Wayne Rooney image 10

Wayne Rooney England flag

2015-16 Performances

View full 2015-16 profile

5.6 Season Average Rating
Appearances
41
Goals
15
Assists
6
Yellow cards
5
Status
Not open for further replies.
midnightmare said:
Perhaps, but I do recall that there was a lot of chatter at the time he signed the last contract that the contract's clauses assured him of 3 things:
1. Captaincy, regardless of the manager in charge, as long as he was at the club
2. A say in transfers in terms of whom we signed / let go
3. Assurance that he would start regardless of all else, as long as he was fit an available

Now, I dismissed this as idle speculation by the rags. I'm sure most of us did, at the time. However, since then, the data is telling. He's been captain and remained captain, despite arguably better options being available. He's also seen the club jettison all their striking option other than him and has started and played almost every minute except when injured, despite his horrific form, touch etc.

All in all, I'm not wholly convinced, but the evidence that there's some contractual clause does seem to be mounting...
Click to expand...

Greedy cnut eh, as if 300k is not enough. I doubt he really cares about ambitions and all that as long as the paycheck is keep coming.

No. 2, I don't even think Messi/Ronaldo/Neymar would go that far, let alone anyone in Manchester United, that's practically giving him the manager job.

No. 3, is probably, but again that's selfish from him, we will be paying his salary regardless of whether or not he plays.
 
Sky1981 said:
Greedy cnut eh, as if 300k is not enough. I doubt he really cares about ambitions and all that as long as the paycheck is keep coming.
Click to expand...
Never had any doubts on this. To be fair, most footballers probably fall under this category as long as they're in the "top echelon" of clubs. Top echelon nowadays is clearly about who can afford to pay the most...

Sky1981 said:
No. 2, I don't even think Messi/Ronaldo/Neymar would go that far, let alone anyone in Manchester United, that's practically giving him the manager job.
Click to expand...
I don't think it means he can select or veto; the Press reports were more about him being "in the loop" on all transfer business. Something that other players aren't except when they're used (typically by Barca and Real) for the public tapping-up...

Sky1981 said:
No. 3, is probably, but again that's selfish from him, we will be paying his salary regardless of whether or not he plays.
Click to expand...
Very selfish, but something that the reports were unanimous on. I'm torn on this one. It's hard to believe a club our size agreed to this, but we have to remember that at the time, Moyes was in charge. We had been through absolute disasters in the transfer market and Woodward was new in the job. Could it be? Playing stats suggest it's true, but how could this be enforceable? Oh well, in a way I like to believe it's true since that would reduce the blame on LvG and Giggs for refusing to drop him. The alternative is to believe that the two of them are completely blind to what the whole world and its dog can see -> Rooney is done or at least in need of a period on the bench.
 
midnightmare said:
Perhaps, but I do recall that there was a lot of chatter at the time he signed the last contract that the contract's clauses assured him of 3 things:
1. Captaincy, regardless of the manager in charge, as long as he was at the club
2. A say in transfers in terms of whom we signed / let go
3. Assurance that he would start regardless of all else, as long as he was fit an available

Now, I dismissed this as idle speculation by the rags. I'm sure most of us did, at the time. However, since then, the data is telling. He's been captain and remained captain, despite arguably better options being available. He's also seen the club jettison all their striking option other than him and has started and played almost every minute except when injured, despite his horrific form, touch etc.

All in all, I'm not wholly convinced, but the evidence that there's some contractual clause does seem to be mounting...
Click to expand...
I don't think a contract like that would be legal in any way. And I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to agree it.
 
midnightmare said:
Never had any doubts on this. To be fair, most footballers probably fall under this category as long as they're in the "top echelon" of clubs. Top echelon nowadays is clearly about who can afford to pay the most...


I don't think it means he can select or veto; the Press reports were more about him being "in the loop" on all transfer business. Something that other players aren't except when they're used (typically by Barca and Real) for the public tapping-up...


Very selfish, but something that the reports were unanimous on. I'm torn on this one. It's hard to believe a club our size agreed to this, but we have to remember that at the time, Moyes was in charge. We had been through absolute disasters in the transfer market and Woodward was new in the job. Could it be? Playing stats suggest it's true, but how could this be enforceable? Oh well, in a way I like to believe it's true since that would reduce the blame on LvG and Giggs for refusing to drop him. The alternative is to believe that the two of them are completely blind to what the whole world and its dog can see -> Rooney is done or at least in need of a period on the bench.
Click to expand...

Was there ever a player with a must play contract ever in football?

Personally i dont think that's the case, this accusations started on the Internet, i really dont think the club would want that, neither the player, not on top of a guaranteed 300k/week anyway.

Besides, what's wrong with being dropped a game or two, any other job it'll be treated as holiday. Wasn't so bad to get dropped right?

Besides, if that Clause is there rooney must be one hell or a passionate footballer, something i didnt see on the pitch. What he could possibly gain by always playing? More money? More fame? The only reason for that is guaranteeing his chance to break the record. And either way you look at it very stupif from us and selfish from him
 
Sky1981 said:
Was there ever a player with a must play contract ever in football?

Personally i dont think that's the case, this accusations started on the Internet, i really dont think the club would want that, neither the player, not on top of a guaranteed 300k/week anyway.

Besides, what's wrong with being dropped a game or two, any other job it'll be treated as holiday. Wasn't so bad to get dropped right?

Besides, if that Clause is there rooney must be one hell or a passionate footballer, something i didnt see on the pitch. What he could possibly gain by always playing? More money? More fame? The only reason for that is guaranteeing his chance to break the record. And either way you look at it very stupif from us and selfish from him
Click to expand...

No because his endorsements etc are based on him being United and Englands no1 player, getting dropped regularly will impact him financially.
 
Cassidy said:
No because his endorsements etc are based on him being United and Englands no1 player, getting dropped regularly will impact him financially.
Click to expand...

He knows his end is coming he has to hide behind a clause.

No way player like messi neymar ronaldo thinking they will not be good enough and worry about being dropped constantly at the age of 28
 
If it ever does turn out that he's got a clause in the contract - then he's more spineless than I could ever possibly imagine. Basically protecting himself from any future (fair) criticism that results in him being rightfully dropped from the XI. I suppose it wouldn't be hard to understand given how he reacted to Ferguson dropping him in his final season - throwing his toys out of the pram.

Contractual equivalent of taking his ball and going home. Then again, that would mean Moyes is an even bigger tosser than we already thought and Woodward was green as hell.
 
The only other thing I can think of is a clause like Thiago had at Barca where he had to play a certain percentage of games, and LvG is trying to get them out of the way before the business end of the season..........???
 
I said I suspected a clause quite a year ago, to which I was shot down, and still do. I don't see why Van Gaal can't have a quiet word with Phil Jones (or Phil Bardsley if need be!) to get round that.

The smart money was always on Persie being mad captain, and even on Rooney being pushed out according to a lot of rumours. When he was made captain, I first thought it may have been contractually promised, but didn't overthink it at the time. Moyes was in charge when he got his new deal, and he was pandering to his boy. It was already known that Vidic would be joining Inter in the summer, so the topic of captaincy was already in existence. I don't think it would have been something so outrageous, Moyes probably decided he'd make Rooney captain following season, and they may have put it in writing. Woodward, for his part, could not afford to lose Rooney at a time we were struggling. It was also wierd that a player approaching 30 would sign a 5 year deal, with agreements as to what would happen once the 5 years was up. The whole ambassador stuff was odd, 5 years was a long time in football and obviously, there should have been no guarantee that Rooney would still be connected to the club in his mid 30s.

My suspicion is that Van Gaal inherited this. Rooney's 'privileges' may have been agreed in print. Also, his treatment of Rooney has not tallied with his general ruthlessness for underperformance, and goes above and beyond the protection afforded to any of his previous captains.

I'd be in favour of us paying him off £40m rather than spending it on signing another top player this summer if I had a choice. He's holding the team back, and no matter how much you build around him, there will always be a clear question of how much better we'd be if we had a competent #10 instead.
 
I refuse to believe there's a clause. The club is not that far gone.
 
Sky1981 said:
He knows his end is coming he has to hide behind a clause.

No way player like messi neymar ronaldo thinking they will not be good enough and worry about being dropped constantly at the age of 28
Click to expand...

I agree, I'm particularly talking about Rooney and why the clause in his contract might actually be true
 
If there was a clause I'd suspect van Gaal would be more cynical of Rooney in the press. He's too eager to praise him and never criticizes him.
 
acnumber9 said:
Yes. Did you read the article? It was a clause for the selling club for minutes played by a player they sold. It wasn't a clause saying he has to play every minute. What relation does it bare to Rooney?
Click to expand...
Did you read this sentence from what I wrote?
".....so therefore, it's not totally inconceivable that Rooney might have a 'playing clause'. Obviously relative to his situation, it would differ from Oxlaide-Chamberlain's..."
I didn't say the content of Oxlaide-Chamberlain's contract would be the same if Rooney does indeed have a clause. The point is there was a playing clause - that's the point for those that believe they don't exist. How the clause is constructed is entirely up to the individuals and what they negotiate - obviously for Rooney whatever is in there would have to be beneficial to him. I can't see what is so difficult about this to understand.
 
He switched OT lights on yesterday, maybe we could just send round to all your houses to switch on your Christmas lights. Especially the ones who live the other side of the world.
 
Blimey. First, he's choosing what the team has for dinner; now he's doing the electrics at the Theatre of Wayne; is there no end to Rooney's Reign of...um...Doing Stuff?
 
Him being chosen to turn on the Xmas lights doesn't suggest he's going away anytime soon; in fact, quite the opposite.
 
SteveJ said:
Him being chosen to turn on the Xmas lights doesn't suggest he's going away anytime soon; in fact, quite the opposite.
Click to expand...
Captain and Vice Captain. I don't think there anything in that. Or at least I hope.
 
Surprised they didn't pass the switch back n' forth between them.
 
There's a story about it in the Daily Fail, if anybody's interested:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...it-pair-turn-Old-Trafford-Christmas-tree.html

Also: Ouch. Didn't realise the kick by Huth was that bad:

2EE3010600000578-3337757-Manchester_United_striker_Wayne_Rooney_grimaces_after_receiving_-m-17_1448745553446.jpg
 
Last edited:
Bwuk said:
Is there anyone who still wants him to play?
Click to expand...

I don't think there's ever been any topic that everyone has agreed on before on Red Cafe.

Even towards the end of Moyes you still had people defending him, with Rooney this season it's unanimous he's shit.
 
Djemba-Djemba said:
Even towards the end of Moyes you still had people defending him, with Rooney this season it's unanimous he's shit.
Click to expand...

Regarding Moyes, there are people on this forum who still feel that we were wrong to fire him and should've given him more time.
If you ask them, I'm sure they'd be happy for him to be re-hired.
 
Jazz said:
Did you read this sentence from what I wrote?
".....so therefore, it's not totally inconceivable that Rooney might have a 'playing clause'. Obviously relative to his situation, it would differ from Oxlaide-Chamberlain's..."
I didn't say the content of Oxlaide-Chamberlain's contract would be the same if Rooney does indeed have a clause. The point is there was a playing clause - that's the point for those that believe they don't exist. How the clause is constructed is entirely up to the individuals and what they negotiate - obviously for Rooney whatever is in there would have to be beneficial to him. I can't see what is so difficult about this to understand.
Click to expand...
It wasn't a playing clause though. It was part of a selling fee. It's a buying clubs way of ensuring they don't overspend on a dud. It would have no relevance to any mythical clause in Rooney's contract. If such a clause existed it would surely be illegal and we'd have heard about it.
 
It will be very interesting to see what happens if he misses 4 or 5 games and the team collectively improves in his absence.
 
Born2Lose said:
It will be very interesting to see what happens if he misses 4 or 5 games and the team collectively improves in his absence.
Click to expand...
Would love for that to happen just to see the meltdown when he comes back and a performing player is suddenly on e bench.
 
bubbles_ said:
Anyone think this is a face saving way of dropping him?
Click to expand...

Don't think so. If we were to drop Rooney, this is not the time to do it when Herrera is also injured and we are generally very thin in terms of squad availability.
 
CG1010 said:
Don't think so. If we were to drop Rooney, this is not the time to do it when Herrera is also injured and we are generally very thin in terms of squad availability.
Click to expand...

I guess. I wonder what team he'll play now. It would be the perfect time to implement 433
 
The longer he's out for the better.

Preferably, for the rest of the season.
 
Sam said:
It might sound harsh, but right now its the only way to get him out of the team, with LVG's refusal to drop him.
Click to expand...
If everyone was fully fit then I'd understand not wanting him to be fit enough to play, but we have no options right now, especially with a busy schedule coming up. And his performances had picked up recently, though still not scoring/creating (like everyone else though). The players who can play in our front 4 that we have fit and available are Martial, Memphis, Mata, Lingard, Pereira and Fellaini. 3 of them are u21 (with Lingard only 22 but only recently even started playing), 1 is only good for bringing down long balls. Mata is the only one who is a very good player at his best and in the prime ages of his career. With Herrera out and Young needed at fullback, we just have no options up top so it's stupid to want Rooney to be out.
 
bosnian_red said:
If everyone was fully fit then I'd understand not wanting him to be fit enough to play, but we have no options right now, especially with a busy schedule coming up. And his performances had picked up recently, though still not scoring/creating (like everyone else though). The players who can play in our front 4 that we have fit and available are Martial, Memphis, Mata, Lingard, Pereira and Fellaini. 3 of them are u21 (with Lingard only 22 but only recently even started playing), 1 is only good for bringing down long balls. Mata is the only one who is a very good player at his best and in the prime ages of his career. With Herrera out and Young needed at fullback, we just have no options up top so it's stupid to want Rooney to be out.
Click to expand...

Rooney's been far and away our worst attacker this season. He's been absolutely appalling. The longer he's out of the team, the better.

Right now I'd happily play any of Martial, Memphis, Mata, Lingard, Pereira and Fellaini ahead of Rooney.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.