Yeah, that's a whole other conversation. I was just talking about the theoretical premise.
Wayne Rooney's Salary
- Thread starter shamans
- Start date
His salary isn't necessary to include in the argument for him being a squad player. It just adds insult to injury so to speak. Especially when he wasn't even that bloody good when we gave him that stupid contract.
So I agree, salary isn't required as a talking point. His performances aren't really good enough (season as an overall) even if he was being paid £20,000 a week.
So I agree, salary isn't required as a talking point. His performances aren't really good enough (season as an overall) even if he was being paid £20,000 a week.
Rooneys last contract included the club buying ALL his image rights. Aside from the £250,00-£300,00 a week wages, United pay him another fee for those on top. In an interview with his agent (Paul Stretford) he was reluctant to discuss the exact amount, but it is believed to be close to another £100,000 a week.
In return, the player spends one day per week advertising/sponsoring whatever the club wish 'within reasonable boundaries' to recoup this image right fee. In theory this enables the club to have Rooney here for free if they can use him well enough, on the other hand it can end up costing them an absolute fortune if they can't utilise this 'asset' well enough.
Obviously, a fat, bald bloke chugging around the pitch for the reserves with the ball bouncing off his shins, will not be in demand, an over-hyped 'superstar' in a wig captaining the first team will, especially if he is the top goalscorer for the club.
The bottom line is this. Next time Rooney is on the team sheet, and you wonder why, ask yourself who is actually selecting him, LVG, or the board?
In return, the player spends one day per week advertising/sponsoring whatever the club wish 'within reasonable boundaries' to recoup this image right fee. In theory this enables the club to have Rooney here for free if they can use him well enough, on the other hand it can end up costing them an absolute fortune if they can't utilise this 'asset' well enough.
Obviously, a fat, bald bloke chugging around the pitch for the reserves with the ball bouncing off his shins, will not be in demand, an over-hyped 'superstar' in a wig captaining the first team will, especially if he is the top goalscorer for the club.
The bottom line is this. Next time Rooney is on the team sheet, and you wonder why, ask yourself who is actually selecting him, LVG, or the board?
Put like that, it actually doesn't seem far-fetched that he'd have a 'must play when fit' clause. Then again, he'd have little need for such a clause if indeed the club's policy is in line with his desires.
So it's almost as if he's holding the club hostage? Again?
Ah that's very interesting and it would explain a lot.
For all his many, many faults Van Gaal isn't a complete moron. He must have seen how fecking shite Rooney has been this season, particularly up until Xmas. It would make sense if the board were leaning on him to keep starting Rooney no matter what.
Remarkable how much power he has at the club, especially when you think he's pretty disliked amongst large swathes of the fan base. I worry too that every new manager that comes in will have to defer to Rooney and get him on side, similar to Terry at Chelsea or Gerrard at Liverpool.
Your logic eludes me. Do ticket-buyers or viewers around the world base their decision to watch United on whether Rooney is playing or not? There's no evidence at all to suggest that.
The club is, literally, bigger than the player. Had Rooney been a player for a small club the argument that that club needs Rooney to sell tickets, generate tv viewers or sell merchandise would be well taken. But it's pretty well established that the United "brand" is bigger than the "Rooney" brand, or at least that's intuitively the case that it is.
During the two month spell when Rooney was out with injury, did ticket sales or tv viewership suddenly drop? Did interest in United here on redcafe suddenly drop? There's no evidence that I'm aware of that that's the case. Interest in United precedes and will succeed Wayne Rooney. Our commercial fortune is not tied to him. Clearly, it's a plus to have a player on the roster whose name is known around the world, but no one is denying that. What is in question is whether Rooney is still "worth" the 15.6m annually wage he receives from United and is scheduled to receive for the next three (I believe it's three) seasons. The answer, at least measured by the value of his performances that contributes to success on the pitch, is clearly no.
If there is evidence that but for Rooney that shirt sales would plummet or OT would see empty seats on match days or tv viewership of United matches would decline then a discussion of his commercial value compensating for his poor on-pitch performances would be sensible. But there is no such evidence.
It's not that Rooney isn't marketable. He clearly is. But there's always the next Rooney, and when Martial is done with his career the next Martial. It's foolish United to cling to non-performing players like Rooney due to their marketability. In our case, we have no choice but to cling to Rooney as there is no club on earth outside of China who would be willing to accept his wage packet. That's why the discussion of his 300k/week wage is entirely appropriate for discussion here -- because of it we're stuck with him for the next three seasons. And if we're stuck with him for the next three seasons that 300k/week presumably hinders our ability to some extent to spend on players who can contribute to on-pitch and commercial success as a club.
That's where we'll obviously disagree, because I feel Rooney is still contributing to the team. I guess the manager does too, which is why he's playing. Ahh well...
When things are going alright for a player, fans will be angry he's not signing a new contract.
When things are going shit for a player, fans will be angry he signed that contract.
This is the reason players will squeeze everything out of a club when they can.
Fair play to Wayne for getting a big contract. Him scoring most goal in the club history should be delivery enough even though he's not that kind of striker any more.
When things are going shit for a player, fans will be angry he signed that contract.
This is the reason players will squeeze everything out of a club when they can.
Fair play to Wayne for getting a big contract. Him scoring most goal in the club history should be delivery enough even though he's not that kind of striker any more.
Really? Does he really provide anything that another player in the squad couldn't?
If he could score few more this season I would even order him pizza with french fries on it.
Shaw, Martial, DDG, Smalling and Rashford are nobodies! They have won nothing! They can barely finish fourth, if that. They have broken no records. They don't even have secure places in their national teams, let along being record holders and captains! They are not marketable. They are not leading actors, they are barely supporting actors. And of those five, only Marial and Rashford may be marketable someday ... ... perhaps in five years, if they have already won a couple of championships... and still it is questionable if they will be able to be compared to Rooney, probably not.
Look at the picture on the top of the page. Who is the central figure? The leading guy?
http://www.manutd.com/en/News-And-Features.aspx
http://www.manutd.com/en/News-And-Features.aspx
If that's the case then we should get giggs out of retirement and use him as our poster boy. Both are finished as players and gigs won more then Rooney
I don't see any relevance to reality. Rooney is currently the captain of both our team and the national team. He has a guaranteed contract for three more years. Giggs was a poster guy when he had a contract. That's how the real world works.
EARN IT TONIGHT!!!!!
Let me add that Giggs remains important for the club. And Rooney will definitely remain important after he retires. No question about it.
Gaz was our captain in his last year with us. He wasn't that relevant wasn't he? Rooney is a spent force, a striker who had been moved in midfield to make space to erm Rushford. I won't be surprised if England tries the same with him. Considering that we are struggling we are better off showing off young players who are fresh and who are still useful on the pitch
Giggs had 1-year extensions for a long time, before he retired at 40 years old. And I remember that, when he was 33 or something, people were asking for him to be released and be replaced by ... Obertan!
Rooney is 30 and has a closed contract for three more years with top salary (ie unmovable). He will be the captain of our club for three more years, perhaps more, it is certain. If you don't like reality, dream whatever you like, and don't worry, be happy! Life goes on!
Giggs had 1-year extensions for a long time, before he retired at 40 years old. And I remember that, when he was 33 or something, people were asking for him to be released and be replaced by ... Obertan!
Rooney is 30 and has a closed contract for three more years with top salary (ie unmovable). He will be the captain of our club for three more years, perhaps more, it is certain. If you don't like reality, dream whatever you like, and don't worry, be happy! Life goes on!
All I am saying is that from a marketing point of view we're better off using other players as poster boys. You may not notice but Rooney is on decline and he's declining very fast. Can you imagine having England's reserve as our main poster boy?
Yes, please ask for a marketing job in a top firm because you are smarter than Man Utd marketing guys.
There's plenty of things that United are doing wrong. Insisting on this chosen onr is one of them