We'll have to compensate for the pay difference. That's what Maguire wanted too last season. Let's pay him that & get it done. It's important to get ths likes of Lindelof, him, Maguire & McTom out even if we have to take a hit.
I doubt United are refusing to pay such a bonus. West Ham are likely playing dirty games in the media. Either to get United to drop the price or because they have insider knowledge of the player set to sign for like Inter and want to paint it as "United & the player's fault" they couldn't secure his signature.IMO, it is more likely to be an issue surrounding a loyalty bonus than wages. To the extent the publicly available data can be trusted (at least as a rough guideline), West Ham have 10 players making 90k per week or more. They won't have an issue matching his wages.
AWB probably is set to receive a bonus of a few million pounds if he sees out his United contract. Understandably, that goes into his financial calculation and so he wants at least some of that bonus paid to him if he agrees to move clubs.
70k p/w per sportract. I assume West Ham will give him something like 40-50k tops. A 30k p/w delta for a year = 1.5M. ("Multi-million pound pay-off"). I think this one's a done deal with Mazraoui and De Ligt coming in for us.
On the other hand, without any game time, his chance of getting a big last pay check will most likely diminish with a new club come next summer.We are trying to selling when he’s near the end of his contract. His agent knows that if he sits him there for a year he will get a significant signing on fee and a decent wage as a free agent. Probably why they are talking about a sign-off fee
Greatest post of the year. What?
I'd rather keep AWB as a known quantity who can come in and do a specialist job when required, than to bring in the mooted player who may or may not adapt to the league. With AWB he can ride out his contract, which means we don't get any money back for him, but at the same time we aer not saddling ourselves with a high wage untested injury prone player on a 5 + 1 contract. It feels very Woodwardian to do this. And the fact AWB is not the marauding fullback we want is beside the point, because the player we are bringing in is not that player either.
I can understand that, but buying a player for 5 years on considerable wages who may or may not adapt to the league (Telles, anyone?) could be an own goal. With AWB he can shut down a hot attacker, he offers little going forward everyone knows this, but defensively he's top.I would rather not. In the game against Liverpool we frequently had them penned in and would be left with 1 player in space. The player in space was almost always AWB and that was as Liverpool wanted it, attack after attack died a painful death on his woeful delivery, I cannot watch another season of that.
He’s being presented with an opportunity to still play at the highest level, albeit at a lesser team. He can choose to accept that option and be a guaranteed starter, or he can remain at United and expect minimal game time. The latter will not increase his chances of a great next contract as there aren’t that many interested in him.Your contractual relationship with your former employer is nothing like a footballers unless you're also a professional athlete?
plus you chose to leave for your own reasons, and would have protections in the event they wanted you to leave
That's true if the player is pushing to move. But if it's the club who is actively looking to sell (as it appears in this case) then the player is within their rights to expect their contract to be honoured or to be compensated for at least some of the loss of earnings.No, as I didn’t have millions for doing an actual job. It’s ridiculous. If you want game time, accept you need a move and accept a decrease in income.
Exactly. Teams have blatantly given him time on the ball at various periods since he's been here because they see little threat.I would rather not. In the game against Liverpool we frequently had them penned in and would be left with 1 player in space. The player in space was almost always AWB and that was as Liverpool wanted it, attack after attack died a painful death on his woeful delivery, I cannot watch another season of that.
He’s not though. It’s abit of a myth. He’s the best 1v1 defender in football but that’s about it. The third goal against Liverpool showed his defensive weaknesses in full display. He leaves his man at the back post.I can understand that, but buying a player for 5 years on considerable wages who may or may not adapt to the league (Telles, anyone?) could be an own goal. With AWB he can shut down a hot attacker, he offers little going forward everyone knows this, but defensively he's top.
Five posts too late mate.Honestly I call BS on this 'reporting'. AWB is not on high wages, is he? Right below another tweet citing Sky claims West Ham don't expect peronal terms to be a problem..
Watch some of our lovable fans call him a greedy *insert insult* based on this tweet though now.
Why does any player with a year left on their contract agree to be sold?What I don't get is why he's agreeing to move to west ham instead of waiting a year and leaving on a free. Personal reasons?
usually money, better career prospects, or a poor situation at their current club. None of which appear to apply to Wan-BissakaWhy does any player with a year left on their contract agree to be sold?
usually money, better career prospects, or a poor situation at their current club. None of which appear to apply to Wan-Bissaka
Why does any player with a year left on their contract agree to be sold?
That's my point though, it doesn't look like he'd be frozen out if he stays and his prospects on a free should be a lot better than West Ham. Clubs that want to win the CL would value his 1vs ability on the right quite high, when winning the CL seems to go through having to beat Vinicius. Worst case scenario, he'd get offers from clubs like West Ham. Possibly paying more, too, since he's on a free. Only reason leaving now that makes sense from that angle would be job security... edit @foolsgold beat me to itThe first one is your answer. Better to secure yourself a 5 year deal on around the same money now than potentially be frozen out and only offered a lower salary and only 2/3 years.
Yeah, that makes more sensePlus, by all accounts he is still in London a lot and wants to go back.
Wouldn't those same clubs be in for him now if that was the case?That's my point though, it doesn't look like he'd be frozen out if he stays and his prospects on a free should be a lot better than West Ham. Clubs that want to win the CL would value his 1vs ability on the right quite high, when winning the CL seems to go through having to beat Vinicius. Worst case scenario, he'd get offers from clubs like West Ham. Possibly paying more, too, since he's on a free. Only reason leaving now that makes sense from that angle would be job security... edit @foolsgold beat me to it
Yeah, that makes more sense
He's too expensive right now. On a free it's a different story. He has never actually faced the likes of Vinicius, Mbappé or Musiala to claim he can actually stop them. On a free it's "this guy is exceptional 1vs1 defender, very cheap, might come in handy if/when we end up facing a Madrid or Bayern etc and we might need a genuine stopper on the right otherwise we're in deep and hungry waters"Wouldn't those same clubs be in for him now if that was the case?
That's true if the player is pushing to move. But if it's the club who is actively looking to sell (as it appears in this case) then the player is within their rights to expect their contract to be honoured or to be compensated for at least some of the loss of earnings.
No idea if that is the case here or if it's just media rubbish though.
I really thought this new regime would be pretty aggressive. So disappointed. They’ve been so naive in thinking clubs would pay out for these absolute dud players.AWB, McTom, Sancho, Antony and Casemiro will all be here after the TW closes.
So you think getting rid of 5 players while se already have a thin squad is a good idea?I really thought this new regime would be pretty aggressive. So disappointed. They’ve been so naive in thinking clubs would pay out for these absolute dud players.
Telegraph reporting this is stalling and West Ham are exploring a move for Trippier.
Going from bad to worse for us in the market at the moment.
Yes I do, because they’re rubbish and you need to move on. I would disagree that getting rid of them would impact us negatively in any way, providing incomings happened which is what would happen.So you think getting rid of 5 players while se already have a thin squad is a good idea?
So you think getting rid of 5 players while se already have a thin squad is a good idea?
Incomings would happen with what money exactly?Yes I do, because they’re rubbish and you need to move on. I would disagree that getting rid of them would impact us negatively in any way, providing incomings happened which is what would happen.
There’s a difference between selling and a clear out.But we can't add to that thin squad unless we sell.