Casemiro 300k (4 year deal for a 30 year old)
Mount 250k
Antony 200k (2 years in Europe and 200k?)
All of this under his watch
Manchester United name John Murtough as Football Director and Darren Fletcher as Technical Director
- Thread starter Tom Van Persie
- Start date
Mount 250k
Antony 200k (2 years in Europe and 200k?)
All of this under his watch
30 is over the hill now?
See...this is the problem on here nowadays. I took some time to do an actual comparison and then added some of my thoughts to go with the Data. You just come back with nothing, more moaning without any kind of context, analysis or interpretation.
Manchester United have ambitions to be one of the World's best football clubs again. We're also one of the richest. There is absolutely no issue whatsoever with us paying established first-team players £200K and £250K. Even Casemiro at £300K is fine and in-line with what other clubs are paying.
Whether YOU think or believe that Antony and/or Mount or good players is completely and entirely irrelevant. It's about their experience, their profile and their status in the squad. Look at City, Chelsea or Arsenal. The salaries we have paid those two are entirely in-keeping with what they pay players. More importantly, the salaries we have paid those are in-line with their peers at United.
Liverpool fans could argue that they're more financially prudent and that's BECAUSE they implemented a structure a long-time ago and have refused to deviate from it, even if it means losing out on players - which is the right approach.
The point that I am making is that it's about having a structure - we clearly did not have a structure under Woodward. I'd suggest the early signs are that we do now have a structure under Arnold/Murtough.
It's clear to me that the Board have identified that £200/300K is correct for a T1 player. So that will depend on transfer fee paid, importance to the team, squad status, time at the club etc....in that bracket we have Mount (£60m signing), Casemiro (£60m signing), Rashford (poster-boy/last seasons PotY), Fernandes (captain) and Antony (£89m signing). All of these players will start when fit, so that's fine.
Then we have £100/200K for a T2 player. Usually established first-team regulars but defenders, goalkeepers, CMs. See Martinez (£45m signing), Shaw (long-serving, former PotY), Eriksen (free transfer, bolsters wages slightly), AWB (starting RB), Onana (new signing, £45m). Again, all of these players will start when fit...so absolutely fine, no issues whatsoever.
T3 will be emerging young talent and bit-part players. See Hojlund, Dalot, McTominay, Garnacho etc....
The problems begin when you start a) handing out huge contracts to players that haven't earnt them yet (see Sancho) b) ludicrous salaries to new signings (see Ronaldo, Sanchez) or c) contracts that are disproportionate to what players in those positions usually earn i.e. we paid DDG £350,000 and Varane £340,000...sensible clubs just don't pay those salaries to goalkeepers and defenders as a general rule.
This is again, why it's hugely advantageous to have a structure. When you hand Sanchez and Ronaldo £500K per week and DDG £350K per week, what do you think the first thing Pogba and the rest of the dressing room thought?
I realise that even as I am typing this it's a waste of time, because you've decided you don't like Arnold and Murtough and that's that.
Some of you try to make us belive that only us pay 200k+ per week wages to some players and everyone else have them at 30k or smth.
Who said that?30 is over the hill now?
It means he’ll he 33 and 34 on 300k a week
You clearly missed the issue Rangnick was attempting to highlight whilst he was here.
1. United need to stop signing players coming towards the end of their careers on big wages. (Casemiro)
2. United need to stop over paying in wage terms for up and coming players (Antony)
Thats all I was highlighting. Otherwise Casemiro and Antony become the new DDG and Martial etc when it comes to the wage bill in 2 years.
We all know that Casemiro was an emergency signing. If we're still signing RM cast-offs in two/three seasons time and paying them top salaries, I'll be the first to agree it's a major problem.
I also really don't see the issue with £200K per week for Antony. That's not going to make or break us and in my book it's fine for a player who will start 90% of our games.
Also, we gave Martial £250K per week, what, three seasons ago? So not sure that's a fair comparison.
Like I say, let's see in two seasons what our wage structure looks like compared with our rivals.
Last edited:
It's not as simple as that. You're not taking into account the amortised payments left as part of Harry's original contract. It was £80m over 6 years so we'd instantly be hit with a £26m deficit on the books. That leaves £4m out of the £30m. His payout, agents free etc would have to come out of that £4m and I've seen it suggested he wanted as much as £15m so we would most likely would have been down on the deal.
McT is homegrown and on lower wages so there would have been more profit but he's definitely with more then £30m in today's market. Don't make the mistake of thinking all of the transfer fee goes straight on to the books as profit, as it is not the case.
First part is wrong. I've done the calculations on here in a separate post, the breakeven on Maguire is actually quite low: 3m plus whatever the payoff would be.
It is a problem a few years down the road when their contract is up for renewal and they’re going to expect more money like Rashford. A top talent should be paid like one, not paid like a world class star.
Once you overpay them it’s going to be hard to bring their wages back to realistic levels and other members of the squad will be using that as a benchmark for their contract renewals as well.
Well this is exactly the point I've been making so I don't really understand your argument?
Previously the top earners were paid £500K (Ronaldo/Sanchez) and the next bracket was £350K (Varane, Sancho, DDG). We also had Pogba on £290K, Martial on £250K and Rashford on £225K.
Now, the benchmark for top earner has clearly been set at £300K. That's what we have given Casemiro and Rashford.
That it itself is a big improvement, surely?
Again, whether you think Rashford is worth £300K per week based on his performances is another issue entirely. I have been mega critical of Rashford at times, but it's hard to argue he shouldn't be one of our top earners based on his longevity and his squad status.
Just to add that it was reported that Casemiro’s wages were highly incentivised, meaning the 300k reported were IF the collective and individual contractual objectives are met.
I’ve also read that it was now the case for most our new signings, ie a « normal » base wage but lots of incentives based on performance.
We’ll see. Same thing was said about all the other 30+ players we signed
Thanks I'd corrected the first part (as it's 80 over 6 years as you were replying). I didn't take into account his wages and also the amortisation saving?.
I've had a look but with the corrections and referencing other posts on the other pages I'm having a hard time following you.
That just proves my point, still overpaying players despite FFP problems and consequently the wage bill is fairly static. 400k a week on Eriksen and Mount they were probably earning closer to a third of that at their previous clubs. Paying Anthony a ridiculous salary isn’t made better by Woodward paying Sancho a ridiculous one. I would also imagine Anthony’s wages were multiplied considerably more times than Sancho’s was.
They can’t fix everything but they should t just be creating the same problems and blaming it on FFP. This was always going to happen but they are just continuing with a very similar approach.
Continuing to focus on the micro and not the macro drags the argument into the mud.
I'm not going to go round and round in circles arguing whether £200K is or is not fine for Antony or whether Mount is worth £250K, I really don't care for any of these debates in isolation.
If you don't think there's a plan then fine, that's your interpretation. Let's look again in 24-months and compare to our rivals. It appears clear to me that the current regime have set a ceiling of £300K, let's see if we break this. Let's see what we pay next Summers' signings. Let's see which players are allowed to leave - I suspect Maguire, Sancho, Varane and Martial will be high on the list of players we're happy to let leave. Let's see where the wage bill is then.
Under Woodward, we had the highest wage bill in the league, lest we forget - higher than Manchester City.
He did well in terms of getting deals over the line. But the money is earned by saying no to the manager or finding value and building a squad that makes sense together and peaks at the right time.
That bit I'm not sold on yet. The FdJ saga, Casemiro, Antony sagas were a fail for me. He'll redeem himself in my book if Mount and Hojlund end up being good.
That bit I'm not sold on yet. The FdJ saga, Casemiro, Antony sagas were a fail for me. He'll redeem himself in my book if Mount and Hojlund end up being good.
Liverpool have 3 players on 200k a week or more, Arsenal 5, City have 7 and we have 8 so even without drilling down into individual cases it makes no sense. The wages we pay our players don’t match their ability or performances. We pay title winning wages to players who simply aren’t good enough.
The best thing about your argument is it’s exactly kind of excuses and logic used by Woodward. We’ve paid a huge fee for this guy so we have to pay him huge wages, your argument about Anthony could have been written by Ed himself.
I’m sure high earners will leave and more will just be brought in or given huge increases. That’s the pattern since Woodward left so I don’t see why it will change now. Until they learn not to overpay we’ll continue to have a wage bill that doesn’t reflect quality of the players.
Last edited:
I think your original post was interesting, but the conclusion that we are lowering the wage salary is slightly misleading. We kind of are, but the only difference is that Ronaldo forced us to terminate his contract. If he didn’t do that interview, the salary would have been identical.
I also do not agree with your conclusions about the salaries of new players, and they almost look like a carbon copy of what Ed did. Take Antony for example, you see no issues with him at 200k/week. Thing is, he was at 25k/week while United immediately give him a 8x increase in salary. That is kind of crazy. For example, Darwin Nunez at Liverpool who is of similar profile is at 140k/week (and he is actually better).
Same for Mount. He was at 80k/week at a club that pays top salaries. Comes at United and is suddenly at 250k/week. Again that is very disproportional to what he brings to the club, heck, he is in slightly higher salary than Bruno despite being nowhere as good.
Lisandro Martinez’s salary is a bit more sane, although I think we could have gone lower. He went from 20k to 120k. Now sure, Lindelof is at that salary and would have been awkward for Lisandro to be in less, but Lindelof was in previous regime salary (a bit similar to how Rashford is in less than Sancho). And even in this case which is nowhere as bad as Mount and Antony, we are already talking for a new contract despite that he has another 4 (+1) years in his current one.
Actually, I think only Onana is in what more or less he should be, in 100k/week or so. Even Hojlund got an increase jump from 10k to 80k.
I understand that players increase their salaries a lot when make big transfers, but usually only at United you see this dramatic increases immediately. Top clubs typically pay the top 2-3 players more than we do, but the others usually are in less.
It probably is not as bad as under Ed (he likely would give to Maguire a new 250k/week contract and De Gea a 400k/week to protect the assets, ok maybe the later not), but I do not think it is dramatically much different. We still overpay for players, we still increase our final final offers (as we did for Mount), we still do not sell the players at the right time (see McTominay), and we still give crazy salaries to players which effectively makes them unsellable (Mount and Antony can be crap for the next few years and no one will touch them at those salaries).
On other words, it is still a clusterfeck.
They are literally on the list with the correct amounts?
The Glazers are scum and the day they sell up will be a day to celebrate but these idiots running the club on a day to day basis are arguably worse. They've been given money, we're one of the highest spenders in Europe in recent years and we have a squad miles away from challenging for major trophies.
Countless millions blown on absolutely bang average talent both in terms of transfer fee's and wages.
Countless millions blown on absolutely bang average talent both in terms of transfer fee's and wages.
The usual Murtough apologists have formed a nice little brigade again, I see.
The guy would have to literally blow up OT for you to realise he's useless at his job.
The guy would have to literally blow up OT for you to realise he's useless at his job.
No, I’m disagreeing with you because you’re saying everyone deserves a big contract just because they play for us and that’s why they deserve bigger wages.
It’s stupid to give Anthony 200k a week when he’s barely performing like a 75k a week player. There’s no real improvement to how we’re giving out contracts, the only difference is that we’re giving more average players a higher contract.
That's not the argument at all though is it, so either you haven't understood or you're deliberately misrepresenting it.
The entire argument is based around the idea of implementing a wage structure in which players are paid in brackets based on their status and role within the squad.
The cafe, internet, and world as a whole would be a better place if this habit of creating "the other" weren't common practice simply because folks have a different opinion than you.
You, we are all Manchester United fans. We want the club to be successful on the pitch. Give it a rest on creating division within the fanbase. You hate Murtough? Great, go have a sandwich and chill out. You don't feel he's done too badly? Great, go have a sandwich and chill out.
Thanks to FM and FIFA once a player hits 28 its all downhill from there.30 is over the hill now?
They could just say no. Rashford got more money because he got better. Casemiro presumably won't be better and will likely be worse so they should offer less money and if he declines it, he moves on. Who cares if he leaves for free? Better that than to overpay in wages.
What players were paid at their old club is largely irrelevant - it's what their counterparts at this club are paid that is important. You can't sign a player for £90m and then credibly offer them £75K p/w, with that player having full knowledge that the lad who he is effectively replacing is on £350K and the lad on the other flank is on £300K. What kind of player or agent would or should accept that? What message does it send?
The Mount example is also misleading, because he was a Chelsea academy graduate and so was on a disproportionately low salary.
Also...you say about the stats being misleading...I really don't think they are. I bet every other club in the league has increased their salary bill in the last three seasons, so the fact ours is less is significant. As I said, I expect it to come down even further because we've reset the highest bracket at £250/300K
When Varane, Martial and Sancho leave, we'll be basically £1 million better off every week. Plus, even better...our regular starters are all on long-term contracts...so their salaries are fixed for the foreseeable
Ok, so overpaying them on the initial contract is ok, but overpaying them when they’re actually good and in their prime isn’t.
Brilliant logic there.
How about just fecking paying them for their actual worth like a well run club would?
I think the thing that is most important to contract negotiations are the counter-offers, so what similar players get at similar clubs matters a lot. In Antony case we were idiots to go for 200k/week (we were idiots to go for him in the first place), considering that he had no other offers. What was he supposed to say if we offered 100-150k/week? ‘Sorry but I better stay at Ajax at 25k/week’. Nope, that would not have happened.
It is harder when there are counter-offers (allegedly PSG were interested for Hojlund and Arsenal might have been interested in Martinez), but in Antony case that was not how it was. Same for amount, Chelsea offered him 150k/week, while we offered 250/k week. That’s from Woodward’s book of negotiations.
Actually it kinda sucks that not only we went for Antony and Mount, and at big price, but with those salaries we made them unsellable.
And then by your own logic, we need to pay their replacements same or more, cause well, the players they are replacing are in high salaries. This becomes a loop which we cannot get out of it.
———
When those players you mentioned leave (all of them are under contract for another 2-3 years, so we have to wait for them), we would need 2 CBs, 1 midfielder and another winger so the wage bill won’t go down at all. Bear in mind that we started from a very high wage bill (2nd in the world after PSG) despite that we are not a top 10 team in the world. So going sideways wage bill (despite starting from a crazy one) while not improving the squad is not something to be celebrated.
Last edited:
Clearly you have decided that you don't rate Mount or Antony and so that's impacting your view on how much we are paying them. I have knocked a quick table together below based on what I believe are the best/most common XIs of our rivals. You can see that our salaries are basically in-line with what other clubs pay. Varane stands out as a bad deal for us, but that wasn't negotiated by Arnold/Murtough, that was Ed.
| ARSENAL | MAN UTD | CHELSEA | MAN CITY | LIVERPOOL | |
| GK | RAMSDALE £62,000 | ONANA £100,000 | KEPA £150,000 | EDERSON £100,000 | ALISSON £150,000 |
| DEF | PARTEY £200,000 | AWB £90,000 | CHILWELL £200,000 | WALKER £160,000 | TAA £180,000 |
| DEF | ZINCHENKO 150,000 | SHAW £150,000 | JAMES £250,000 | AKANJI £180,000 | ROBERTSON £100,000 |
| DEF | SALIBA £190,000 | MARTINEZ £125,000 | FOFANA £200,000 | STONES £250,000 | VAN DIJK £220,000 |
| DEF | WHITE £120,000 | VARANE £350,000 | THIAGO SILVA £110,000 | RUBEN DIAS £180,000 | KONATE £70,000 |
| MID | ODEGAARD £115,000 | CASEMIRO £300,000 | ENZO £315,000 | KDB £400,000 | MAC ALLISTER £150,000 |
| MID | RICE £240,000 | MOUNT £250,000 | CAICEDO £150,000 | RODRI £220,000 | THIAGO £200,000 |
| MID | HAVERTZ £280,000 | FERNANDES £250,000 | GALLAGHER £50,000 | FODEN £225,000 | SZOBOSZLAI £120,000 |
| ATT | MARTINELLI £90,000 | ANTONY £200,000 | STERLING £325,000 | GREALISH £300,000 | SALAH £350,000 |
| ATT | JESUS £265,000 | HOJLUND £90,000 | NKUNKU £195,000 | HAALAND £375,000 | JOTA £150,000 |
| ATT | SAKA £195,000 | RASHFORD £300,000 | MUDRYK £100,000 | SILVA £150,000 | NUNEZ £140,000 |
Note | It was hard to know what a 'best XI' is for Chelsea...but whichever players you select, there's no major swing
Partey is a midfielder
Also I believe Saka is on more than 195k but I could be wrong
Kepa no longer plays for Chelsea
I haven’t misinterpreted it at all, it’s what Woodward did which is why wages were never under control.
If you have the highest wage bill, full of overpaid players and then bring in new players or renew contracts based on status of squad or brackets you end up with loads of overpaid players and same problem continues. That’s why Eriksen, Mount and Anthony who were earning 130k a week between them prior to joining now earn 600k. In the Woodward system it makes sense and is perfectly normal but in reality it’s terrible value, doesn’t reflect what the players offer on the pitch and contributes to FFP problems.
Last edited:
Oh, you're a Rangnick truther. That explains a lot, really.
No I simply believe we should be building a squad full of players who both fit the requirement (in terms of energy and pressing and technical skills) and of the right age. Whilst also avoiding high wages and players coming to the end of their careers.
Its no coincidence Arsenal success was preceded by that change in approach and they now have one of the most valuable squads in football.
One of the reasons why I believe that despite the high fee, Hojlund is an excellent transfer.
It’s hilarious how some people can’t understand that paying players based on their actual worth isn’t far superior to overpaying them and claiming that it’s normal based on their squad status.
By his criteria, Brandon Williams was underpaid because he kept Shaw out of the squad and was a starter player when he signed a new contract and hence deserves a pay within 100-200k a week.
So you admit that Lentwood is 100% correct on the point that they posted the table to make. Good stuff.
Not sure how anyone is arguing that 200k a week for Antony wasn't a bad deal, even if he'd been on fire since joining it would still have been stupid.
Pretty much thisIt’s hilarious how some people can’t understand that paying players based on their actual worth isn’t far superior to overpaying them and claiming that it’s normal based on their squad status.
By his criteria, Brandon Williams was underpaid because he kept Shaw out of the squad and was a starter player when he signed a new contract and hence deserves a pay within 100-200k a week.
Partey has been playing as an inverted RB for Arsenal this season
No idea on Saka, all the figures are from the same site
Kepa is on loan, there don't seem to be any figures for Sanchez, who Chelsea recently signed from Brighton. Chelsea was the hardest to do, least info. and hard to know what the 'best XI' is