Maguire | he stays!

[FriedClams]

Least favourite player in my time supporting United.

 

[Zora]

Ah - so Neil Custis is right on this bit of news about Harry demanding 15m but he's not right when it comes to his story about the club being sold in November?

You can't be selective with news. You're either all in on the Custard Man or not at all.

 

[Zaphod2319]

If true, He and Lukaku should become roomies.

 

[Chief123]

I think the Maguire to West Ham deal is done.

Utd just want to make sure they have an adequate replacement before releasing him and rightly so. We can’t let Maguire go if we can’t bring someone in. Our 1st choice back up is already not at the level we need.

 

[adexkola]

Well within his right to ask it. Well within our right to put him train with U18 for the next two years if he maintains this demand.

Was stupid what ETH said for him and then having him on the bench. We should make to him clear that it is either West Ham or reserves.

Isn't this against the rules?

 

[Chief123]

Isn't this against the rules?

Why would it be against the rules? You can make him train with whichever group you want. Even force him to train alone.

 

[hobbers]

So it's not about getting his West Ham wage topped up so he doesnt lose money, the slabheaded punt wants double wages?

If that is actually true, feck just booing the prick he deserves to be tarred and feathered. Hope not.

 

[Redplane]

Least favourite player in my time supporting United.

He clearly didn't deliver on the promise but he s had some good moments for us and other than being a donkey in Greece doesnt seem to cause trouble. I hope he won't hold the club hostage here but least favorite player at the club to me? Not by a long shot. We ve had some proper cnts and I dont consider Harry one of them.

 

[Fortitude]

Please don't lose sight of potential smear campaigns from both club and player PR, or, an opportunist throwing gasoline on the bonfire.

 

[Cantonagotmehere]

Please don't lose sight of potential smear campaigns from both club and player PR, or, an opportunist throwing gasoline on the bonfire.

Yep, could be true but no idea why people take Custis's reporting as fact.

 

[gajender]

Yep, could be true but no idea why people take Custis's reporting as fact.

Not to mention this same Custis reported United had already paid 6m as Pay off to Maguire and he was leaving , how shameless and unprofessional these so called journalists are and how gullible some in our fan base are .

Custis knows jack shit he is better left ignored .

 

[justsomebloke]

I don't know about "standard practice" but it happens all the time, its just rarely reported. It may not be making the player entirely whole but some level of payoff is common in these situations.

Don't believe for a second that players like RVP and Alexis walked out of big United contracts to smaller deals with new clubs in Turkey and Italy without getting payoffs of some sort.

They didn't (Not Alexis at least). But there's a difference between "a payment of some sort" and a full contract payoff.

 

[justsomebloke]

That's true but the wages Maguire is on are so vast that it's slightly different, he's never going to earn that anywhere else and he's got another two years of earning more than 200k a week on his contract.

The figure mentioned that Maguire wants is reportedly 6 million quid, that's about 60 per cent of what he would lose in earnings by going to West Ham apparently.

It's not that vast - around 10 million. Reports today saying he wants 15m (but hard to know if that's true of course).

 

[justsomebloke]

It’s standard practice to get some kind of compensation to meet the difference in pay. The key point here is that United are effectively breaking the contract by choosing to sell him.

"Some kind of payment", yes.

 

[justsomebloke]

It is fairly standard for a player to be compensated for the remaining time on their contract. Possibly not in full, but certainly a fair chunk.

I'm pretty certain that it's why players so rarely actually hand in transfer requests when they want to move, because doing so can forfeit their compensation.

The wage at the new club is irrelevant.

Of course it's not irrelevant. You're getting compensation to persuade you to accept a lower salary. It's not like you're being kicked out of a job.

 

[DWelbz19]

We’re definitely going to have to pay him off. It always happens when a player is on the sum he’s on and is dropping down a few levels.

 

[Nogho]

According to Andy Mitten United haven’t allowed West Ham to talk to Maguire yet, they, EtH, want a replacement first.

Source: The Athletic Podcast

 

[UnitedWA]

Least favourite player in my time supporting United.

Can't say the least, but in the pot with Di Maria and Sanchez.
Hopefully he goes to West Ham even if we have to pay 15 mil., just get rid of him at all cost!

 

[mitchmouse]

Ah - so Neil Custis is right on this bit of news about Harry demanding 15m but he's not right when it comes to his story about the club being sold in November?

You can't be selective with news. You're either all in on the Custard Man or not at all.

I guess you can - he might be right sometimes and wrong sometimes. Not saying either o the subjects you mention or either of these.

 

[mitchmouse]

If it's true about the £15m, let him rot in the reserves, as some people use to say about Rooney and Ronaldo

 

[Cassidy]

According to Andy Mitten United haven’t allowed West Ham to talk to Maguire yet, they, EtH, want a replacement first.

Source: The Athletic Podcast

Taking their sweet time

 

[Alex99]

Of course it's not irrelevant. You're getting compensation to persuade you to accept a lower salary. It's not like you're being kicked out of a job.

A player is well within their rights to demand compensation for break of contract if they're being paid the same or more at their new club. They'd be a bit daft in the case of the latter as it could cause the deal to fall through, but that's why it's irrelevant.

It is a bit like getting kicked out of a job though, isn't it? It's literally an employer attempting to break their contract with an employee.

 

[sewey89]

How dare he ask for what he was promised in his contract before agreeing to switch jobs and take a massive pay cut..

And that’s taking the Custis article at face value, which isn’t wise.

 

[seasidedaz]

Some rumours this morning that West Ham are now considering pulling out of the deal because of the time it’s taking. And the Hammers have identified 2 defenders in Johnathan Tah or Kossounou. It’s time to get this move wrapped up or move on.

 

[ElDiabloRojo]

If it's true about the £15m, let him rot in the reserves, as some people use to say about Rooney and Ronaldo

I wouldn't let him rot in the reserves but yeah it's not worth selliing him for 15m.

Cost more to replace him, even with someone of the same quality. If he wants the money then let him stay on the bench and play an odd game.

 

[DRJosh]

Imagine being so mediocre as a player and then having the audacity to negotiate your pay-off. Surely he has a bit of self-respect to salvage.

 

[Andycoleno9]

I am always saying that we must be more ruthless towards players. His right is to demand money. Our right is to put him in reserves.
Lets see who will blink first. Is he prepared to lose whole season (and miss Euro)? I bet not.

 

[justsomebloke]

A player is well within their rights to demand compensation for break of contract if they're being paid the same or more at their new club. They'd be a bit daft in the case of the latter as it could cause the deal to fall through, but that's why it's irrelevant.

It is a bit like getting kicked out of a job though, isn't it? It's literally an employer attempting to break their contract with an employee.

No, it isn't. And how on earth is being transferred out a breach of contract? It happens all the time, everyone who signs for a club does so on the understanding they might be sold to another club before the contract is up - indeed that is what everyone expects to happen, unless they sign a new one. That's why most transfers aren't free agent signings. What is more, they can refuse to go if they want to.

 

[AneRu]

I am always saying that we must be more ruthless towards players. His right is to demand money. Our right is to put him in reserves.
Lets see who will blink first. Is he prepared to lose whole season (and miss Euro)? I bet not.

This, we are too nice we even put him on the bench. Should feck him off to the reserves, take away his parking privileges and make him eat with the kids. He is shit yet he still wants to cling to a salary his talents aren't worth.

 

[OverratedOpinion]

I am between two minds on this.

One part of me understands that this is his career and he doesn't want to leave any money on the table.

The other part says that he's already been made extremely rich by this club, been given the biggest opportunity of his life here and let us down again and again with his own performances. He now has a chance to do something that would benifit the club where he will still be extremely highly paid and the fact he is holding us to ransom is quite classless.

Either way if we pay, it reminds me of a quote from the movie Moneyball.

Something along the lines of "The Yankees are paying half your contract. They are paying you millions of dollars to play AGAINST them this season. That's how much they think of you."

That's how much we think of you Harry.

 

[Alex99]

No, it isn't. And how on earth is being transferred out a breach of contract? It happens all the time, everyone who signs for a club does so on the understanding they might be sold to another club before the contract is up - indeed that is what everyone expects to happen, unless they sign a new one. That's why most transfers aren't free agent signings. What is more, they can refuse to go if they want to.

I didn't say it was a breach of contract, I said it was breaking their contract. They are different things. What do you think a transfer is? It's one club essentially buying out the contract of a player from another club, or in other terms, paying for that contract to be broken.

Players obviously understand that they may be transferred, but literally the entire purpose of the contracts is to protect both player and club.

I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore. I said the wages at a new club were irrelevant to compensation, precisely because, as you've just stated, a player can refuse to move while under contract. If the club wants him to move when he isn't overly keen, as is the case with Maguire, they're probably going to have to stump up for compensation. This would be true even if West Ham had a quarter of a million a week to give him and he still didn't want to leave, hence the wages being irrelevant.

What exactly is your point here?

 

[justsomebloke]

I didn't say it was a breach of contract, I said it was breaking their contract. They are different things. What do you think a transfer is? It's one club essentially buying out the contract of a player from another club, or in other terms, paying for that contract to be broken.

Players obviously understand that they may be transferred, but literally the entire purpose of the contracts is to protect both player and club.

I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore. I said the wages at a new club were irrelevant to compensation, precisely because, as you've just stated, a player can refuse to move while under contract. If the club wants him to move when he isn't overly keen, as is the case with Maguire, they're probably going to have to stump up for compensation. This would be true even if West Ham had a quarter of a million a week to give him and he still didn't want to leave, hence the wages being irrelevant.

What exactly is your point here?

Er, no, it is not. It is one club essentially buying the right to sign a player from another club, and then negotiating a contract with that player - which then supersedes and nullifies the previously existing contract. They do not usually buy out the contract, which would imply compensating the player for the remainder of his existing contract before he is signed to a new one. This does happen, mainly when players need to be persuaded to move from big and rich clubs to smaller and less affluent clubs, but it is the exception, not the rule.

What I'm arguing is that this cannot be reasonably compared to being kicked out of a job, and nor does it constitute breaking a contract. Most obviously because it can only happen with the players consent. Hence, there is in principle no reason whatsoever why the selling club should be considered to have any obligation to pay out the remainder of the contract - the contract is in effect discontinued by mutual consent.

The issue only arises at all in cases where both player and club essentially want to make the transfer, but where the terms available at the new club is so much worse that this in itself becomes an obstacle to the transfer taking place. Then it's simply a matter of negotiation - it depends on how keen the club is to move the player out, and how motivated the player is to go to the new club. That's not a matter of obligation, on either side. And in this picture, of course it matters what the wages at the new club is. That's what defines the gap the negotiation is over. In effect, that's negotiating over a pay cut.

 

[Brophs]

https://x.com/jacobsteinberg/status/1691378913602150400?s=46&t=y1Z1WRJlCMpfGvKoktn_hg
Goddamnit, Jacob.

 

[CantonaManc]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

FFS We are garbage .


Disgrace send him to the U21 .

 

[cyberman]

Enjoy the bench you stupid feck

 

[groovyalbert]

Stick him in the reserves and make sure he never kicks a ball for us again. Useless.

 

[Johan77]

Laughable if true....

 

[ShinjiNinja26]

Let him rot in the reserves.

 

[The Corinthian]

It was too good to be true.

 

[ayushreddevil9]

Was too good to be true to begin with