Transfer Tweets - Manchester United - 2024/25

AngeloHenriquez said:
I don't think either are good enough, Brentford always have less possession and tend to hit more on the counter and I think the minute they go to a team that has more possesion I don't think they will be as effective.

Jonathan David I keep pushing because while not being a world beater, he is free in the summer so we could get him pretty cheap now, cheap wages and has played for a side expected to dominate the ball in their league bar maybe against 1 or 2 teams

There are plenty of reports linking us too just nothing overly credible yet unfortunately.

https://www.sportbible.com/football...igning-liverpool-bid-rejected-400512-20250114 references TuttoSport
Click to expand...

Yeah Jonathan David is interesting shout, so if he's free in summer how much would it take now?
 
Why are we not in for Marmoush? City signing a really good player there.
 
croadyman said:
Yeah Jonathan David is interesting shout, so if he's free in summer how much would it take now?
Click to expand...

Can't see them turning down £10/15m which for us ensure we get him and gives us a better chance of winning the Europa and getting CL and if we can ship Rashford/ Casemiro out on loan and save on wages surely we get some of that back and we can just offer them maybe £5m a year for the next 3 which is something they didn't think they would get anything for him
 
dazjoe said:
Being a professional footballer isn't the same as working a regular job though.

Yes this is his job and Manchester United are his employers. But as a footballer/sportsman the most important thing to him should be actually playing the game, not how much he gets paid. Just because he's on X now doesn't mean that he is automatically entitled to that same amount of money for the rest of his career.

So no, no one would leave their normal job because their employer wanted rid, for less money. But normal people can also just hand in their notice and quit when they want, footballers can't; because they don't have a "normal" job.

He can show it's about the game and go somewhere else for first team football and a bit less money (how will he ever survive on only 8M a year though?!) or show that all he cares about is money and stay at a club who don't want him, and won't play him, for fans who hate him, for an extra few million quid.
Click to expand...

It doesn’t mean they’re entitled to x for the rest of their career, but they are entitled to x for the remainder of their contract.

A lot depends on what the priorities of the individual are. For some footballers it may be legacy or cups or playing lots of minutes. For other footballers it may be generating enough wealth during their short career to make their extended family rich for life. And fans can judge them for what their priorities appear to be, but that’s very unlikely to affect the decisions a player and his support team are going to make about what they think is best for them.
 
Zumbi said:
It doesn’t mean they’re entitled to x for the rest of their career, but they are entitled to x for the remainder of their contract.

A lot depends on what the priorities of the individual are. For some footballers it may be legacy or cups or playing lots of minutes. For other footballers it may be generating enough wealth during their short career to make their extended family rich for life. And fans can judge them for what their priorities appear to be, but that’s very unlikely to affect the decisions a player and his support team are going to make about what they think is best for them.
Click to expand...
Yeah. It's very simple really, few people take a paycut to switch jobs willingly in the same industry/function.

You may move from some high pressure job to a lower paying career or industry, but if you're a doctor or a banker it's rare to switch jobs of your own volition to do the same thing for 25% less money or something. Most people will only move if the money is at least on par, or more likely only if they can get a substantial raise.

People can whine all they want about how much players make, but that tendency tends to hold regardless of job. Rich people care about money too, often even moreso than others. E.g., CEOs don't usually move to smaller companies for a paycut. It shows a poor understanding of human behavior to think many players are going to agree to a much lower salary to go to a different team; that's not how people operate generally.

Likely we will either have to 1) keep Rashford, 2) loan him out, or 3) subsidize his wages to get him out permanently. That's just reality. Lesson: don't give out massive contracts frequently, except to the very best players in the world. Even for those, make sure they're on the right side of the age curve (see: Casemiro) or it will likely end poorly.
 
sparx99 said:
That’s their choice though. Comparing it our lives is nonsensical. We might jump to a new job for a 5k a year bump. They are choosing between rich and richer.

Nobody is forcing them to cancel their contract. They should be forced into making a choice between playing or not though. If you decide to leave Utd publicly the way Rashford has it’s not on Utd to maintain his pay check at the same level. Part of his choice to leave comes with the understanding that it’s likely for less money elsewhere.
Click to expand...
sparx99 said:
And when you decide to leave you accept that it’s not for the same money. Contracts are broken by both parties.

Any player who leaves agrees a new contract with the team they are joining. It’s not like I leave my job and take £10k a year less and then ask my old employer to make up the difference.
Click to expand...

So is comparing it to our lives nonsensical or not? Because if it is then your example of you taking £10k less and the asking your old employer to make up the difference is irrelevant. Like you said, the comparison with an ordinary job doesn’t make sense.

A player under contract is within their rights to see out that contract, or agree to terms elsewhere if the selling club and buying club can come to a transfer agreement. They are under zero obligation to accept less money elsewhere because they could just decide to stay instead.
 
Zumbi said:
So is comparing it to our lives nonsensical or not? Because if it is then your example of you taking £10k less and the asking your old employer to make up the difference is irrelevant. Like you said, the comparison with an ordinary job doesn’t make sense.

A player under contract is within their rights to see out that contract, or agree to terms elsewhere if the selling club and buying club can come to a transfer agreement. They are under zero obligation to accept less money elsewhere because they could just decide to stay instead.
Click to expand...

I’m fine with them staying. If they want to leave then they can accept what the market is offering. Force them to decide what is more important to them.

I’d rather pay Rashford £15m/yr to be a bit part player than £5m/yr to play for Milan.
 
AngeloHenriquez said:
I don't think either are good enough, Brentford always have less possession and tend to hit more on the counter and I think the minute they go to a team that has more possesion I don't think they will be as effective.

Jonathan David I keep pushing because while not being a world beater, he is free in the summer so we could get him pretty cheap now, cheap wages and has played for a side expected to dominate the ball in their league bar maybe against 1 or 2 teams

There are plenty of reports linking us too just nothing overly credible yet unfortunately.

https://www.sportbible.com/football...igning-liverpool-bid-rejected-400512-20250114 references TuttoSport
Click to expand...
That’s a good point, wasn’t aware he’s on a free this summer.

His stats really aren’t bad for the last few seasons, both in France and Europe.
 
bb8 said:
Yeah. It's very simple really, few people take a paycut to switch jobs willingly in the same industry/function.

You may move from some high pressure job to a lower paying career or industry, but if you're a doctor or a banker it's rare to switch jobs of your own volition to do the same thing for 25% less money or something. Most people will only move if the money is at least on par, or more likely only if they can get a substantial raise.

People can whine all they want about how much players make, but that tendency tends to hold regardless of job. Rich people care about money too, often even moreso than others. E.g., CEOs don't usually move to smaller companies for a paycut. It shows a poor understanding of human behavior to think many players are going to agree to a much lower salary to go to a different team; that's not how people operate generally.

Likely we will either have to 1) keep Rashford, 2) loan him out, or 3) subsidize his wages to get him out permanently. That's just reality. Lesson: don't give out massive contracts frequently, except to the very best players in the world. Even for those, make sure they're on the right side of the age curve (see: Casemiro) or it will likely end poorly.
Click to expand...

Exactly. All of this basically comes back to mismanagement of our squad, contracts and wages, and we’re now paying the price for that mismanagement. Seems to me that the club has also failed in doing its due diligence when it comes to assessing player profiles. Character, professionalism, work ethic, hunger and leadership were traits that seemed to be prioritized in the Fergie years. Compare that to recent years when we’ve knowingly spent very large sums on players who were known to have training and disciplinary issues (Eg Sancho).

And regarding wealthy people voluntarily taking pay cuts, it’s expensive to be rich. They become accustomed to the trappings of a certain lifestyle and maintaining that can cost a lot (just think of all the support staff on their payroll). That’s why so many celebrities and sports stars burn through millions and millions and then end up without much left once their earnings dry up. I don’t have any sympathy for that, but it’s a reality that plays into their contract negotiations.
 
sparx99 said:
I’m fine with them staying. If they want to leave then they can accept what the market is offering. Force them to decide what is more important to them.

I’d rather pay Rashford £15m/yr to be a bit part player than £5m/yr to play for Milan.
Click to expand...

But that’s the crux of the issue. Rashford is on such large wages and the club are in such a tricky financial position in terms of rebuilding the squad that much of the power lies with Rashford, whether you like it or not. If buying clubs aren’t willing or able to match a player’s wage expectations, the selling club is left with a tough choice. Keep an unhappy player on huge wages who isn’t contributing, till he runs down his contract and leaves for free, or try and recover some of their losses. Especially with the financial situation we’re in at the moment, if getting all of his wages off the books isn't possible then getting half of his wages off the books may still make financial sense if it allows the club to bring in a different player on lower wages who will contribute more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.