8M or so total (loan fee plus any wages). That would cover all his wages the rest of the year. I think that's reasonable to expect.

Of course we as fans want him gone, but I think a loan with option or straight loan is more likely. I see Arsenal as a potential fit with Saka and Jesus both hurt. £8M for them is reasonable and low risk to pair Rashford with Havertz, Martinelli, and Trossard, their only other healthy forwards. Rashford may even be better than 1-2 of them.

I imagine the sticking point in negotiations is we're trying to get an obligation to buy built in. I imagine Arsenal would ball at that, as would I. But you'd think we could work out a loan to cover all (or nearly all) his wages at least.

To me, that is far better than Rashford sitting the sidelines the rest of the year. Theres a fair chance he rebuilds some of his value in a better squad, and in the meanwhile we get wage coverage. If things work out poorly, it'll be hard to sell him in the summer. But it'll probably be hard to sell him anyway if he goes 9 months without playing football, and we could always try to reintegrate him next summer if there are no takers.

This all assumes Rashford is basically done at United for now. If we could reintegrate him now, I'd be more judicious in negotiations. But if not, covering his wages the rest of the year in a straight loan deal would be sufficient for me.

Arsenal already have Neto and Sterling on loan, and so cannot take on anyone further from Premier League clubs.

 

[Tarrou]

Arsenal already have Neto and Sterling on loan, and so cannot take on anyone further from Premier League clubs.

its also kinda wild because he's complete rubbish and people think he's gonna leave a struggling PL team for one of the best ones, despite being comfortably one of his teams worst performers for two years

 

[mav_9me]

its also kinda wild because he's complete rubbish and people think he's gonna leave a struggling PL team for one of the best ones, despite being comfortably one of his teams worst performers for two years

Not to mention the fact Arsenal are one of the best pressing teams. And Rashford one of the worst at pressing

 

[Tallis]

The Glazers made many mistakes in the transfer market. But the biggest one is definitely offering these big contracts which broke the wage structure of the club and makes it so difficult to get rid of players.

Letting the odd player go on a free is better than these big contracts. At least, they showed some courage in not bowing down to De Gea & Pogba.

 

[andy0]

I haven't seen any discussion of whether Rashford's contract includes a buy out option

He arranged to be interviewed to say he wanted to leave

End the contract and send him an invoice

 

[led_scholes]

I’m not expert with this stuff but please humor me..

From what I’m seeing online, Rashford is on 350k a week, and his contract runs until June 2028. That’s approximately 42 months from now. 4 weeks a month is 42*4 = 168 weeks.

Assuming there are no performance or appearance related clauses in his contract, at 350k a week, he stands to earn 350k * 168 = 58.8 million by June 2028. He will be 30 years old by then and probably play 3-4 years more at the highest level. So presumably in 2028, he’ll get his last significant contract as a free agent aged 30.

Now, let’s assume he wants to play regular football and let’s say joins Arsenal on a 4.5 year deal at 250k a week - on Declan Rice wages. Then his hypothetical contract at Arsenal will run for 54 months and he’ll make 54 million. He’ll be out of contract by age 31 (or 32), with probably no big contract coming his way.

Of course if his contract has some performance and appearance related clauses, he will get slightly less at United. But it does appear that just sitting on his contract is the better deal for him. I wouldn’t be surprised if he pulls a Bale at Madrid for the rest of his contract at United, all the while focusing on off field stuff.

If he stays here till 2028 and doesnt play, how can he find another big contract at 30? Staying under these circumstances is like retiring. Thus, all the news that he wants to fight for a spot in the NT are fake.

 

[devilish]

As per usual we tackled this all wrong. Rashford should have been sold the moment managers started highlighting that he's got disciplinary problems. He would be rushed out of the door, we would have made a killing out of his deal, the fans would complain just as we did when Ince/Beckham left and somehow down the line we'll learn that actually the club was right in selling.

We opted to keep him way past his time which in turn ended up with the dirty laundry being aired and now the entire world know that we want to get rid of him and he wants to leave.

I hope we learn from this with Garnacho. If he's got disciplinary issues then we should sell now before this degenerate into another Rashford.

 

[Xeque_279]

Pulisic had to be subbed last night after pulling up injured. Looked like a hammy. Does that force Milan to make the move? Although I'm not sure how well Rash would do on the right.
A front line of Leao, Tammy (Morata), Rash. Looks pretty decent on paper.

 

[devilish]

I’m not expert with this stuff but please humor me..

From what I’m seeing online, Rashford is on 350k a week, and his contract runs until June 2028. That’s approximately 42 months from now. 4 weeks a month is 42*4 = 168 weeks.

Assuming there are no performance or appearance related clauses in his contract, at 350k a week, he stands to earn 350k * 168 = 58.8 million by June 2028. He will be 30 years old by then and probably play 3-4 years more at the highest level. So presumably in 2028, he’ll get his last significant contract as a free agent aged 30.

Now, let’s assume he wants to play regular football and let’s say joins Arsenal on a 4.5 year deal at 250k a week - on Declan Rice wages. Then his hypothetical contract at Arsenal will run for 54 months and he’ll make 54 million. He’ll be out of contract by age 31 (or 32), with probably no big contract coming his way.

Of course if his contract has some performance and appearance related clauses, he will get slightly less at United. But it does appear that just sitting on his contract is the better deal for him. I wouldn’t be surprised if he pulls a Bale at Madrid for the rest of his contract at United, all the while focusing on off field stuff.

Its way more complex then that. First of all Rashford's salary increase and decrease according to club's performance. If we don't qualify into Europe that his salary gets a hit.

A big chunk of Rashford's money also comes from his social media footprint and PR. There's adverts to be taken in consideration and the D N May Ltd (owned by his brother) who relies heavily on him for exposure. Rashford needs to be at the center of attention which is why he needs to play regular football at a top club and its also why he refuses to go to Saudi despite the latter had promised to double his salary. No one would give a feck what Rashford does if he plays for Damac or Al Hilal.

 

[Marwood]

Akways been that way, you agree a contract and that's it until you negotiate another one

I believe contract law became in a thing in the 18th century

No I mean this idea when a player moves his income MUST stay the same.

When Andy Cole wanted to leave there was no talk of it being really difficult because who could pay his wages. That we'd have to sell really cheap as a result.

He just took a paycut.

 

[Tarrou]

No I mean this idea when a player moves his income MUST stay the same.

When Andy Cole wanted to leave there was no talk of it being really difficult because who could pay his wages. That we'd have to sell really cheap as a result.

He just took a paycut.

He wasn’t contractually obliged to though so nothing has changed legally. Some players still do it today if they are motivated enough… this is Rashford though!

he’d have to be stupid to not take most of the money that’s owed to him in this contract because he’s 27? and already in decline.