If You compare Raheem sterling's wages Lingard's a lot lesser.
Lingard signs new £100k 4 year contract (Sky) | Official: Option to extend for a further year
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
- Status
Good point. And when you factor in the inflation that Britain is about to experience post-Brexit, £100,000 a week will seem like buttons for Jesse.
a-it depends on what type of squad player he is. There's a massive difference between someone like Januzaj/Lingard and Park/Wes/Fletcher.
b- I think we should offer ALL our players competitive salaries. However we need to consider the role they cover and the potential they have. For example giving Young 120k a week is lunatic.
c- SAF was a firm believer of keeping a wage structure with players given competitive salaries. Hence why it was so easy for us to sell players when there time with us was up.
The only players who make more than £100k at Arsenal are Sanchez, Ozil and Ramsey I think
Lingard would be their 4th highest earner...
He's a good player. Happy for him to get his contract.
Going by reports Park was on 70K, which was lot some 6-10 years ago. SAF offered good wages to squad players and one of the reason for it is to keep the squad together.
We hardly sold many players who were good enough to play for us, so not sure about selling part. We always gave away them for peanuts when we did.
Lingard isn't coming through the ranks. He's 24, so not sure how that's even relevant.
You wouldn't have Angel Gomes on a 100k a week contract, starting PL games ahead of players like Mkhitaryan, Martial, Mata, etc.
bonkers, as far as I am concerned. I have no idea what he even does...
Park was 5 times the player Lingard was.
You mean apart from scoring every time he plays a final at Wembley ?
Hyperbole. Park was very good player and I agree with that. Enjoyed watching him play in big games.
So Park (Squad player) was on 70K around 10 years ago, O'Shea was on 80K per week, again 10 years ago. Both of them were squad players.
100k for a 2nd choice winger. First choice players will ask more now 
.
.Yup....but our revenue is increasing more than our wagebill - so that is not a big concern.
And both served a more important role in the team then Lingard do.
Yes, they served and Lingard has years of service. So it's not a finished career we are talking about.
You said no other club in the league would offer a sqúad-player this kind of money. No and you are right, and that is because we are making hundreds of millions more than most other clubs, and a lot more than 99% of them - so that is still beside the point. What you should be asking is. would it be fair that our best players make £300.000 a week, while our squad-players (and by squad.player we are talking about a guy who has played 70 games over the last 2 seasons) make 1/6 of that sum. If we not assume people think that £50.000 a week is fair for Lingard.
Even if Lingard makes £100.000 its still 1/3 of what our best players are making. That is not unfair in my opinion. Is it too much isolated speaking ? Yes. Compared to our other players ? No
Indeed. And you thought from that I meant Stoke rather than, say, a club that was competing with us in terms of budget and expectation...
To be honest I think this is a clever move from United, they are using Lingard (and Pogba) as examples that they are willing to reward youth players with big contracts.
Why go elsewhere when you can earn large corn at United. Fight to make the 1st team and you will be rewarded.
Why go elsewhere when you can earn large corn at United. Fight to make the 1st team and you will be rewarded.
Well Micki and Mata already earn more. If we end up renewing with Martial, he'll probably get more as well.100k for a 2nd choice winger. First choice players will ask more now
No, they were more important to the squad. You pay a person according to what he's giving you not on what he might be giving you in the future. If Lingard turn out to become the next Cristiano Ronaldo, then his salary should and would be revised.
And both are much better players then Lingard
Yes, they are. So they earn more. As I replied to the poster.
Entirely untrue.
Who's that, then? And how much do they pay their squad players?
I'm not sure what expectations have to do with how much a club can afford to pay their players but our expectations are certainly as high as any other club in the league, if that matters.
I'd say they have got better bang for buck from their big stars than we have.
They overpay their squad players too and I agree penny pinching is not the way to success but on the flip side spending willy nilly on average players is not the way to success either.
FWIW Zlatan has justified his wage but the principle remains the same, for ageing stars you don't over huge wages like we saw with Bastian.
You don't over pay squad players because they should be the replaceable talents within a side. Rewarding loyalty is one thing if the worker bee is performing brilliantly but we seem to be rewarding them just for being nice guys around the squad. It's bullshit.
You are simply making stupid points and overcomplicating a simple issue. Milan and Napoli wanted to get him. Injury forced Napoli to leave that deal and Milan was told no by us. Simple.
Young would definitely start in many clubs. You seem to think that Neymar and Messi play for the smaller clubs in the PL. West Brom (in the top 10)play the likes of Chris Brunt and James McLean quite often. None of them are any better than Young. Young could very easily start for them. You have no sense of what you are talking basically.
We are reportedly paying 75k. it's not going to change anything. Rashford signed a contract a year back for £25k. Yet we have batshuayi earning thrice that even though rashford is better. Does that mean Chelsea are going to suffer in new contracts too? Arsenal do too for paying Wilshere 90k when we pay herrera less than that?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
He's not even a good 2nd choice winger which is the annoying thing. Zaha looks like he's a level or two above Lingard these days...what would he be on if he was at United? £150-200k? It really is ridiculous100k for a 2nd choice winger. First choice players will ask more now
I don't think ManUtd do so many renewals, also wages and transfer fee are based on potential and also what he is capable now.
a- if De Laurentiis and Galliani were making stupid points then so do I
b- He would start in most lower end EPL sides. However none of them will be ready to match his 120k a week. Young on the other hand would be stupid to take a pay cut to play for West Brom
c- As said Im referring to squad players like Lingard being paid 100k a week
We do take potential in consideration (and most of the time we get carried away and overdo that). Having said that, 100k for a player like Lingard is lunatic.
Well the Issue is whole lot bigger than that, City are developing a great academy structure within the club as well with the help of Pep guardiola and top class facilities to lure some of the biggest and brightest english and foriegn talents in their academy to challenge the united's dominance in that market as well, So United have to compete with that as well and giving a fair chance and stability to an academy player does send out a strong message and a ray of hope and extra motivation of the academy talents and new talents looking for a club to go on and become a first team regular at a top club like united.
Illennacho was touted to be a city youth capable of challenging Rashford but this season he hardly gets opportunities to play while they also signed Gabriel jesus as a competition. Youth academy prospects and younger talents need strong examples to belive in our project and our academy system.
United's challenge is bigger than ever at all levels and We have to compete in every sense at all levels to stay on our former levels. He is a squad player but is qualified as a home grown academy talent too which is ofcourse a motivation for our academy talents and future academy players we want to lure in and beat the Opposition to.
100k reports may not be totally true , but when lingard hit his peak which i think jose belives will, which explains this contract, than it may prove to be a extra motivation for him and besides as a english club we have a moral obligation to go beyond the lenght to develop english talents who deserve it .
And they are competing on the same level we are so if they are getting better bang for their buck is debatable.
This is an era in EPL where the top 6 have equal quality amongst themselves and to build a well balanced side overall will be a huge challenge as all top 6 have great managers with top philosophies so there will never be an open game amongst top 6 which makes the title challenge even more difficult overall so there will always be a big fight amongst 2-3 clubs for the same player. We have lost Kante and mane race to our rivals and thus for players, money could be a huge deciding factor to join a club specially if its in the same city.
For a player like fabinho we will have to pay big wages because there are 3 -4 clubs and 2 cities he can choose from.
Last edited:
Again going on and on about 100K when smaller number is also published.
I have never been negative about Lingard, I've always said I'm happy to to have him in the squad as a back-up player. That does not mean I have to accept whatever wage the club throws at him. He isn't worth 100k a week, we shouldn't be held to ransom over ordinary players. If the club announced tomorrow we're giving Martial a new 200k a week contract there would be similar complaints by the way. If Baily got a big new contract no one would complain. It's all about what they contribute. It's not people wanting to pick on Lingard.
We're rewarding mediocrity. We've finished 7th, 4th, 5th and probably 6th on the biggest wage bill in the country. If that doesn't tell you we're overpaying for a bunch of average players I don't know what will.
It's football. They get paid a lot of money.
I think its good academy example so that we can attract other kids to our academy if we have to compete against Chelski, City etc.
We've been under-achieving, everyone agrees about that. I fail to see how suddenly getting much more hard-nosed about player wages will fix this problem. It will have the opposite effect, if anything.
A sensible wage structure in a team is there to reward high achievement and create a culture of players striving to reach their absolute best in order to earn the absolute most.
When you break away from the rest of the league in how highly you're rewarding mediocrity, you will start to see a trend of strong mediocrity in your output.
We have rewarded mediocrity significantly since SAF's retirement, starting with the appointment of David Moyes. And we are increasingly sliding into mediocrity.
Man Utd can afford to pay the absolute most, if we also insisted that in order to earn that, you must be in the category of player who's output justifies you earning that, then we'll actually start getting some bang for our buck.
But that must correlate to the rest of the league. The message must be, you wanna get 100k a week, you gotta give at least as good as Mané, who gets less than that at Liverpool.
If you start paying players double, who are producing half of the output of league rivals, you're in trouble.
You can't stick Jesse Lingard on double what Dele Alli gets. Sure, Alli's pay is notably low for his level and will soon go up, but double? That's crazy.
And I could do that with teams right through the league, mate. It's us that's the anomaly.
When it comes to flexing the finances in order to try and sign a Neymar, or lure a Zlatan, then yes, lets blow the others out of the water. But when it comes to getting the best out of squad players, paying them over the odds, for producing half of what our rivals are paying is crazy.
Rather than a culture of competitiveness and aspiration, it's a culture of high reward for low achievement, and before you know it, you're 6th.
I think its fair to say that Chelsea and City compete financially with us. They lose, but they compete, and the wages they pay their players aren't completely different from ours. They're, at the very least, in a close enough ball park that the likes of Kante will go there even if Chelsea offer lower wages than us. I'm yet to see any suggestion that overpaying has led to a competitive advantage for us. To me, I think all it has done is foster a sense of complacency amongst the players.
Right now no one is a bang on starter and a bang on squad player.
- Status