You make a fair point, maybe he doesn't care that much. But he's spent his adult years with us, Everton created him but he's created his global stardom with us. The chance to surpass Bobby Charlton as all time goal scorer and be a legend at the greatest club in the world should be as big as an incentive as anything. But then on the plus side, if he was to leave, then at least Charlton will stay our all time top goal scorer. I'd hate for Rooney to be a complete cnut and sign for a cut price fee next year or something for a rival and end up being our all time top scorer.
Wayne Rooney | 2012-14 Performances
- Thread starter gooDevil
- Start date
- Status
You make a fair point, maybe he doesn't care that much. But he's spent his adult years with us, Everton created him but he's created his global stardom with us. The chance to surpass Bobby Charlton as all time goal scorer and be a legend at the greatest club in the world should be as big as an incentive as anything. But then on the plus side, if he was to leave, then at least Charlton will stay our all time top goal scorer. I'd hate for Rooney to be a complete cnut and sign for a cut price fee next year or something for a rival and end up being our all time top scorer.
I'm not sure if I speak for everyone, but I can't see too many being happy at getting in Torres, I'd rather have the cash.
Would take cash plus Mata but Torres is a lost causes.
It doesn't really matter if they offer us half their squad and Roman's personal bling - to me this is a matter of principle. You don't sell one of your top players to your closest rivals. You simply don't. If this, on top of everything else, is Rooney's desire - that he wants to play for Chelsea rather than, say, PSG - there's all the more reason to say no. If it really is so, he needs to be told that he can't have his grotesque wish: It's not on, period. Go abroad or go feck yourself.
Forget about Rooney himself for a moment. Selling such a player to Chelsea will make us look bad. I don't like it one bit.
Forget about Rooney himself for a moment. Selling such a player to Chelsea will make us look bad. I don't like it one bit.
Agree with Chesterlestreet. I would support the club if they wanted to run down Rooney's contract although it wouldn't be ideal. But Rooney at Chelsea when he's 30 and had a couple of seasons more wear and tear wouldn't be such an unsettling thought. I can see why it's unrealistic in practice though, the club has an investment to consider.
Would restricting which club a player can be sold to be seen as a restriction of trade?
No-one said you have to be a fool for not believing ferguson was lying. Some suggested he may have stretched the truth but accept he may not have. Completely different again.
"he doesn't explicitly say he lied". He doesn't say he lied in any shape or form. In fact, he explicitly did say that he thought Rooney did ask to leave.
You need to take some comprehension lessons man.
No. We don't have to trade because we have a contract. It's United's decision if they want to sell and to whom.
I have a contract with my job, is it only my employer who is allowed to break the contract or can I break it too?
We have the decision to sell and the player has no rights in this?
The player doesn't have to accept it, he can stay in the club but what would be the point.
You need to take a bloody pill and stop calling people this and that and stop discussing like a twat, making assumptions wherever the wind blow you. I know perfectly well what it read; I also know that several on here, without bothering to find the quotes, have said that Ferguson may have blown the whole story out of proportions so much so that Rooney may well be in the right. If that isn't saying that Ferguson was lying, more or less, then I do not know what is.
"Sir Alex then made his own play by turning that vague threat into a "he wants to leave the club" to get him to wise up"
Isn't that saying that he lied: turn a vague threat into a full out "he wants to leave the club" - that's fabricating..
What I'm saying is that a lot of people are making excuses for Rooney, such as Ferguson making more of the story than what it really was - just like Rooney is now saying. Instead of outright saying that Ferguson lied, it's implying it - you know, explicitly vs implicitly.
I think there's rule that allows a player to buy out his own contract but I don't think Rooney is eligible to use it.
We didn't let a heinze go to the shite, no one said we had to then. So no, I don't think so.
If he wants to go Chelsea then let the scouse cnut feck off home, have a rest, see out the rest of his contract at home away from the team, don't even stick him in the reserves. He'll be a fat little smoking, lager drinking, burger eating little fat twat, no good to anyone when his contract is up. Unless we get Torres money.
The contract you have at your work will be different. They will have all sorts of non compete clauses to ensure they can't just hand in a few weeks notice.
Personally, I would replace him with Lewandowski or even Benteke.
Our strikeforce is excellent, we just need to strengthen the midfield and get the unfit players back to speed and we should be fine.
On what basis? The club sets a valuation and they are under no obligation to sell. The valuation to Chelsea would be whatever Chelsea offer + £1
Yeah true. Trouble is I have no idea what sort of clauses are in Rooneys contract.
Irwinwastheking: Another quote for you:
That is not saying that Ferguson lied either, is it? I think Sir Alex clearly stated that he requested a transfer.
Where are these Mata exit rumours coming from? He's been there best player for the past 2 seasons, why would he want to leave? or why would Moureen want him out?
Doesn't make any sense to me.
I seen a recent mini documentary on SkySports News on his life in London and he seemed to be loving it at Chelsea.
Doesn't make any sense to me.
I seen a recent mini documentary on SkySports News on his life in London and he seemed to be loving it at Chelsea.
I didn't call you this or that. I said certain people doing certain things are diphits (i think was the word I used) and you took it as me meaning you. Apt enough possibly.
You said;
"That people are seriously taking Rooney's word before that of Sir Alex is utterly beyond me. You really should go and take a hard look in the mirror and see if that jersey has Adidas stripes or a Nike logo on it and report back"
and yet the best example of people taking Rooney's word over Fergies was a non example from Brwned. Find one post where someone takes Rooney's word first and I'll fully admit being wrong. I'm not making assumptions. I'm reading posts and accurately understanding them.
What I was trying to get at was that surely Rooney has some say in this. I think if we dont have to sell Rooney to Chelsea we dont have to and he can either hang out on the training pitch for the remainder of his contract or play if he shows the right form and attitude.
The tricky bit to me is that if a player is unhappy in his situation is it right to hold them beyond a reasonable amount of time?
Did you read the full post or just the bit you quoted?
The player is under contract. He could breach it by not turning in but then he doesn't get paid. Eventually the club may terminate it I suppose, but they'd sue him for millions. No club could sign him without United releasing his registration anyway.
United own the player - he signed his contract. There is a framework in place which suits clubs and players in that they all have certainty - 4 year deal means 4 years wages, guaranteed. Nobody wants that ripping up. Besides, even if a player tried to take action they'd be retired before the legal position was resolved.
Why are we calling Mourinho Moureen?
I do agree though; why would you want to sell your best player, unless he is unhappy that is.
Have United sold one of their best players to a PL-competitor before? I can't think of any as far as I can remember. There was the Heinze saga and we all know all the players that left for Real Madrid. Then of course there is the huge deal of Silvestre to Arsenal. Other than that, I can't think of any...
What I'm saying is that the player's say in it wouldn't be a legal one, it would be a deteriorating of the working relationship so that the club has no option but to sell. It happens. If he really wants to go to Chelsea, that's tough; United really don't want him to play for Chelsea.
Yes I did, but as you come off as a certain type, I thought I should highlight the important stuff for you. Anything you are missing that you deemed important? I also left out stuff from the quote that wasn't all that important to what I was getting at.
What is your problem, mate?
He loses any moral high ground as a player "being held back against his will" by continuing to accept his enormous wage packet week in week. He'll get no sympathy and after two years of no football who would want him?
I understand what you are saying and pretty much agree but there is a bit of me that thinks it looks a bit like slavery on one level.
he signed a contract. That indicates free will and consent.
Slaves had no choice at all. Please do NOT make such comparisms.
So nothing happened then?
Yes, if slaves got paid x amounts of millions to play football after signing a contract. If not, fecking terrible comparasion.
Another quote:
Again, while not explicitly stating that Ferguson was lying, he said things that were not fully true - thus Rooney MAY be the one in the right here. You may read this one way; I read it another way. "For all we know" - therefore it is up for debate. In my view, if there ever was a word against word situation between Ferguson and Rooney, I would be in no doubt as to whom I would believe.
Again, while not explicitly stating that Ferguson was lying, he said things that were not fully true - thus Rooney MAY be the one in the right here. You may read this one way; I read it another way. "For all we know" - therefore it is up for debate. In my view, if there ever was a word against word situation between Ferguson and Rooney, I would be in no doubt as to whom I would believe.
But he doesnt get free will and consent if there is a restriction placed on where he can or cannot go.
Not in a nutshell. Nothing happened.
fecking vultures taking snaps of him at Nando's
jesus fecking christ, how shit would it be to have any sort of stardom in this day and age.I'm not saying Fergie lied. My guess is that his interpretation of what Rooney said was as he said in the interview. And his perception was quite possibly skewed, or he was unwilling to give him the benefit of the doubt, on the basis of 'once bitten, twice shy'.
If you did comprehension at school you would be able to comprehend what the phrase " looks a bit like" means.
He signed the contract. I'm sure there are clauses in it that state that he can only go to teams that United agree a fee with. United are within their rights to refuse to negotiate fees with teams they won't sell rooney too. I'm sure its in the small print.
God, I can't believe I said that on a football forum. I hate how much of this crap we have to discuss on here due to bullshit agents and players.
And if you even attended school, you would know that comparing slavery with modern day football is pretty terrible. I guess you're trying to get off on a technicality though, so I guess I'll just shut my trap.
- Status