Marcus Rashford new contract thread | It's officially signed

[Frank White]

It's true. I added up all our games since he debuted and averaged them. Then I did the same for the games he has missed.

The results were really close, hovering below 2 goals on average per game. Granted, he plays a lot, so the sample size could be bigger, like you said.

What so many Rashford fans don't understand, is that certain players who score a lot, can also play in a way that impedes on the rest of the team playing style, and essentially take away goal scoring opportunities for other players.

There are many examples of this happening in teams... But the best is probably Ronaldo in 21/22. He was a very good goal scorer for us, but he effectively didn't improve us. Rashford is the same.

He IS quick, and he will net you some goals. But how often haven't you heard fans say, or even thought yourself, that: "Rashford did score today, but he did not play very well". That's been almost every game this season. Take away the goals, and his match ratings would be a 5+ (out of 10) on average. That's not an exaggeration either.

That's actually most of his games. He rarely has an overall good game. And it's statistically proven that his goals aren't improving us.

Lazy fans will say that "We would be nowhere without Rashford this season. He scores all our goals."

Yeah, he does. Take him out of the team, and do you think we'll play worse or score less? Then they're just wrong, or lying. We end up being more dynamic, and score just as many goals.

This player is who we're going to make the biggest earner in the entire country, and break our entire wage structure for.

I"m sorry to all the deluded Rashford fans, but that's pure insanity.

The sober, nuanced reality is that Rashford is an incredibly inconsistent, yet a good, not fantastic, attacker with great pace. He is nowhere near world class, no matter if he got 30 goals this season. If that's only criteria for judging a player, then DDG must also be world class, because he won the golden glove.

I was talking about this just this season. Out of interest seeing as your a numbers guy whats this season look like when you remove his goals?

On the bit about his goals not improving us correct me if im wrong but didnt he have one of the best records for match winning goals this season? If so his goals staistically won us games no?

Also on the bolded part couldnt disagree more you genuienly believe if you replaced Rashford with Sancho we score more or just as many and the team plays better?

As for breaking are wage structure again Sancho is on 350k at the moment this wage structure is fecked already and more than likely bringing in a replacement would mean 70m min and probably 200k+ a week see Antony for example.

 

[acnumber9]

I don't understand how people think he has SUCH leverage, we have good options on the left and desperately need an out and out goalscorer.

The fact we need goalscorers is why it would be absolute madness to sell a player just off the back of scoring 30 goals.

 

[Gabriel Djemba-Bebe]

Cause people went so far & so personal last year it’s difficult for them to admit they got carried away. You aren’t the first to post those stats & wont be the last unfortunately.

The truth is, a vocal number of the fanbase simply don’t like certain players for non-footballing reasons.

That's true. There is a lot of doubling down on here. A few weeks ago I remember after we lost to Brighton and West Ham back to back, the usual suspects on here were dismissing his 40 goal involvements as a purple patch and asking 'what does he actually do asides from score and assist loads?'

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Goals aren't important everyone.

 

[Get In Scholesy]

If anything, I’m looking at it from a different perspective. Perhaps this is the club showing the rest of the players that if you work to develop your game and hit patches of form and heights you never have, you will be rewarded well. In fairness, he did have the best season of his life and is still young enough to improve massively. Many are saying this is a bad deal are looking at it negatively. On the flip side, this could very well look good in 3-4 years time if he continues to improve.

Rashford could prove to be the precedent or prototype for contract renewals. I would much rather have our players earn these high wages then have them being handed out without the performances to back it up.

As for the price, it absolutely is astronomically high and it will continue to ger higher. However, that is a professional football problem, not a Manchester United problem.

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

On a free transfer? Of course they would. Chelsea are paying Sterling £325k a week and spent big on him. Real Madrid would happily take him on a free too. There’s more to this than just what others would pay him. The cost for us to replace him would be astronomical.

Exactly.

People really don’t operate in the real world when it comes to him, all sense leaves them.

 

[acolyte]

Jebus what a disaster of a thread.

To all the "he's not worth that" posters: yes he is, by definition. That's what it'll cost us to retain him, and it would cost much more in transfer fee + wages to replace him with a like player if he walked. This is even ignoring the value he brings as a local boy who's probably our most marketable player.

For everyone yammering about £200,000 per week wage caps, that was never going to happen nor should it. Not unless you want us to have any ambition as a club anyway. This is basically advocating for us to be on the level of Spurs.

Honestly, the people who want us to sell him and replace him with someone like Garnacho, explain your thinking. You want to replace him with a cheaper player who in the best case scenario might someday be about as good as Rashford is right now? Why? So the Glazers can save some money? Even putting that money towards a CF or some other need would still leave a huge hole where Rashford used to be and wouldn't actually make us better.

I'll never begrudge a player for their wage, even the ones like Sancho and DDG who have very clearly not been value for money. Careers are short and I'd rather the people out on the field providing the entertainment have that money than the feckin Florida failsons.

Edit: people are also living in the past if they think these types of wages aren't going to be the norm for goalscoring wide forwards who are just hitting their prime at the highest level.

 

[Ted Lasso]

Of all the players on ridiculous wages, Rashford is probably the one I'm least concerned about. He is extremely philanthropic and seems like his wages are doing more for England's hungry than the govt itself

 

[sullydnl]

The wages reported are obviously massive, but they're not out of line with what I'd expect him to be offered by a side like PSG if he was available on a free next season.

As indeed was already reported by The Athletic:

As Al-Khelaifi suggests, discussions were held between Rashford’s representatives and PSG last summer with sources, again speaking anonymously to protect relationships, indicating that an offer of more than £400,000 per week was made by the Parisian club.

Some people have to understand that just because they have a rather critical view of what Rashford should be worth, that doesn't change what he is actually worth on the current market, or how highly rated he is by other sides. Unlike some other big contracts we've handed out, there are other teams who'd be willing to pay this for Rashford. Especially if he's available on a free transfer.

And obviously there are additional factors that increase his value to us. Namely how dependent we currently are on him for goals and the fact that he is a high-value academy player. Those factors inevitably impact what we deem him to be worth.

 

[jm99]

The fact we need goalscorers is why it would be absolute madness to sell a player just off the back of scoring 30 goals.

While he Did score 30 goals, 6 were in the league Cup and 6 in the europa, obviously they still count, but 17 in the league is thr number we should ebe focusing on and it's lower than most other teams top scorers. No doubt rashford on form is our best player, and I think he'd do much better if we were like city and had 4 or 5 players we could look to for goals, rather than everything resting on him, but he's too inconsistent to be looking at nearly 400k a week. I hope we keep him but not for that much

 

[acnumber9]

While he Did score 30 goals, 6 were in the league Cup and 6 in the europa, obviously they still count, but 17 in the league is thr number we should ebe focusing on and it's lower than most other teams top scorers. No doubt rashford on form is our best player, and I think he'd do much better if we were like city and had 4 or 5 players we could look to for goals, rather than everything resting on him, but he's too inconsistent to be looking at nearly 400k a week. I hope we keep him but not for that much

Is a goal against Bournemouth worth more than a goal away to Barcelona? Is it worth more than a goal in the only cup final we’ve won in 6 years? There’s more nuance to it than the League Cup or Europa League aren’t as difficult.

He’d 5 goals in 6 games against the top 3. If anything he is hampered by our teams inability to keep putting pressure on the poorer teams.

 

[Irwin99]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I thought I didn't dream that up. Seemed a sensible thing to do after Sanchez, Ronaldo, DDG, and Sancho. Not true I guess.

 

[stepic]

Looking at his pl goals this year, he got 10 of his 17 goals in just 10 games between end of dec and mid feb. Just 7 goals then from the remaining 25 games he played in

You’d rather some more consistency from your best attacking player. Explains why we as a team can blow hot and cold attacking wise

For a player with such limitations he isn’t worth 375k a week, really, but we’re definitely not in a position to lose him either.

 

[jm99]

Is a goal against Bournemouth worth more than a goal away to Barcelona? Is it worth more than a goal in the only cup final we’ve won in 6 years? There’s more nuance to it than the League Cup or Europa League aren’t as difficult.

He’d 5 goals in 6 games against the top 3. If anything he is hampered by our teams inability to keep putting pressure on the poorer teams.

Well I mean I'd personally value pl goals more than the league Cup definitely, I just really don't care about the league Cup. But its more than it was 30 goals with 56 games played. For comparison a 37 year old Ronaldo got 24 in 38 and a 35 year old ibra got 28 in 46, both much better ratios. I'm not saying rashford isn't good on form, but a lesser return than two players long past their best when they were here isn't worth 400k a week to me

 

[acnumber9]

Well I mean I'd personally value pl goals more than the league Cup definitely, I just really don't care about the league Cup. But its more than it was 30 goals with 56 games played. For comparison a 37 year old Ronaldo got 24 in 38 and a 35 year old ibra got 28 in 46, both much better ratios. I'm not saying rashford isn't good on form, but a lesser return than two players long past their best when they were here isn't worth 400k a week to me

They both played every game up front and were penalty takers. Neither contributed more goals and assists in the Premier League than Rashford did. They’re interesting players for this comparison though given what they were paid. The fact he is much younger than them is a good thing as he’s more likely to improve than they were.

 

[Judas]

That 200,000 wage cap thing was always obvious bollocks, to think anyone believed it for a second is nuts. 200,000 is peanuts for the top talents of the game now, rightly or wrongly. We were never going to choose to make life harder for ourselves.

 

[jm99]

They both played every game up front and were penalty takers. Neither contributed more goals and assists in the Premier League than Rashford did. They’re interesting players for this comparison though given what they were paid. The fact he is much younger than them is a good thing as he’s more likely to improve than they were.

Yes, but we also want to move away from paying 400k a week to players. Ronaldo had 18 on 30 pl games. Ibra 17 in 28. Rashford 17 in 35. I'm not saying these players are the type we should have us our main goalscorers, more that part of the issue we've had over the last decade is that we've been giving players with the ability of 36 and 37 year olds (no matter how good in their prime) these mega contracts. A player who's best seasons, are basically on par with these guys in the twilight of their career shouldn't be getting 400k a week, if you look across the whole league, there's maybe what de bruyne on that much and haaland? Other players better than rashford aren't getting 400k a week

 

[jm99]

That 200,000 wage cap thing was always obvious bollocks, to think anyone believed it for a second is nuts. 200,000 is peanuts for the top talents of the game now, rightly or wrongly. We were never going to choose to make life harder for ourselves.

Sort of, but look at this list. You can maybe debate the accuracy but if we take at face value then only 29 players in the league get 200k a week plus

https://www.spotrac.com/epl/rankings/

And once you remove de gea and koulabily, then only 10 on 300k plus. 300k should be more of a ceiling than 200l i do agree, but equally, it's not peanuts. Rashford should get 250k or so a week

 

[Teja]

I wonder how much of this is performance incentives. I'm more than happy to have a 30 goal, 50 game a season Rashford on 375k p/w. He has definitely earned it unlike anyone else we might sign from outside the club. Rumors are that Haaland's on 850k p/w due to bonuses.

I'd be happy if we stick to our baseline wages of 200k p/w and pay anything above that mostly in performance based incentives. CL qualification, minutes played, goals, assists etc. All very achievable and if he does not then that's fine if he's on 200k p/w. Can be moved on / sold on that wage.

 

[roonster09]

I wonder how much of this is performance incentives. I'm more than happy to have a 30 goal, 50 game a season Rashford on 375k p/w. He has definitely earned it unlike anyone else we might sign from outside the club. Rumors are that Haaland's on 850k p/w due to bonuses.

I'd be happy if we stick to our baseline wages of 200k p/w and pay anything above that mostly in performance based incentives. CL qualification, minutes played, goals, assists etc. All very achievable and if he does not then that's fine if he's on 200k p/w. Can be moved on / sold on that wage.

There is no cap on wages, it was reported by one bs source. None of the usual reliable ones reported that story.

 

[Eddy_JukeZ]

A cap of wages is beyond stupid.

A lot of the top players make more than 200k a week. It was always a BS story though.

 

[sullydnl]

I thought I didn't dream that up. Seemed a sensible thing to do after Sanchez, Ronaldo, DDG, and Sancho. Not true I guess.

It's sensible as long as you accept that you will by definition be less competitive in the transfer market and more likely to see your best players leave. And you take the increased risk of negative outcomes that correlates to as read. Along with the discontent of fans when a policy they might have supported in theory sees them actually miss out on or lose a player they wanted at the club.

As such it's rarely surprising when the wealthiest clubs don't opt to go that route.

 

[jm99]

It's sensible as long as you accept that you will by definition be less competitive in the transfer market and more likely to see your best players leave. And you take the increased risk of negative outcomes that correlates to as read.

As such it's rarely surprising when the wealthiest clubs don't opt to go that route.

Outside Of psg, Saudi Arabia and mid 2010s Barcelona even 300k a week is reserved for maybe the top 10 players in a league. The idea of offering rashford 375k a week would just show that nothing has changed since Woodward left

 

[Beachryan]

Obviously we want him to stay, but I also don't think he's justified asking for at or near the highest salary in the league. Over, say, the last 3 seasons he's been nowhere near the top 5 players in the division. Much less Europe.

And yes, PSG could buy him. Chelsea probably could because Boehly doesn't believe in numbers. Real? And what replace their best player? Barca? I don't think so. Bayern won't break their wage structure.

I think we settle in the middle. Give him a great pay bump, get him near what we want our top earners to be at and tell him if he wants to go to Paris and play in a nothing league sorry, but we can't match that. Really, at his age with his record getting, say, 250k a week is an absolute win for everyone involved.

 

[sullydnl]

Outside Of psg, Saudi Arabia and mid 2010s Barcelona even 300k a week is reserved for maybe the top 10 players in a league. The idea of offering rashford 375k a week would just show that nothing has changed since Woodward left

Yes. And our very best best players will (or should) tend to fall in that bracket given we're one of the wealthiest clubs on the planet.

As Rashford himself does, given he would very comfortably get a 325k+ offer from clubs like Chelsea (who already pay the likes of Sterling approx. £325k a week) and PSG (who according to The Athletic offered Rashford a £400k contract). Especially if available on a free transfer, as he would be next season.

And the actual salary cap reported in that story was £200k rather than £300k, which would have been far more self-damaging and therefore even less plausible.

 

[Devil You Know]

The wage structure should be something like:

Ballon d'Or candidate: £500k+
Best in world in that position AND face of the club: £400k
Top 10 in world in that position: £300k
Top 4 quality: £200k
Squad player: £100k
Top prospect: £50k

When you look at KdB at £400k, that seems about right. Haaland at £375k is a bargain.

Rashford is the face of the club, but he's not the best in the world in his position. If taken in isolation, I don't mind paying him £375k to keep him at the club because he's just about my favourite player right now. But I worry about the precedent it sets (which itself is a consequence of the precedent Sancho's contract set). If for example, we somehow managed to sign Kane, he'd probably expect at least £500k at United even if he'd only get about £400k elsewhere.

We need to stop being taken for a ride by players. Not only does it hurt us with the salary bill, it also makes it harder to sell them if they come up short. That in turn gives us a bloated squad of primadonnas who know they'll be making bank no matter what. There are genuine negative implications to team motivation/performance when you give Manchester United the most undeservedly generous wage structure in world football.

 

[jm99]

Yes. And our very best best players will (or should) tend to fall in that bracket given we're one of the wealthiest clubs on the planet.

As Rashford himself does, given he would very comfortably get a 325k+ offer from clubs like Chelsea (who already pay the likes of Sterling approx. £325k a week) and PSG (who according to The Athletic offered Rashford a £400k contract). Especially if available on a free transfer, as he would be next season.

And the actual salary cap reported in that story was £200k rather than £300k, which would have been far more self-damaging and therefore even less plausible.

Yeah I don't believe that article, but I don't think rashford should be on 20 million a year becusse I don't think he's worth that. Particularly if we're moving towards the new ffp stuff where wages are capped at 70% of revenue (or is it wages and transfers) either way, rashford isn't good enough to warrant 20 million a year when it'll prove so restrictive to the rest of team building, 400k should be for someone who's genuinely the best player in the league, not someone who can be but is far too inconsistent

 

[Teja]

Jebus what a disaster of a thread.

To all the "he's not worth that" posters: yes he is, by definition. That's what it'll cost us to retain him, and it would cost much more in transfer fee + wages to replace him with a like player if he walked. This is even ignoring the value he brings as a local boy who's probably our most marketable player.

For everyone yammering about £200,000 per week wage caps, that was never going to happen nor should it. Not unless you want us to have any ambition as a club anyway. This is basically advocating for us to be on the level of Spurs.

Honestly, the people who want us to sell him and replace him with someone like Garnacho, explain your thinking. You want to replace him with a cheaper player who in the best case scenario might someday be about as good as Rashford is right now? Why? So the Glazers can save some money? Even putting that money towards a CF or some other need would still leave a huge hole where Rashford used to be and wouldn't actually make us better.

I'll never begrudge a player for their wage, even the ones like Sancho and DDG who have very clearly not been value for money. Careers are short and I'd rather the people out on the field providing the entertainment have that money than the feckin Florida failsons.

Edit: people are also living in the past if they think these types of wages aren't going to be the norm for goalscoring wide forwards who are just hitting their prime at the highest level.

Funnily enough, you could've made the exact same argument about DDG 5 years ago. The people that are saying we shouldn't give him the contract don't view him as a top 10 player in the PL (which is where his current salary would put him). I think that viewpoint is fairly reasonable.

 

[Teja]

There is no cap on wages, it was reported by one bs source. None of the usual reliable ones reported that story.

The wage structure should be something like:

Is there a wage structure at all? Or is everything on a per-contract basis?

 

[roonster09]

Is there a wage structure at all? Or is everything on a per-contract basis?

People are kidding themselves if they think they can define a wage structure for a football player when the wages has lot of unknown clauses and also they are so complex that depends on lot of factors.

All this "top 5 should be paid this" "250k should be the max" is just talk.

Football wages don't follow any magical formula or pattern.

Apart from all that, people should start checking the total wages reported by the clubs and compare them, that's the most accurate way of seeing the health of the club.

It's too early, i will compile a list of wages just to show how different the reporting is and how the value changes over the time, for some players much higher than reported wages and for some much lower. Clubs do lot of PR nonsense, some love the high wages to show who the big daddy is and some love low wages to show how they are fighting against odds. Ultimate truth is total wages reported by the clubs except for the oil clubs.

 

[skc_18]

Funnily enough, you could've made the exact same argument about DDG 5 years ago. The people that are saying we shouldn't give him the contract don't view him as a top 10 player in the PL (which is where his current salary would put him). I think that viewpoint is fairly reasonable.

Completely different situations. He is better than all the wingers at the club and may be in top 5 in England. And even after couple of years, we will be able to get good fee for him as he will be 28 and will still be in prime. Any club would offer him in the north of 300 k ( not including signing bonus ) so we don’t have any other option. He is England international , home grown quota , and a very good player too.
De gea case is pure incompetence of Ole’s ability in judging players. He wanted to play from back but did not realize De gea’s weakness in distribution.

 

[bringbackbebe]

You'd anticipate there'd be a bit more cheer on a United forum when a home grown player coming off a successful season commits to a new long term contract. Instead, the argument seems to be about paying him 5m a year extra. What's the cost of a 30 goal a year player in the market?

 

[Teja]

People are kidding themselves if they think they can define a wage structure for a football player when the wages has lot of unknown clauses and also they are so complex that depends on lot of factors.

All this "top 5 should be paid this" "250k should be the max" is just talk.

Football wages don't follow any magical formula or pattern.

Apart from all that, people should start checking the total wages reported by the clubs and compare them, that's the most accurate way of seeing the health of the club.

It's too early, i will compile a list of wages just to show how different the reporting is and how the value changes over the time, for some players much higher than reported wages and for some much lower. Clubs do lot of PR nonsense, some love the high wages to show who the big daddy is and some love low wages to show how they are fighting against odds. Ultimate truth is total wages reported by the clubs except for the oil clubs.

Wages do follow a magical formula / pattern in most industries I'm familiar with, I fail to see why football is an exception. The way my employer does it, they aim to pay 90th percentile of comps for my role in my market. The wage data is aggregated and reported in a fairly standard way. Of course if your skillset is in-demand and you have multiple different job offers you're selecting from, there's room to maneuver but there are strict caps on that as well.

I don't understand why you're dismissing the multitude of wage report websites we do have access to (like sportrac or capology). Sure they might be somewhat incorrect and don't include nuance like base-pay vs performance bonuses but they're generally in the right ball park. I'm also sure the club has much better data than us and know exactly how much Vinicius Jr gets paid now for example.

I also think that without some wage structure and bucketing it all devolves into chaos. You can't start every contract negotiation as this player can be worth anything between 0 per week to 10 billion per week. There's some system to say these are the baselines per bucket (PL quality, CL quality, one of the best in the world etc.)

The aggregate salaries / financial health issue is different from does a player deserve a particular contract -- we might be healthy enough even if we give Rashford 800k p/w but that doesn't mean we should.

EDIT

As a random aside I was looking at our wage expenses and they're eye popping figures for a season without CL. We also seem to have lost about 150M last year despite matchday revenue being back. Thoughts from accountants here?

https://ir.manutd.com/~/media/Files/M/Manutd-IR/documents/Man Utd-20f-2022-09-24.pdf

 

[Adnan]

He's obviously going to get a increase on his current salary and will be paid well. But I wouldn't have a meltdown over a story that's originated from the Sun newspaper.

 

[acolyte]

Funnily enough, you could've made the exact same argument about DDG 5 years ago. The people that are saying we shouldn't give him the contract don't view him as a top 10 player in the PL (which is where his current salary would put him). I think that viewpoint is fairly reasonable.

No I have to disagree with that. DDG signed his contract well after the first signs of decline started to show. He was at an age when we knew his performances (as a keeper primarily relying on his supernatural reflexes) were likely to start slipping. Rashford is about to enter his prime. The two situations aren't analogous at all.

 

[acolyte]

The wage structure should be something like:

Ballon d'Or candidate: £500k+
Best in world in that position AND face of the club: £400k
Top 10 in world in that position: £300k
Top 4 quality: £200k
Squad player: £100k
Top prospect: £50k

The real world doesn't work like this and break neatly into these arbitrary categories. Rashford is at the very least top 4 quality so according to your chart he gets £200k, but he's also the face of the club, is a youth product, plays a high profile position, and is famous outside sport so what's the bonus for that?

When you look at KdB at £400k, that seems about right. Haaland at £375k is a bargain.

You don't actually believe this. You don't take these Man City numbers at face value, right?

 

[kundalini]

I think we should change our salary structure so that it is more team focused and heavily weighted towards appearances, as well as the current CL element. I imagine some players wouldn't be prepared to accept but I'd be willing to lose them.

Rashford (goalscorer who doesn't create a great deal and barely makes an effort defensively) relies on his team-mates to do the things he doesn't do. He recently had a season when he didn't appear remotely interested and his contribution was shocking. His form under Ten Hag has generally been good. I don't think he should be our top earner.

 

[roonster09]

Wages do follow a magical formula / pattern in most industries I'm familiar with, I fail to see why football is an exception. The way my employer does it, they aim to pay 90th percentile of comps for my role in my market. The wage data is aggregated and reported in a fairly standard way. Of course if your skillset is in-demand and you have multiple different job offers you're selecting from, there's room to maneuver but there are strict caps on that as well.

Football is different than the industries you are familiar with, I don't know why people keep comparing football with regular 9-5 jobs. Do the employees have agents? Do their agents whore them to all companies to check their market value? How many employees are there with similar skill set, are you rated as top 1% in your field of work? Does your organization see you as an asset who can be sold for 100s of million? Does your organization sees you as someone who can be marketed and be the image of the club? Do you increase the profile of your organization and most importantly are you even known to other organizations who operates in the same field?

I mean the still can still go on and on, the first step of failed argument is comparing football to regular jobs.

I don't understand why you're dismissing the multitude of wage report websites we do have access to (like sportrac or capology). Sure they might be somewhat incorrect and don't include nuance like base-pay vs performance bonuses but they're generally in the right ball park. I'm also sure the club has much better data than us and know exactly how much Vinicius Jr gets paid now for example.

You only said it might be somewhat incorrect, I'm just taking it to next level and calling them as shit.

As per them, ManCity first team total wages is 180 million, you know how much was Spurs total wages (including all staff) in 2021-22 was? 229 million pounds. ManCity reported wages from their financial report in 2022 was 354 million, so these 2 websites have reported 50% of the total wages (as per their official report).

As per these websites, Liverpool total wages is 134 million, their official reported wages in 2020-21 was 321 million.

I also think that without some wage structure and bucketing it all devolves into chaos. You can't start every contract negotiation as this player can be worth anything between 0 per week to 10 billion per week. There's some system to say these are the baselines per bucket (PL quality, CL quality, one of the best in the world etc.)

The aggregate salaries / financial health issue is different from does a player deserve a particular contract -- we might be healthy enough even if we give Rashford 800k p/w but that doesn't mean we should.

Ofcourse you don't pay unrealistic wages and players don't start from 0-10 billion. All these brackets are funny too (usually works in video games), how are you going to tell the player, "Hey you, I think you are CL quality but not a league winning quality, here is the deal"

When you have players like Sancho who haven't contributed even 1/10th of what Rashford did for the club, how will he accept any less than Sancho? Ofcourse there will be salary brackets but not something like "PL quality, Cl quality". It's based on their squad position, their current contract, length of the contract and who holds upper hand in negotiations. For Rashford, it's very easy to get 300K plus if he is a free transfer, for club it would take around 100 million and huge wages to replace him and that's not even guaranteed going by our recent wingers.

EDIT

As a random aside I was looking at our wage expenses and they're eye popping figures for a season without CL. We also seem to have lost about 150M last year despite matchday revenue being back. Thoughts from accountants here?

https://ir.manutd.com/~/media/Files/M/Manutd-IR/documents/Man Utd-20f-2022-09-24.pdf

Not sure what that document is, it's not opening. We didn't have CL last year and the numbers are not published yet (if I'm not wrong). Before that season we were in CL.

 

[Strelok]

Jebus what a disaster of a thread.

To all the "he's not worth that" posters: yes he is, by definition. That's what it'll cost us to retain him, and it would cost much more in transfer fee + wages to replace him with a like player if he walked. This is even ignoring the value he brings as a local boy who's probably our most marketable player.

For everyone yammering about £200,000 per week wage caps, that was never going to happen nor should it. Not unless you want us to have any ambition as a club anyway. This is basically advocating for us to be on the level of Spurs.

Honestly, the people who want us to sell him and replace him with someone like Garnacho, explain your thinking. You want to replace him with a cheaper player who in the best case scenario might someday be about as good as Rashford is right now? Why? So the Glazers can save some money? Even putting that money towards a CF or some other need would still leave a huge hole where Rashford used to be and wouldn't actually make us better.

I'll never begrudge a player for their wage, even the ones like Sancho and DDG who have very clearly not been value for money. Careers are short and I'd rather the people out on the field providing the entertainment have that money than the feckin Florida failsons.

Edit: people are also living in the past if they think these types of wages aren't going to be the norm for goalscoring wide forwards who are just hitting their prime at the highest level.

Totally agree. Rashford is well worth that and he also did earn it. However imo we should introduce a wage cap for new singings. So Sancho on 350k or Sanchez on 500k a week won't happen again.

Of course we could make some exception here and there but the idea is if you'd like to be paid like that you gotta earn it, with us here not because of the hype or some stats in a lesser league.

 

[roonster09]

@Teja

Here is one more example, not sure it can get any clearer than this.

2020-21 season, ManUtd finished 2nd and played in CL. Liverpool finished 3rd and played in CL.

The official reported wages for 2020-21 season -
Manutd 323 million
Liverpool 314 million

Now the Spotrac wages
ManUtd - 214 million --> https://www.spotrac.com/epl/manchester-united-fc/payroll/2021/
Liverpool - 135 million --> https://www.spotrac.com/epl/liverpool-fc/payroll/2021/

Capology wages
ManUtd - 238 million --> https://www.capology.com/club/manchester-united/salaries/2021-2022/
Liverpool - 148 million --> https://www.capology.com/club/liverpool/salaries/2021-2022/

Its so obvious how crap these 2 sites are, they don't even read what journalist report, they just go with the number they see, without ever reading what was said before or after the numbers.