Alemar
Full Member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2017
- Messages
- 7,715
We just need to buy a good CB now. By itself it will show Harry that he won’t be playing here any longer.
shoot him if necessary, in the face, with a gunWe’re too soft
Don’t pick him in the squad. Don’t let him train with the first team. Tell him if he’s not found a club by September 1st then he’s not getting registered
I'd prefer it if we promoted an academy player and demoted Maguire. Preferably a Greek academy player.We just need to buy a good CB now. By itself it will show Harry that he won’t be playing here any longer.
*it's not very effective*shoot him if necessary, in the face, with a gun
Ok fair. Another example. James Tarkowski is earning 100k a week at Everton currently.We've signed Evans on a 1 month deal, and to be honest, only because he has an extensive history with the club. The equivalent would be Sheffield United signing him in a few years on a short term deal.
In principle I agree with you outside of Manchester being a shittier place than London or United bench being nicer than being on the field for West Ham. Maguire is entitled to not accept a pay cut but he also needs to think midterm. He has two more years in his contract and if he doesn't play he won't get 100k per week in 2025, if West Ham offers him something like a 4 to 5 years contract at 100k for weeks, he puts himself in a better situation than the current 190k until summer 2025. Unless he thinks that he will get 100k in 2025 and not 50k.United fans sounding like Barca fans last year here..."no, he should take a paycut for the club". Bollocks to that. As if ye'd take a voluntary pay cut to go do your job in a shittier place.
You're arguing semantics. Nullifying/breaking? What's the difference?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.
Given how clearly the club doesn't want to sign more without first committing sales... Can they even bring someone in now ?We just need to buy a good CB now. By itself it will show Harry that he won’t be playing here any longer.
That might be a little harsh, unless the person you ask to do it is a Wolves striker.shoot him if necessary, in the face, with a gun
That's not at all what's happening. You're confusing painful mediocrity with something like subordination.Surely not the same, I can get sacked at my job for bad performance. That doesnt happen in football.
this is a completely childish and simplistic, people-pleasing view...Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
this is a really bad opinionI used to be against booing him for playing poorly alone, but now, he deserves every boo he gets. He knows the fans don’t like him, the manager doesn’t rate him and his teammates don’t respect him as a leader. And yet, despite West Ham offering him £100k per week and the captaincy, he needs a payoff. An absolute disgrace of a player.
I agree with you but shouldn’t he have already taken the hint by now? I mean Shaw starts ahead of him at CB in important games.We just need to buy a good CB now. By itself it will show Harry that he won’t be playing here any longer.
Money is more valuable today than tomorrow. Given inflation and opportunity cost and what not.In principle I agree with you outside of Manchester being a shittier place than London or United bench being nicer than being on the field for West Ham. Maguire is entitled to not accept a pay cut but he also needs to think midterm. He has two more years in his contract and if he doesn't play he won't get 100k per week in 2025, if West Ham offers him something like a 4 to 5 years contract at 100k for weeks, he puts himself in a better situation than the current 190k until summer 2025. Unless he thinks that he will get 100k in 2025 and not 50k.
I don't think that he is purely declining this offer for financial reasons, I suspect that his ego is playing a big role.
Maguire"He has the ability to be a top-class centre-back," said Ten Hag. "He is the best for England so why shouldn't he be the best for us? "But he has to prove it. When he is not confident enough to fight then he has to go, then he has to make a decision.
FFS!!!!!Deal is off
For some of the fees and wages they have been paying players, to shell out 30 mill is nothing for them and they will have another high profile player in the league.I'm not sure where that leaves him on the England front for his career but I'm sure his greed will take over though anyway.Can't we get some Saudi club in for him?
He's not arguing against Maguire having the right to let his contract run. What he's saying is that future earnings are contingent on you still being employed by the club that's selling you thus that money isn't "owed" to Maguire. He's being bought out of that contract. United shouldn't have to pay him for it.this is a completely childish and simplistic, people-pleasing view...
united negotiated the contract, maguire has every right to let it run out