I don't have an issue with them resigning Bailly as he's a quality CB, when healthy, but the issue i have is why give him a 4 year extension? Why not make it two years with the option to pick up a 3rd year if he prove that he can avoid injuries and play 50% of the matches???
Man United begin contract talks with Eric Bailly
- Thread starter UnofficialDevil
- Start date
I think Bailly's injury problems are a bit overstated here. He's certainly going miss a certain percentage of games for some reason or another but he's not a Hargreaves type with recurring muscle injuries. He tends to get knocks rather than pull something and be out for weeks. Some players can be sicknotes for a while but eventually learn how to manage it (eg Robben, RVP, Shaw).
Sorry but I think they're perfectly stated - According to Transfermarkt he's missed 99 games through injury, having played 100 games for us. Shocking ratio.
He had one big ACL injury which I'm guessing counts for about 30-40 percent of those missed games? And other random things like getting covid or concussed in the Chelsea game.
Obviously his injury record isn't good, I'm just saying I'm just saying there is a genuine element of misfortune rather than being an actual permacrock. Luke Shaw is a case in point why you shouldn't extrapolate a poor injury record.
He's a talented player, but very unrefined. He's made virtually no progress since he joined us, how many years ago now?
Too many injuries, we can't rely on him. Not sure about this decision.
Too many injuries, we can't rely on him. Not sure about this decision.
awful decision
Poor decision to keep him, obviously done to avoid 60M on a CB, when we have Jones (groan) as back-up.
It's not his fault he's injury prone. What happened to "support the club, manager and players" now? Some disgraceful comments about the guy here.
Money saving exercise and no surprise at all. The same CB pairing next season then with McFred completing the back 6.
is it money saving though? How much are we paying him?
he’s played 100 games, and been here 5 years.
Assuming he’s been on a wage of £100k per week. That’s close to £60m we have spend on him so far.
£560k per performance.
value.
What did happen to it? It’s not James’ fault he’s not good enough. Disgraceful comment.
Thank you Ed. Enjoy your retirement
Still... no title change
No problem keeping him but he should be on a pay as you play type contract
I’m curious how Ole play him now.
We have Roma - Liverpool - Roma in the next three matches. We have had a solid defence lately and wouldn’t experiment in the EL, but neither against Liverpool. At the same time it would be bad man management to not let him play any of those matches.
We have Roma - Liverpool - Roma in the next three matches. We have had a solid defence lately and wouldn’t experiment in the EL, but neither against Liverpool. At the same time it would be bad man management to not let him play any of those matches.
If you really believe being injured out is equal to being not good enough then I have nothing to say to you other than that: A really weird way of thinking.
Support the players.
The club can pay him weekly as opposed to signing a top CB for about 50-60m and then pay them more than 100k a week. Doesn't matter that Ole won't play him, the Glazers will be happy they don't have to spend extra money to replace him. I won't be at all surprised if we price Lingard out of a move and claim him as a new signing also.
Close thread ?
I wonder if people still think that giving Bailly a long term contract is a good idea
i personally never thought it was. I would have let him go.
A couple of months ago he was the best CB here according to some posters.
He's a calamity, we shouldn't have renewed him.
The money men is a big reason why we keep making these kinds of contract extensions. Either we sell players for big money, or we keep them around so we don't have to spend millions in transfer fees and signing on fees to replace them.
In the LVG days, many around here were heralding our new found ability to sell players for more than what we did in the Fergie days, because of the impression that we weren't going to be fleeced anymore. I always felt that was the wrong way to look at things.
United is a big football club and needs to be successful on the field. We were never a selling club under Fergie. Most players he sold were sold for little money because we sold them for footballing reasons, not for us to turn a profit or balance the checkbooks. Fergie also sold players who'd been great servants of the club for a pittance to not hinder their playing careers. In simpler terms, Man United used to sell players not for financial reasons.
Nowadays we keep on players we don't necessarily want just so we don't have to spend money replacing them.
It's not a long-term contract. Works out to three years, which tells me it's more of a carrot to him to start performing, and if not, he'll be sold.
I just can't understand why we'd give somone a new contract who's probably missed more than half the games since he joined.
Idiotic logic from our owners as they end up making us less successful , hinder progress of youth players because of having to put up with expensive deadwood, cost more in wages and any transfer fee from cutting them loose is lost
If we can fleece someone £10m for him I’d be over the moon.
Who would buy a very average injury prone CB?
It appears strange but I think the nature of the contract would be quite critical.
He might be on quite reasonable money. They may have even said 'there is no way we're paying you that, we'd like you to stay but if you think you can get better elsewhere we would not stand in your way.' If Bailly is happy here and didn't get much back through feelers his representative puts out it makes sense to sign here - it doesn't automatically mean he's on eye watering terms.
If the manager still sees value in him either through some unrealised potential or as a backup option then it makes sense to do that rather than waste money on a backup that you have to coax from a club, pay his agent etc. It doesn't mean the manager is happy with the depth of CB quality and doesn't want a new option or that the club are definitely cost saving - if they do this then sign a CB then that theory is out the window straight away. It's more a case of diverting funds to priorities on the manager's inclination.
He might be on quite reasonable money. They may have even said 'there is no way we're paying you that, we'd like you to stay but if you think you can get better elsewhere we would not stand in your way.' If Bailly is happy here and didn't get much back through feelers his representative puts out it makes sense to sign here - it doesn't automatically mean he's on eye watering terms.
If the manager still sees value in him either through some unrealised potential or as a backup option then it makes sense to do that rather than waste money on a backup that you have to coax from a club, pay his agent etc. It doesn't mean the manager is happy with the depth of CB quality and doesn't want a new option or that the club are definitely cost saving - if they do this then sign a CB then that theory is out the window straight away. It's more a case of diverting funds to priorities on the manager's inclination.