Kobbie Mainoo (out)

Sarni said:
Money in football is so shit hese days compared to American sports. People here getting outraged that Mainoo may have requested £200k a week, which is just below $13m per year, meanwhile there's no decent NBA players you could get for even double that.

I know it's a roster of 15-17 v a squad of 23-25 players, on the other hand way more people are going to watch football than NBA globally, matchday revenue should be much higher with stadiums 4-5x larger than NBA arenas etc.
Click to expand...
So you’d be fine to pay £300-£400 per match day to help fund those players currently living in poverty?
 
Sarni said:
Money in football is so shit hese days compared to American sports. People here getting outraged that Mainoo may have requested £200k a week, which is just below $13m per year, meanwhile there's no decent NBA players you could get for even double that.

I know it's a roster of 15-17 v a squad of 23-25 players, on the other hand way more people are going to watch football than NBA globally, matchday revenue should be much higher with stadiums 4-5x larger than NBA arenas etc.
Click to expand...

How much do NBA teams pay in transfer/buy out fees? It's not comparable and before you say well Mainoo didn't cost anything the transfer market still dictates the market when it comes to wages.
 
Zlatan 7 said:
What did you say? Footballers should be paid more?
Click to expand...
Merely pointed out that there’s significant disparity between some sports which I find interesting, as it probably indicates football as a whole is not doing a good job at maximizing its revenue potential.

To be fair though I expect a player like Mainoo is probably going to get a ballpark of £10m a year from someone eventually. That’s decent value if you think he could have any role at all in a successful team.
 
Sarni said:
Money in football is so shit hese days compared to American sports. People here getting outraged that Mainoo may have requested £200k a week, which is just below $13m per year, meanwhile there's no decent NBA players you could get for even double that.

I know it's a roster of 15-17 v a squad of 23-25 players, on the other hand way more people are going to watch football than NBA globally, matchday revenue should be much higher with stadiums 4-5x larger than NBA arenas etc.
Click to expand...

A terrible take!

For a start 200k a week would make him one of the highest players in the league! what has he done to justify that?
 
Sarni said:
Money in football is so shit hese days compared to American sports. People here getting outraged that Mainoo may have requested £200k a week, which is just below $13m per year, meanwhile there's no decent NBA players you could get for even double that.

I know it's a roster of 15-17 v a squad of 23-25 players, on the other hand way more people are going to watch football than NBA globally, matchday revenue should be much higher with stadiums 4-5x larger than NBA arenas etc.
Click to expand...
I guess it was supposed to be a hot take or a bait because comparing football with transfer fees and a completely different player ownership structure to NBA is just pointless. And I'd rather not see football games change into what is primarily a circus with a bit of a sport like NBA
 
Sarni said:
Merely pointed out that there’s significant disparity between some sports which I find interesting, as it probably indicates football as a whole is not doing a good job at maximizing its revenue potential.
Click to expand...
So… £300-£400 per match day.
 
Sarni said:
Money in football is so shit hese days compared to American sports. People here getting outraged that Mainoo may have requested £200k a week, which is just below $13m per year, meanwhile there's no decent NBA players you could get for even double that.

I know it's a roster of 15-17 v a squad of 23-25 players, on the other hand way more people are going to watch football than NBA globally, matchday revenue should be much higher with stadiums 4-5x larger than NBA arenas etc.
Click to expand...
Ticket prices being 4-5 times larger and the fact that there is over 80 games a season?No transfer fees to pay. No stadium costs to pay.

Roster size makes a huge difference. Look at some of the wages of your average NFL player in less important positions. This is despite revenue being higher than NBA teams with so many less games.

It looks to me like United’s total wage spend is higher than NBA teams. They are however able to highly pay two or three players and then fill the squad with players earning much less. Wages are much more evenly spread in football I would say.
 
Dan_F said:
Ticket prices being 4-5 times larger and the fact that there is over 80 games a season?No transfer fees to pay. No stadium costs to pay.

Roster size makes a huge difference. Look at some of the wages of your average NFL player in less important positions. This is despite revenue being higher than NBA teams with so many less games.

It looks to me like United’s total wage spend is higher than NBA teams. They are however able to highly pay two or three players and then fill the squad with players earning much less. Wages are much more evenly spread in football I would say.
Click to expand...
Good points, they are able to fill out rosters with minimum players and draftees which football clubs can’t really do and you don’t get many players willing to play for you at £20k a week…
 
Sarni said:
Money in football is so shit hese days compared to American sports. People here getting outraged that Mainoo may have requested £200k a week, which is just below $13m per year, meanwhile there's no decent NBA players you could get for even double that.

I know it's a roster of 15-17 v a squad of 23-25 players, on the other hand way more people are going to watch football than NBA globally, matchday revenue should be much higher with stadiums 4-5x larger than NBA arenas etc.
Click to expand...
Quick look shows United's first team has twice as many players under contract than the Celtics, while paying $40M more for this season. Nba teams don't have academies and quite simply have fewer operating expenses, including transfer fees. In the Nba you sign a player to a 40m/year deal and he costs you 40M/y. In football you sign a player for 100m on a five year deal, with a 20M/year contract, and he costs you 40M/y
 
Sarni said:
Money in football is so shit hese days compared to American sports. People here getting outraged that Mainoo may have requested £200k a week, which is just below $13m per year, meanwhile there's no decent NBA players you could get for even double that.

I know it's a roster of 15-17 v a squad of 23-25 players, on the other hand way more people are going to watch football than NBA globally, matchday revenue should be much higher with stadiums 4-5x larger than NBA arenas etc.
Click to expand...
The cost of living is generally higher in the USA though isn't it, and the average wage quite a bit higher than the UK?
Add in the big difference between the squad sizes you mention, and the fact NBA teams play about 80 games a season and there's plenty of reasoning why.

Also you also qualify with "no decent NBA players" meaning there's plenty on lower wages, just that the difference between bottom and top is even more pronounced than here.
 
NBA rosters will typically have 3 players on huge contracts taking up 70% of the wage bill and the other 10 players on much lower, often minimum level contracts. Lakers have James and Davis on about $92 mill combined with the combined salaries of the rest barely exceeding that.

Lakers pay about $190 million, Utd $220 million.

There is not an individual in the history of the football who can dominate a game to the extent top basketball players can. It is just the nature of the sports.
 
Last edited:
red_de_pologne said:


sounds worrying to me.. hope Ineos don't rip apart the future spine of the team
Click to expand...



Ineos only care about money, balancing books...and all that jazz. I mean some of their cost cutting measures are absolutely ridiculous. We're a football club, it's a community...we're not a blue chip petrol chemical company where this ruthless marginal gains work. Anyway, academy players are highly profitably...so anything's possible. Even a talented local lad (Kobbie)living his dream by playing for his childhood team isn't off limits.
 
Generally speaking the players do need a bit of a reality check.

They all want the CL money without ever coming close to qualifying for it.

But the whole Mainoo thing is getting blown out of scale, he has a long contract already and will re-sign for somewhere around what Amad is getting...simples.
 
We can worry about Mainoo in 12 months time - if he still hasn't signed a contract I will be worried....but the fact is, he still has 2.5 years on his contract. That is a long time to solve that problem
 
lysglimt said:
We can worry about Mainoo in 12 months time - if he still hasn't signed a contract I will be worried....but the fact is, he still has 2.5 years on his contract. That is a long time to solve that problem
Click to expand...
A long time too for agents to agitate. We can kick the can down the road but it might be a good idea to get something nailed down. Assuming the club intends to keep the player.
 
Moriarty said:
A long time too for agents to agitate. We can kick the can down the road but it might be a good idea to get something nailed down. Assuming the club intends to keep the player.
Click to expand...

Of course - but Mainoo should know he will get a decent pay here, and if he as a local lad still wants to leave - let him.
 
Careful with this one, don't want him to end up like Rashford. If he's just here for the money let him go.
 
Just seen in the 200k romur, not sure it's true, and I don't think Mainoo wants to leave a club where he is an important regular starter, his current contract runs till 2027 plus a one year club option, I think the club is merely trying to give him a pay raise that fits his current status in the first team, and with the new management in Barrada and Wilcox under INEOS, these guys are football people so I think we don't have to worry, Mainoo will be tied down to a long term contract in due time, he'll get his pay raise the he deserves (a reasonable one) and the club will be able to secure him for the long term.
 
It's all about balance. If he is being paid a pittance, then we should increase his salary reasonably with a contract extension. And let a lot of it be performance based.
 
Spoony said:
Ineos only care about money, balancing books...and all that jazz. I mean some of their cost cutting measures are absolutely ridiculous. We're a football club, it's a community...we're not a blue chip petrol chemical company where this ruthless marginal gains work. Anyway, academy players are highly profitably...so anything's possible. Even a talented local lad (Kobbie)living his dream by playing for his childhood team isn't off limits.
Click to expand...

Sorry but you are wrong.

Woodward and co have wasted over £1 billion on players in the last 10 years, Ineos are the ones suffering because of that. They are trying to cut costs because the clubs financial situation is a mess.

They can't cut player costs in under a year of owning the club, because players are under contract, also they can't sell many players because they are on huge wages and have been performing poorly, no clubs want to buy them due to that.

How would you suggest Ineos starts to sort the clubs financial issues out in the first 12 months? Ineos needs time to sort the financial mess out, its not going to be done quickly, because its not feasible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.