Some of you lot are absolute cnuts.
Rashford | Villa | Loan with option to buy
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
Not the most sensible first words for Rashford to use when meeting the Villa players.
But it's possible that tweet from a Bullshit source was just bullshit. Lots of reading between the lines here
Pretty much
So even if by some miracle he plays well for Villa he’ll refuse the permanent move there, if offered.
Then we’ll get to August 31st and he and his hangers on will again be shocked and confused about why Barcelona haven’t bid
Then we’ll get to August 31st and he and his hangers on will again be shocked and confused about why Barcelona haven’t bid
Didn't Rashford quite openly stress in his first Villa interview that "obviously it’s only short-term I’m here".
And that comes from Rashford himself - so nothing bullshit about that source, apart from...
Very funny thing to say at the start of a loan that's meant to be just the start of an 'option to sign' on a 3 year deal. You'd expect more along the lines of 'obviously there's the deal in place that this hopefully turns into a long term stay here'. Rather than ruling that out before he's even kicked a ball for the club.
Last edited:
Yes but when they gave him that contract they expected to get something in return which they haven't for the most part.
Plus it's hardly like he's on the bread line still getting around 200k a week especially when he's been half arsing it for 2 years previous!
The bread line stuff is tiresome but in any case, it’s not like he’s being asked to give 75K to charity, he’s being asked to give it up to cover for up for the continuous mistakes of billionaires and the worst thing is that there’s actual working class fans that actually expect him to do so?! It’s honestly ridiculous.
Hear hear
A multi millionaire getting over £300,000 per week (before all the sponsorship, etc) has been asked by billlionaires to give some of that...
If we're going to play the finance cards when discussing 'billionaire' owners v 'working class' fans, let's not ignore that we're also talking about multi millionaire footballers as well. They're far more like the owners than the fans when it comes to wealth and lavish lifestyle, so we're talking about incredibly wealthy people all round having a squabble about money that both sides should have more than enough of. Not just one side. It's just the PSR rules that are the underlying issues leading to the request, as that could really help the club with the red tape rules - not because either side desperately need that comparatively small amount of money for their personal accounts.
I thought his salary was reduced to below 300k per week with no UCL football? Where does the 75k (375k total) come from now?
Well as a local lad who loves United with all his heart and what not, he could have accepted it to help out the club or even better put in the performances on the pitch and in training and we wouldn't even be looking to get rid of him at all. I have no issues with him not willing to give up that 75k of his wages but don't put up bullshit stories in the media about how you love the club when it's evidently not been the case for a few years.
I thought his salary was £325,000 - and then there's mixed reports about the reduction for no CL. Almost all of the talk around his wage contribution over a loan has been going with the £325,000 wage (so that's certainly why I went with over £300,000 in my post).
It could be that, with CL reduction clause, we're talking more around £250,000. So about a million pound every month or every 3 weeks whichever it is.
It's a fairly innocuous thing to say when he is just going on loan. An option to buy doesn't mean anythingDidn't Rashford quite openly stress in his first Villa interview that "obviously it’s only short-term I’m here".
And that comes from Rashford himself - so nothing bullshit about that source, apart from...
Very funny thing to say at the start of a loan that's meant to be just the start of an 'option to sign' on a 3 year deal. You'd expect more along the lines of 'obviously there's the deal in place that this hopefully turns into a long term stay here'. Rather than ruling that out before he's even kicked a ball for the club.
Ah, OK, thanks. I was under the impression that it did. Hence the reason why it's negotiated and included in some loan deals and not in others. I thought it was something all sides had negotiated and considered a real possibility. Funny they bother including it in some deals and announcements if it doesn't mean anything - especially if there's no intention from the player of it being anything but a short term loan.
How can you say he deserves 350K a week when he's not even playing like he deserves it?
Not once in that post that you quoted is there the use of the word "deserves", but to respond to you, he deserves it because the club contractually committed to pay him that.
It’s standard practise to ask people to take a 25% pay cut and people just accept that? Where is that standard practise?
Can some one explain the issues with salary and taking a cut please.
Here is how I understand it.
Roy Keane loved the club and put everything into it. He was told "we don't need you". He took a pay cut and left. Now regrets taking the cut. I agree with 100%. He should have sat back and took the pay.
Rashford is told he needs to buckle up hi is ideas and lifestyle etc to get back into the team. Whilst getting paid. HE Rashford decides I'm not having this I wanna play elsewhere. Club says no worries we are listening.
Due to high wages he doesn't get many offers. Club says if you wanna go reduce your wage demands because we don't want you to play for another club whilst we pay a huge amount. Rashford refuses to take pay cut, as is his right.
So now sit on the sidelines and take your money. Or a club needs to come in and pay majority of your wages.
Aston Villa have come in and said we will pay 70%. UTD have agreed and will pay the remainder.
How then is the Club being a cnut and Rashford "deserves" his money or has the "right" to demand his money?
I don't get it
Here is how I understand it.
Roy Keane loved the club and put everything into it. He was told "we don't need you". He took a pay cut and left. Now regrets taking the cut. I agree with 100%. He should have sat back and took the pay.
Rashford is told he needs to buckle up hi is ideas and lifestyle etc to get back into the team. Whilst getting paid. HE Rashford decides I'm not having this I wanna play elsewhere. Club says no worries we are listening.
Due to high wages he doesn't get many offers. Club says if you wanna go reduce your wage demands because we don't want you to play for another club whilst we pay a huge amount. Rashford refuses to take pay cut, as is his right.
So now sit on the sidelines and take your money. Or a club needs to come in and pay majority of your wages.
Aston Villa have come in and said we will pay 70%. UTD have agreed and will pay the remainder.
How then is the Club being a cnut and Rashford "deserves" his money or has the "right" to demand his money?
I don't get it
See my response/question above.
But also I worked in the public sector most of my life and this happens all the time.
Basically if I have a job and don't want to do it anymore I look elsewhere and if the jobs going are a lesser salary, tough. Take less money and leave or get on with current job and salary.
Also been in situations where people have been on the "at risk" category. So say a dept closes down or job cuts. You automatically qualify for interviews for other jobs going at the same place.
If the salary of new jobs is less and you get the job you get phased down to the lower salary.
I would never agree/accept to take less than what was contractually agreed. Anyone expecting him to do so must be on a wind-up
And claiming this is somehow a normal occurrence in a work environment
Oh come on.
No one asked him to take a pay cut for doing what he was contractually obliged to.
They simply weren't wanting to pay loads for him to go play elsewhere. Which HE wanted to do.
As I said above Roy Keane has a right to be aggrieved for not keeping on taking the money or refusing to take a pay cut but Rashford? No way
Yeah i've been under the assumption that it is around 250k or so with the CL reduction and now i see circa 325k numbers being brandied about.
People don't have to accept. And yes it's not abnormal to offer this as an option in the right circumstance, which this was. He was leaving the club and there was no offers because of his wages.
Sounds like INEOnomics/Glazernomics
This CL reduction clause is not automatic. Both sides has to agree upon it, during the contract negotiation. Right?
Let's not assume it's across the board
Let's not assume it's across the board
We're a football club. The playing staff, coaching staff etc. should not be treated in a corporate fashion.
It will impact the club's ability to attract, retain and progress talent.
When the finances have been ignored for this long to get us in a desperate state, it's most prudent to be ruthless on our operating model, so that we can support the matters on pitch at a better scale.
In this event, being corporate was exactly what we needed.
I agree that generally staff should be treated with respect but there was nothing disrespectful toward Rashford who has been dishonest unprofessional and incompetent over an extended period.
Pretty much every player at United has it in their contract.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ma...chester-united-news-player-wages-27988030.amp
i dont understand this argument when it comes to such a specialized thing as this. Is it standard practice to get paid 100-300k a week to play a game for a job? These players arent on the same world as 9-5 people who would be like heck no on giving me a 25 percent pay cut. They have contracts that are special essentially, things can be expected from them that wouldnt be expected from an ordinary joe.
He comes across as incredibly dumb and insensitive if indeed he has said that. Why would you not give the impression that you are open to a move to this great club, one playing in the CL unlike my parent club, and that who knows what would happen at the end of the season rather than off the bat saying I'm here for me, for 4 months, then I'm 100% off, surely you can get behind me and understand that Villa is actually beneath me.
It's ok if he can walk the talk.
If he continues with his jogging they're not gonna be so kind as us
According to Jasper Carrot, they have a combined IQ of 2.
That was a waste of words
Yeah but what’s happened here is that the employer has decided they don’t want the employee anymore and have asked them to take a massive paycut. That would be constructive dismissal.
Give me some examples then.
I'm curious about them too, particularly of cases where footballers have agreed to pay cuts while their contract is still running.
I work at a large firm and it's normal practise to have these conversations. It was also the case at previous employers.
And no it wasn't me on the PIP! Ha