They are not basic wage, they are also bonus but not related to performance. You complete 1 year, you get loyalty bonus, if player leaves without completing that particular year, he won't get one.Image rights and loyalty bonus are his basic wage they're not an incentivised bonus for good performance on the pitch just because you split them out.
It doesn't matter how it's reported thats just pedantics. When people are disgusted at the wages they don't care how the non-performance related criteria is reported they care what's fair earnings overall.They are not basic wage, they are also bonus but not related to performance. You complete 1 year, you get loyalty bonus, if player leaves without completing that particular year, he won't get one.
It's base wages + loyalty bonus + image rights + Performance related bonus + team related bonus. At least going by contract leaks, this is how it's reported.
What is fair earning? Why should average fan care about it when they have no idea how the contract is structured?It doesn't matter how it's reported thats just pedantics. When people are disgusted at the wages they don't care how the non-performance related criteria is reported they care what's fair earnings overall.
Image rights are guaranteed and as for loyalty bonus it's basically fulfil this contract you're getting (and you don't even have control over that) and you'll get paid which sounds an awful lot like a salaried wage.
If it's 150k per week for non performance related and then the rest is performance tied that would be on the high side but fair if we're expecting him to be our key striker with 20 plus goals.
Nowhere have I tried to compare the two as players or prospects, just pointing out the hypocrisy of people losing their heads paying rashford 200k as he is so young vs how people were saying “oh well” at paying De Ligt 300 at 19.You genuinely going to compare De Ligt to Rashford? De Ligt is looking like a real star in the making, in fact you could genuinely say he is already world class, he's a leader and he is just 19. Potentially a once in a generation player. Rashford.. well he isn't even the best young attacker at the club.
If Rashford played for West Ham there would be very little if any noise about him and he would be earning no more than about 40k a week.
By the way I think 300k is too much for De Ligt, but it's a lot more understandable than Rashford 200k plus..
Is it fair? He's never scored 20 plus goals before. We can't just approximate how many he scores from a season down the middle and then contractually oblige ourselves to pay that.It doesn't matter how it's reported thats just pedantics. When people are disgusted at the wages they don't care how the non-performance related criteria is reported they care what's fair earnings overall.
Image rights are guaranteed and as for loyalty bonus it's basically fulfil this contract you're getting (and you don't even have control over that) and you'll get paid which sounds an awful lot like a salaried wage.
If it's 150k per week for non performance related and then the rest is performance tied that would be on the high side but fair if we're expecting him to be our key striker with 20 plus goals.
I agree. I don't think he a 20-25 goal a season player, and that's what we need.This is in principle nothing but a description of where he currently finds himself as a footballer. No doubt, he is more advanced at this stage of his career than Greenwood but he is still 'potential' in my eyes. Not good enough to be leading our forward line if we really wanna win the majors.
Believe it would be 200K of Basic + Image right. Add 50K if qualified for CL, Add up to 50K if we win League, CL or Cup.I wonder what criteria they are in order to reach 300k?
Lets say:
- 150k base salary
- additional 35k per week if scored 20 goals
- additional 35k per week if scored 30 goals
- additional 40k per week if finish top 4
- additional 40k per week if winning a major trophy (Premier league, FA Cup, or Europa league)
Spot on.Why do people even care? Football wages are ridiculous whether they are 50k a week or 300k a week. In the end, they are just kicking a ball around and getting paid absurd amounts either way.
You have no power over how money is spent because it is not yours, so why are people bothered so much by it? I don't think it is a major issue how much they are paid so long as Manutd can afford it.
We care because it fecks up our wage structure, because it makes it almost impossible to sell players if they end up being poor or average for us.Why do people even care? Football wages are ridiculous whether they are 50k a week or 300k a week. In the end, they are just kicking a ball around and getting paid absurd amounts either way.
You have no power over how money is spent because it is not yours, so why are people bothered so much by it? I don't think it is a major issue how much they are paid so long as Manutd can afford it.
Why do people even care? Football wages are ridiculous whether they are 50k a week or 300k a week. In the end, they are just kicking a ball around and getting paid absurd amounts either way.
You have no power over how money is spent because it is not yours, so why are people bothered so much by it? I don't think it is a major issue how much they are paid so long as Manutd can afford it.
