Is Lingard as good as gone? | Contract extended by one year

wolvored

Full Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
6,056
I remember on another thread someone who is obviously more business savvy than me, (and Im doing this from memory so might not get it 100% right) said keeping the 'asset' on the books for as long as possible even if not playing, looks good on the finance sheet and keeps the share prices stable. If you offload all your deadwood it looks like asset stripping and can cause the shares to fluctuate irregularly. Keeping and extending the contract isnt for football reasons, its just financial. Thats how the glazers think and run the club. Its all to do with getting the maximum financial benefit.
 

Andersons Dietician

Full Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2016
Messages
10,594
Simply the club protecting an asset so they can get a price for it if they can. Who even knows what Jesse would be worth on the market, at one point you might have gotten 30 mil for him but it’s probably more like 15 mil I would think now.

saw this from Ole,

"'I think we have competition for places which means you can not go around thinking that you can just fake your way being part of this team because you only deserve to be in a team you contribute to”
 

wolvored

Full Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
6,056
Simply the club protecting an asset so they can get a price for it if they can. Who even knows what Jesse would be worth on the market, at one point you might have gotten 30 mil for him but it’s probably more like 15 mil I would think now.

saw this from Ole,

"'I think we have competition for places which means you can not go around thinking that you can just fake your way being part of this team because you only deserve to be in a team you contribute to”
That last bit, lets hope Ole sticks to his word and doesnt start giving game time for the sake of it.
 

Buster15

Go on Didier
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
5,630
Location
Bristol
Supports
Bristol Rovers
Yeah he used to make very good runs from behind into the box and he was scoring some important goals aswell

It seemed like he had turned a corner and his movement and on-the ball decision had improved. Maybe the system Mourinho used him in that improved him.

I don't know why Ole can't get the best out of him
You would hope that he has been working on that during training.
He was pretty good for England as well and nobody really wants to see such taken wasted.
Still feel his best would come with a move away despite his contact extension.
 

Tony247

Full Member
Joined
May 2, 2018
Messages
3,905
I've no issue with Man United getting rid of players they don't deem good enough, that's got nothing to do with my post.

It's just sad to see someone like Lingard get so much abuse from fellow Man United fans.
I doubt in this case anger is towards lingard, it is mainly the united board and their idiosyncrasy. Because he is not even appearing on bench means it cannot be a footballing decision, it has to be either financial or emotional. Either is stupid thing to do. It is not like he is poor, he is financially well off and can live happily ever after. He is an expired product so chances of some club paying 10m+ for him is unlikely. Then why keep him on the books? Say thanks for everything and part your ways. That's life.

And if club has 70k+/week to donate then donate that to Rashford's charity ffs.
 

Mindhunter

Full Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
3,069
Sorry mate but thats just bullshit, breaking a great chemistry? Who the feck in the squad would have a valid reason to demand an extension for Lingard?

Risking a virus breakout, well we used 9 non starters in the cup game and Lingard couldn't even get minutes there.

What do we gain? To raise the standard mate, to let everyone know you can't just be a freaking passenger in this team and get a free ride while being rewarded with an extension. Deals like this along with Rojo's and Jones' have make very clear that no matter how shitty you are if you're not about to retire ManUtd will always extend your contract.
I disagree with your opinion but respect it, so won't call it "bullshit". No one in the squad would ask for an extension because it isn't an extension. He is not being "rewarded with an extension". It is an "option" that the club has decided to exercise to keep him as part of the club.

He would be free to talk to other clubs if we didn't do it so clearly the club thinks that being able to sell him for a fee or have him as backup is enough value to pay him the same wage he is on for another year.

If your point is this will affect meritocracy then it doesn't have any basis in fact. Lingard, as your rightly pointed out, is a peripheral figure and doesn't even make the substitute bench. The only thing we stand to lose is some money.
 

ForlansHair

Full Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
717
Location
Combing Diego's beautiful golden locks
I remember on another thread someone who is obviously more business savvy than me, (and Im doing this from memory so might not get it 100% right) said keeping the 'asset' on the books for as long as possible even if not playing, looks good on the finance sheet and keeps the share prices stable. If you offload all your deadwood it looks like asset stripping and can cause the shares to fluctuate irregularly. Keeping and extending the contract isnt for football reasons, its just financial. Thats how the glazers think and run the club. Its all to do with getting the maximum financial benefit.
This wouldn't be true for Lingard as he would have a book value of zero, given he has no acquisition cost. It would be true for Jones / Rojo / Darmian etc who were bought from another club.
 

Big Ben Foster

Correctly predicted Portugal to win Euro 2016
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
6,846
Location
USA
Supports
Also support Vasco da Gama
I remember on another thread someone who is obviously more business savvy than me, (and Im doing this from memory so might not get it 100% right) said keeping the 'asset' on the books for as long as possible even if not playing, looks good on the finance sheet and keeps the share prices stable. If you offload all your deadwood it looks like asset stripping and can cause the shares to fluctuate irregularly. Keeping and extending the contract isnt for football reasons, its just financial. Thats how the glazers think and run the club. Its all to do with getting the maximum financial benefit.
This wouldn't be true for Lingard as he would have a book value of zero, given he has no acquisition cost. It would be true for Jones / Rojo / Darmian etc who were bought from another club.
Wouldn't be true for either. Transfer fee is amortized over the life of the contract.
 

Tony247

Full Member
Joined
May 2, 2018
Messages
3,905
I remember on another thread someone who is obviously more business savvy than me, (and Im doing this from memory so might not get it 100% right) said keeping the 'asset' on the books for as long as possible even if not playing, looks good on the finance sheet and keeps the share prices stable. If you offload all your deadwood it looks like asset stripping and can cause the shares to fluctuate irregularly. Keeping and extending the contract isnt for football reasons, its just financial. Thats how the glazers think and run the club. Its all to do with getting the maximum financial benefit.
Something that drains your money without returns is liability not asset.
 

FerociousCorgis

Full Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2017
Messages
833
Just don't get this club. Between Romero and lingard we prob could've got about 20 million or so over the summer window. Plus had their wages off the books. All this while costing us literally nothing on the field. Another year older and another year of not playing only kills their combined value. We keep doing this shit as a club and it adds up
 

crossy1686

Full Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
14,109
Location
Manchester, England
He can easily play for the likes of Fulham , West Ham or Sheff Utd. He will be an upgrade over their existing players. We can get easily 10mil with 1yr left on his contract. The club just got to be a lot more savvy, ruthless and forward thinking when dealing with deadwood.
I think the main issue is where we think Lingard should go and where he thinks he deserves to be and what his salary should be.

If it was as simple as sending him to Fulham on £50k a week it would have happened already
 

kundalini

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Messages
4,783
20% chance - £10m+ sale. Seems optimistic in current transfer market but might happen, especially if he goes out on loan this Jan and performs well.

20% chance - £3m to £9m sale. May be what United are expecting to occur.

20% chance - minimal fee that covers the wages United pay Lingard from July to transfer date

20% chance - loan with United having to contribute towards Lingard's salary (cost to United £2m+)

20% chance - Lingard rejects all the offers he gets, deciding to stay until his contract is up (cost to United £5m)

Giving each scenario a 20% chance seems wrong but I don't have a feel for which scenarios are more likely.

Personally, I wouldn't have made use of the + 1 year option as I think his form, his above market rate wages and the current financial state of football clubs makes a sale in the summer problematic to say the least.
 
Last edited:

ForlansHair

Full Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
717
Location
Combing Diego's beautiful golden locks
Wouldn't be true for either. Transfer fee is amortized over the life of the contract.
It would be true if you bought said player. Say you buy a player for £15m, give him a 5 year contract. Down to £3m with one year left, extend contract by two further years, he'd only go down to £2m in the books instead of down to £0 the following year, so the business has only lost £1m in the P&L compared to £3m (ignoring wages).
 

RashyForPM

Full Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2020
Messages
1,986
It makes sense actually. Either way, we’ll have to pay his wages till the end of this season at least, and this stands us in a better stead to demand a transfer fee. Even if it’s something like £5m, it’s still a good, economical decision. Now, what would be really concerning is if we gave him a 3 year contract next year like we did with TFM.
 

Machine Elements

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 19, 2019
Messages
321
If we had extended his contract for 4-5 years I'd have said it is the worst thing that happened in 2020 but triggering 1 year option is not that bad. Hopefully he'll be gone at the end of the season though.
 

Luke1995

Full Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
2,556
You would hope that he has been working on that during training.
He was pretty good for England as well and nobody really wants to see such taken wasted.
Still feel his best would come with a move away despite his contact extension.
At best, he can hope for a impact sub role here. That could be useful if he's motivated. But a change of scenario would do him good after so many years.
 

Nori-

Full Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2015
Messages
771
This is definitely just an attempt to protect his value.

I remember we did the same for Fellaini in January and he was gone by the summer.
 

manunited1919

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
3,481
I doubt in this case anger is towards lingard, it is mainly the united board and their idiosyncrasy. Because he is not even appearing on bench means it cannot be a footballing decision, it has to be either financial or emotional. Either is stupid thing to do. It is not like he is poor, he is financially well off and can live happily ever after. He is an expired product so chances of some club paying 10m+ for him is unlikely. Then why keep him on the books? Say thanks for everything and part your ways. That's life.

And if club has 70k+/week to donate then donate that to Rashford's charity ffs.
This
 

McGrathsipan

‟Ole's first real test”
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
16,234
Some of you need to calm down.
He'll be gone for a nice fee either in Jan or the Summer.
 

::sonny::

Full Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
13,547
Location
Milan
We will never get rid of players like him or Jones, with their contract extended till the end of their career
 

crossy1686

Full Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
14,109
Location
Manchester, England
Nice interested in signing him on loan in January according to Sky Sports
Of which Lingard isn't interested apparently because the clubs showing interest are Nice and Sheffield United, and he's pitched himself to Inter and Milan. There's a big gap between where he thinks he should be playing and where people know he can play.
 

Matt851

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 10, 2016
Messages
216
Of which Lingard isn't interested apparently because the clubs showing interest are Nice and Sheffield United, and he's pitched himself to Inter and Milan. There's a big gap between where he thinks he should be playing and where people know he can play.
I think there is also going to be a gap in what we hope to get for him, in terms of a transfer fee, and what anyone will be willing to offer at the end of the season.

We have been down this road so many times before with players hanging around too long. We really shouldnt have extended his contract given how large his salary is
 

crossy1686

Full Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
14,109
Location
Manchester, England
I think there is also going to be a gap in what we hope to get for him, in terms of a transfer fee, and what anyone will be willing to offer at the end of the season.

We have been down this road so many times before with players hanging around too long. We really shouldnt have extended his contract given how large his salary is
I think we're happy to get him off the books at this point whatever the cost. I also think he would prefer to run his contract down and secure a move to a bigger team that don't want to pay a transfer fee for an experienced player, which is why we've taken the additional year on his contract to force him out this summer when a bid comes along.
 

Bwuk

Full Member
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
13,559
I don't think Lingard will be keen to leave the area he lives due to his family commitments tbh!
 

Matt851

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 10, 2016
Messages
216
I think we're happy to get him off the books at this point whatever the cost. I also think he would prefer to run his contract down and secure a move to a bigger team that don't want to pay a transfer fee for an experienced player, which is why we've taken the additional year on his contract to force him out this summer when a bid comes along.
If we are happy to get rid of him at any price then we shouldnt have renewed his contract and just let him go in summer for free

We have given him a massibe contract and no one else will pay as much so there is a good chance he will just sit out next year or we might have to pay some of it off
 

Bebestation

Full Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
3,065
I personally dont think he is that bad where he is only attracting the interest of Nice.

It must be his wages but still I feel he could offer something to some clubs; maybe not during a pandemic though.
 

AltiUn

likes playing with swords after fantasies
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
14,460
Ducker said there hasn’t been any contact with Nice, also says we’re not looking to force him out this month.
 

crossy1686

Full Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
14,109
Location
Manchester, England
If we are happy to get rid of him at any price then we shouldnt have renewed his contract and just let him go in summer for free

We have given him a massibe contract and no one else will pay as much so there is a good chance he will just sit out next year or we might have to pay some of it off
They didn't renew his contract, they trigged a one year extension, which cost United nothing to do. His contract was up in the summer of 2022, not this summer. So he would have been happy to sit on that for 6 months and get himself a free transfer in sorted in January. Now he has to leave this summer or sit on the bench for a full of 18 months, which is career suicide.
 

babablue

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
11
Something that drains your money without returns is liability not asset.
That's not how the club sees it. I'm not a finance person, so take this next bit with a grain of salt. To us fans that watch regularly, we firmly believe no one is paying more than 10m for him. However, he is 28, English, and an important member of the squad that got to the semi-finals of the WC 2 years ago. The price for a similar profile player is somewhere between 30m and 50m, which is probably what the club have him down in their books as (maybe even more). I don't think any auditor is going to argue too much with that valuation. So if you take his 3.5m wages, it's still a net positive for the club. If you let him walk away for free, his wages are no longer being paid, but the loss in asset value is greater. Do something similar for 3 or 4 players, even if they are not playing, and the clubs books looks a lot healthier to the shareholders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sultan

Bastian

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
11,571
Of which Lingard isn't interested apparently because the clubs showing interest are Nice and Sheffield United, and he's pitched himself to Inter and Milan. There's a big gap between where he thinks he should be playing and where people know he can play.
Reminds me of Danny Rose's conversation with Levy in the docu series :lol: (was the best bit by far)