Yeah but what’s happened here is that the employer has decided they don’t want the employee anymore and have asked them to take a massive paycut. That would be constructive dismissal.
That was exactly my point about including the option to buy clause in the deal if it doesn't actually mean anything as you say. A real waste of words indeed.That was a waste of words
Well, if you're sure then...In football? Lord knows. I'm sure conversations happen though.
It happens when people are underperforming, they are presented with either 1) repositioning and facing a salary reflecting that role (similar conversation to Rashford), 2) being put on an incentive plan to get them back up to speed or 3) leaving.Well, if you're sure then...
I work for a global corporation, have done for almost 13 years now, I have not heard a single instance of asking someone to reduce their wages, in any of the geographies we're active in (which is irrelevent in any case as football is a very niche business where players' contracts should be seen differently considering the length of professional careers).
When the finances have been ignored for this long to get us in a desperate state, it's most prudent to be ruthless on our operating model, so that we can support the matters on pitch at a better scale.
In this event, being corporate was exactly what we needed.
I agree that generally staff should be treated with respect but there was nothing disrespectful toward Rashford who has been dishonest unprofessional and incompetent over an extended period.
There is no "impact" for me. It's a conversation where all cards are out in the table for options. This option was ruled out that's all.There's nothing ruthless about that, especially when the gambit failed.
The potential impacts of this ask on current and potential players, coaches and other contracted staff are not worth the 1.5 million pounds saved, imo.
It's something management can consider but they have to realize this gets out if it's asked and then they need to consider if it will cause issues going forward and if the issues will have an impact that is more or less than the cost savings.There is no "impact" for me. It's a conversation where all cards are out in the table for options. This option was ruled out that's all.
Oh come on.
No one asked him to take a pay cut for doing what he was contractually obliged to.
They simply weren't wanting to pay loads for him to go play elsewhere. Which HE wanted to do.
As I said above Roy Keane has a right to be aggrieved for not keeping on taking the money or refusing to take a pay cut but Rashford? No way
I wasn’t the one trying to equate a footballers job to a regular job. Give me a list of footballers that have voluntarily reduced their wages.i dont understand this argument when it comes to such a specialized thing as this. Is it standard practice to get paid 100-300k a week to play a game for a job? These players arent on the same world as 9-5 people who would be like heck no on giving me a 25 percent pay cut. They have contracts that are special essentially, things can be expected from them that wouldnt be expected from an ordinary joe.
DDGGive me some examples then.
an arbitrary mention of Keane doesn’t add validity nor does it make what you’re saying any less senseless.
I know we are football/United fans and all, but when it gets to a point when/where you’re arguing an employee should accept less than their contractually agreed terms/salary, it might be time to take a step back.
I wasn’t the one trying to equate a footballers job to a regular job. Give me a list of footballers that have voluntarily reduced their wages.
Oh come on.
No one asked him to take a pay cut for doing what he was contractually obliged to.
They simply weren't wanting to pay loads for him to go play elsewhere. Which HE wanted to do.
As I said above Roy Keane has a right to be aggrieved for not keeping on taking the money or refusing to take a pay cut but Rashford? No way
Yep, these make perfectly valid points.I think I may need to consider taking a step back. Not for the reasons you suggest however.
It is beyond me that people are still arguing and employee should accept less than their contractually agreed terms/salary.
Why? you may ask. Well because that is simply not what's happening.
I'm not sure how people don't understand that wanting to leave and play for another club is not contractually agreed terms.
The interview came after the club briefed all and sundry that they wanted rid of Rashford for a cultural reset. Then we had another employee essentially defaming him in public. No party comes out of this looking good. It’s been handled appallingly by Rashford, Amorim and the club and as always it will be the fans who suffer.Saying that the club should stick to the agreed contract - and that any everyday worker, dutifully doing their job and suddenly being expected to take a pay cut, wouldn't do so either - is all ignoring Rashford's on and offield issues in the previous two years, and his interview saying that he wanted to move clubs for a fresh challenge, etc.
I think I may need to consider taking a step back. Not for the reasons you suggest however.
It is beyond me that people are still arguing and employee should accept less than their contractually agreed terms/salary.
Why? you may ask. Well because that is simply not what's happening.
I'm not sure how people don't understand that wanting to leave and play for another club is not contractually agreed terms.
Yep, these make perfectly valid points.
Saying that the club should stick to the agreed contract - and that any everyday worker, dutifully doing their job and suddenly being expected to take a pay cut, wouldn't do so either - is all ignoring Rashford's on and offield issues in the previous two years, and his interview saying that he wanted to move clubs for a fresh challenge, etc.
A club having to pay some of the wages for a player to go off and play for another club isn't the same as everyday people doing the same work, for the same employer, but suddenly being expected to take a pay cut to do so.
But I think too much is being made of this one issue, and that it's a convenient deflection. I can see why Rashford's fans are focusing the argument very much on the dropped wages claims - an opportunity to use terms like 'Brexit Jim' and 'billionaire owners' and dragging the attention away from topics like off-field actions, ill discipline and poor effort and performances, etc, from a 'multi millionaire footballer' (to use the same kind of unnecessary label).
Yep, these make perfectly valid points.
Saying that the club should stick to the agreed contract - and that any everyday worker, dutifully doing their job and suddenly being expected to take a pay cut, wouldn't do so either - is all ignoring Rashford's on and offield issues in the previous two years, and his interview saying that he wanted to move clubs for a fresh challenge, etc.
A club having to pay some of the wages for a player to go off and play for another club isn't the same as everyday people doing the same work, for the same employer, but suddenly being expected to take a pay cut to do so.
And the reported briefings came after all Rashford's off-field antics, ill discipline and poor effort and performances, etc. Can't blame all of those on anyone but himself.The interview came after the club briefed all and sundry that they wanted rid of Rashford for a cultural reset. Then we had another employee essentially defaming him in public. No party comes out of this looking good. It’s handled appallingly by Rashford, Amorim and the club and as always it will be the fans who suffer.
Thank you. I was beginning to despair thinking maybe I wasn't putting my point across right.
As I see it if a club says to a player "we don't think you're right for where we want to be and feel you should look elsewhere". The player has an absolute right to say "Ok but I will only leave for the same or more money". If that doesn't happen then the player is within his rights to say "you either pay me off or pay the difference".
However if a club says "no more drinking and no shows for training and no more looking disinterested on the pitch or you don't play". They, the club, still have to pay (wrongly IMO because the player has broken the agreement) but they do so it is what it is.
The player then decides feck that I'm going elsewhere. Club say ok. Why does the player then expect the club to pay him at all never mind majority of his wages?
If anything UTD having to pay at all is NOT what would happen in "normal" corporate type jobs.
I just don't get the arguments being out forward.
It only doesn’t make valid points, it is also re-writing and revisionism of what has happened.
Rashford’s productivity and alleged conduct issues have been widely reported on - he’s still entitled to his full contractual pay. As far as I know, the club can take actions like banishing him from the team and/or fining him - if justified in doing so - and look to move him on - which we opted to do. The notion and/or expectation that he should accept a pay cut though is comical in my eyes. Sure it’s at his discretion, but I would not do it nor expect others to - nor think less of them and make it a talking point.
I think you do but are being facetious. There’s nothing in his contract which would make him obliged to take any sort of pay cut, even in these circumstances. So why would he? To say ‘sorry’?! The club and its owners were stupid enough to give out this contract.
People don't have to accept. And yes it's not abnormal to offer this as an option in the right circumstance, which this was. He was leaving the club and there was no offers because of his wages.
Yep, these make perfectly valid points.
Saying that the club should stick to the agreed contract - and that any everyday worker, dutifully doing their job and suddenly being expected to take a pay cut, wouldn't do so either - is all ignoring Rashford's on and offield issues in the previous two years, and his interview saying that he wanted to move clubs for a fresh challenge, etc.
A club having to pay some of the wages for a player to go off and play for another club isn't the same as everyday people doing the same work, for the same employer, but suddenly being expected to take a pay cut to do so.
But I think too much is being made of this one issue, and that it's a convenient deflection. I can see why Rashford's fans are focusing the argument very much on the dropped wages claims - an opportunity to use terms like 'Brexit Jim' and 'billionaire owners' and dragging the attention away from topics like off-field actions, ill discipline and poor effort and performances, etc, from a 'multi millionaire footballer' (to use the same kind of unnecessary label)
No I genuinely don't get it.
For me it's simple. You play for a club, you sign a contract. If you continue to play for the club and they say take a pay cut tell them to feck off.
If as a player says "For me, personally, I think I'm ready for a new challenge and the next steps."
A response of good luck but we aren't paying for it, is fair enough.
The owners and club were indeed stupid to give him that wage, for what has been an average player overall. But they did so to play for their club not a n other.
And the reported briefings came after all Rashford's off-field antics, ill discipline and poor effort and performances, etc. Can't blame all of those on anyone but himself.
While no party comes out of this looking good, the main issue has been Rashford's ongoing antics. Had he reacted positively, as Garnacho did, to being dropped (and as he did previous times when his ill-discipline led to other managers dropping him) there was every chance he'd still be here and in the team. Instead he immediately gave the interview that as good as ended his time here and made it impossible for him to be re-selected as Garnacho was.
You obviously do but are being facetious so this will be my last post.
It’s simple, you write a wage cut into the contract for situations like these. Things like this, ie wages, are done officially, with the terms being legally bound ffs.
Then deal with it internally like professionals. We can’t slam Rashford’s professionalism when you are briefing left and right about him and you have a manager mocking him in public. Rashford at least didn’t respond to the manager saying he would rather play a 60 year old coach.And the reported briefings came after all Rashford's off-field antics, ill discipline and poor effort and performances, etc. Can't blame all of those on anyone but himself.
While no party comes out of this looking good, the main issue has been Rashford's ongoing antics. Had he reacted positively, as Garnacho did, to being dropped (and as he did previous times when his ill-discipline led to other managers dropping him) there was every chance he'd still be here and in the team. Instead he immediately gave the interview that as good as ended his time here and made it impossible for him to be re-selected as Garnacho was.
I certainly think a lot of Rashford fans are (deliberately) placing too much emphasis on it / putting a slant on it as an easier thing to make him out to be the victim - 'pushed out of the club' - rather than having to try to defend the Indefensible regarding the disciplinary issues, lack of effort, poor commitment and body language, criticism from various of his managers, etc.Isn't a lot of the cultural reboot stuff not being mixed up and given a slant?
As I recall Ratcliffe mentioned the cultural reboot stuff but was in regards to things like the ticket prices and cutting staff etc
Amorim was the one specifically who said anything regards to the players and specifically Rashford, when asked. It was about working hard in training and behaving off the pitch or you don't get picked.
And too much emphasis is being placed on Rashford saying he wanted a new challenge as if that means he shouldn’t be paid his wage. Obviously it was a response to get ahead of United wanting to sell him and it was incredibly misjudged. None of that makes the behaviour of the club and manager any better.I certainly think a lot of Rashford fans are (deliberately) placing too much emphasis on it / putting a slant on it as an easier thing to make him out to be the victim - 'pushed out of the club' - rather than having to try to defend the Indefensible regarding the disciplinary issues, lack of effort, poor commitment and body language, criticism from various of his managers, etc.
Those are all incredibly hard to defend. So I can see why they're trying to focus the debate onto other areas and making it out that it's all about incompetent and mean Brexit and Tory supporting billionaire owners using the poor guy as a scapegoat and trying to force him out the club, etc. It's a handy way of trying to deflect the attention away from all those other issues that have been going on - on and off - long before the new owners and manager arrived.
Villa fans are perplexed by the choice of wordingIt's a fairly innocuous thing to say when he is just going on loan. An option to buy doesn't mean anything
Being put on a performance improvement plan (PIP) is not salary related. It’s more of a case of “perform as expected or you could face HR disciplinary up to and including dismissal”.It happens when people are underperforming, they are presented with either 1) repositioning and facing a salary reflecting that role (similar conversation to Rashford), 2) being put on an incentive plan to get them back up to speed or 3) leaving.
In most cases when 2) is taken up it leads up to 3). The company can sack the employee without any issues since they followed the PIP process.
What would you do when the player is not being honest with you? Amorim asked him if he went out before the Everton game, he said he didn't. Later again he apparently appeared fatigued in training and it seems he out the day before training again. Pretty sure they have tried everything they can to deal with this internally. He had previous episodes of being unprofessional with ETH too, remember the Belfast nightout where he was out until 3 am in the morning and then called in sick for training? Or oversleeping to the point where you were late to a team meeting? Or the team leaks.Then deal with it internally like professionals. We can’t slam Rashford’s professionalism when you are briefing left and right about him and you have a manager mocking him in public. Rashford at least didn’t respond to the manager saying he would rather play a 60 year old coach.
It was a conversation with Ruben Amorim at the start of December that goes some way to explaining why Marcus Rashford has been absent from the Manchester United side for nearly two months and why he is close to leaving the club.
United had just beaten Everton 4-0, with Rashford scoring two of the goals in a vibrant display on Sunday, December 1. But after that game, Amorim heard the forward had been out in Manchester on the Friday night, November 29, less than 48 hours before Everton’s visit to Old Trafford.
The United head coach does not want his players in bars so close to games and asked Rashford about his movements. The England international assured Amorim he had been misinformed about a late night.
Three days later, however, Rashford was left out of the starting line-up for the trip to Arsenal. While rotation was at play, those questions over his social life were also a factor in Amorim’s decision.
Since their talk after the Everton game, Amorim has given Rashford 118 minutes of football out of a possible 1,350.
He played the final half-hour at Arsenal and in the following match at home to Nottingham Forest, then started against Viktoria Plzen, although Amorim substituted him in the 56th minute after a poor performance.
Two days later, on Saturday, December 14, in the final training session before facing Manchester City the following afternoon, Rashford put in a lacklustre display at United’s Carrington base, according to multiple sources, some of whom said he appeared fatigued.
Claims circulated that Rashford had gone out the night before — on the Friday, 48 hours before the game — with accounts reaching people at United. This, however, is strenuously denied by people close to the player. Rashford also feels he does not behave differently from other Premier League footballers but faces much more scrutiny over his social life.
Amorim makes his decisions based on what he sees with his own eyes, in complete consideration of all aspects, and when United’s line-up and squad for the derby at the Etihad Stadium was posted in the team WhatsApp group that Saturday evening, it was clear to the players that their new head coach had taken strong action in a bid to jolt Rashford.
Don’t air the dirty laundry in public. Do you believe him saying he would rather pick a coach was the way to handle this situation? What benefit was gained by that?What would you do when the player is not being honest with you? Amorim asked him if he went out before the Everton game, he said he didn't. Later again he apparently appeared fatigued in training and it seems he out the day before training again. Pretty sure they have tried everything they can to deal with this internally. He had previous episodes of being unprofessional with ETH too, remember the Belfast nightout where he was out until 3 am in the morning and then called in sick for training? Or oversleeping to the point where you were late to a team meeting? Or the team leaks.
Now under Amorim it appeared to be the last straw and he all along said Rashford will be back in the team if he changed his ways. That comment about picking his coach was made after weeks of being left out at which point it appeared as a last resort sort of comment from Amorim to help Rashford change. He dropped Garnacho at the same time and he was back in the team very soon. If anything Rashford has shown clearly he doesn't care about improving or helping his boyhood club. In his eyes, Rashford thinks he does nothing wrong even after years of underperformance and laziness on the pitch.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6035672/2025/02/01/marcus-rashford-manchester-united-missing/
And too much emphasis is being placed on Rashford saying he wanted a new challenge as if that means he shouldn’t be paid his wage. Obviously it was a response to get ahead of United wanting to sell him and it was incredibly misjudged. None of that makes the behaviour of the club and manager any better.
It burned too many bridges. He’d have been best served saying nothing.Why was it misjudged? The club wanted him sold and Rashford was prepared to work with them on that. It was in both parties’ best interests for him to be seen as a more attractive option. Given the comments in the papers the day before (and repeatedly since in both the media and by his own manager) it seems to have been the only sane move in this whole saga.
What benefit did we gain from keeping it in house for years? Paying 300k odd something for half arsed ambling around on the pitch and thinking all is going well? As I said, I'm pretty sure they tried to deal with this internally as Rashford had episodes of being unprofessional under ETH too.Don’t air the dirty laundry in public. Do you believe him saying he would rather pick a coach was the way to handle this situation? What benefit was gained by that?
You don’t devalue your player by making negative comments in public. Can you answer what the benefit of Amorim’s comments were?What benefit did we gain from keeping it in house for years? Paying 300k odd something for half arsed ambling around on the pitch and thinking all is going well? As I said, I'm pretty sure they tried to deal with this internally as Rashford had episodes of being unprofessional under ETH too.
If you remember, Amorim dropped Garnacho and Rashford at the same time. One responded immediately enough to be back starting in team the other didn't respond for weeks to a point where the head coach had to say those comments. Rashford had about 2 months to respond before Amorim made those comments. Enough time I'd say. It all starts and ends with Rashford. Don't give the head coach any reason to make those comments. You don't see Amorim making the same comments about other players.
