Sancho and Rashford: If you had to choose to freeze them out or loan them for partial wage coverage, what would you do?

Bastian

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
20,874
Supports
Mejbri
I hope it doesn't come to that, but with Sancho only having a year left on his deal and him seemingly not giving a toss about his footballing career, as we saw with him rejecting a lower wage joining a Chelsea side that he allegedly supports, keeping alive his England ambitions (?) and playing relatively regularly, it might end up being impossible to recoup anything at all from perhaps a top 5 worst transfer in United history. It should seem doable to subsidise his wage for a year and get money, but maybe the player thinks he'll get a nice selection come next summer when he's a free agent. That would rest on the premise that he plays regular football in a top league next season. Whereas if he were to spend the whole season in the reserves, docked one or two weeks wages at every turn if he publicly undermines the club, he might regret not taking that Chelsea offer.

With Rashford, I do think we could break even here by subsidising his wages over the next 3 years and paying him pretty much the exact sum his fee will be (35-45m), which creates a good PSR room but no actual money in the bank. If there are no options though, or he refuses any option bar Barca, and Barca try to get him on loan at the end of the window, what would you prefer, sticking him in the reserves and seeing whether something might happen in January, or pander to him and Barca to save a few million?

I really want the club to act aggressively here. I'd rather see the club lose some money rather than loaning Sancho to somewhere like Dortmund for peanuts and Rashford to Barca for peanuts. And if they have any footballing ambitions before a World Cup year, they might be forced to rethink how good their leverage over the club is. I'd actually like the club to publicly go on record and state that these players will not have it all their way and there'll be no cheap loans.
 
It’s probably not smart/pragmatic and maybe heart ruling head but I agree. We need to prove we aren’t a pushover in the market and set a positive precedent for the future. If we don’t get vaguely what we want for Sancho and Rashford, let them stay in the stands.

I thought this in reaction to the worry that maybe Chelsea come back in for Sancho for a cut price fee (rather than the £20m agreed price) at the end of the window.

The ultimate fix though is to be more savvy with signings and wages, which hopefully we’re getting there with.
 
Sancho, I'd let him rot. For the disrespect he's shown the club and the fans we shouldn't bother helping him by sending him on loan and giving him an opportunity to earn a decent contract elsewhere. He had his chance with Chelsea. At the end of the day, we're going to pay his most his contract anyway, let him sit at home, play his playstation and get fat and see what options are left for him when he's on a free.

Rashford I'd send on loan. Even though the price is going to continue to drop on him, we should at least get decent money which will show as straight profit. If we're not going to use him, it's in our best interest to maintain his value.
 
In an ideal world. feck ‘em. Let them rot away for a year if they’re unwilling to leave/accept reasonable corrective salaries elsewhere

With a business hat on. They have to go out on loan if transfers can’t be agreed
 
manutddjw said:
Sancho, I'd let him rot. For the disrespect he's shown the club and the fans we shouldn't bother helping him by sending him on loan and giving him an opportunity to earn a decent contract elsewhere. He had his chance with Chelsea. At the end of the day, we're going to pay his most his contract anyway, let him sit at home, play his playstation and get fat and see what options are left for him when he's on a free.

Rashford I'd send on loan. Even though the price is going to continue to drop on him, we should at least get decent money which will show as straight profit. If we're not going to use him, it's in our best interest to maintain his value.
Click to expand...

Aye, Sancho is more clear cut. At best, from a loan with a year left, half his wages are covered or something similar. Which makes the option to freeze him out a lot more enticing.

But with Rashford, a loan to Barca would just be too much IMV. He's not a guaranteed starter, so his value might not be retained or increase. End the saga could also develop into something that takes the whole of next summer if he has a relatively successful spell on loan there and they go back and forth about wanting to sign him permanently, with him refusing every other option, only for them trying to get him on another loan next summer.
 
Rashford has already done a lot for this club, so I’d be way more inclined working in his favour to ensure he can continue. He has his issues but I think he would want it to work out. He could also come back here and if he agrees to work hard could be good for us again.

Sancho embodies just about everything wrong with modern football and no club on this earth would deserve him. feck that guy - with all that said can’t blame him for sitting out his contract and playing cod all day. Guy needs a slap
 
If in agreement you can keep a player separated over the summer window to figure it out, but fully freezing out is too much, unless you get a renewed reason to "deactivate" Sancho's role. With some luck, Sancho freezes himself out and you can get damages out of his own breach of contract. But if he shows at least some type of willingness I don't think breaching contract and bullying people out is a great idea. You don't want to be weak, but I never understand how being a bad employer is seen as strong whenever the conversation turns to football clubs. United will only seem weak if they cannot handle their own employees internally, and Amorim won't look strong for pretending some guy doesn't exist. That's how coaches like Koeman eventually lose their jobs when they grab too high with their simplified people management and "look at me mr tough guy" while clearly not being anything like that.

In that sense I think ETH generally did those things well, players get punished and left out, with clear reasons why, whether you agreed with who he did that to. Then if they follow the rules and such, they get the chance to rejoin the team. In hindsight it looks to some like Ronaldo was an ETH blunder I guess, but if Ronaldo didn't want to be exempt from basic football squad requirements, biggest star in the world, nor flirting with Piers Morgan of all people, that's honestly all on him, and no matter the past, he showed he didn't give an actual bleep about the club. I hope that's what the Rashford situation was like for Amorim, too, because these things will cost you the entire squad whenever you don't clearly see improvement of any kind. So if some freezing happens, it better happen in a way that the people around would agree with it, too. Otherwise you'll just be that 18 year old shift leader at the store who tries too hard to show they're this strong leader amongst 16 year olds.

Sancho didn't exactly show to deserve a second chance while here, though he does seem more Amorim profile than Rashford. But if he doesn't find another club in the summer, no need to keep freezing him out to pretend to make an example out of him that you won't. If he adds more than expected, great. If he f's up again, you can take him out then. A clear action-result is much stronger than a preemptive bullying tactic.
 
Bastian said:
I really want the club to act aggressively here. I'd rather see the club lose some money rather than loaning Sancho to somewhere like Dortmund for peanuts and Rashford to Barca for peanuts. And if they have any footballing ambitions before a World Cup year, they might be forced to rethink how good their leverage over the club is. I'd actually like the club to publicly go on record and state that these players will not have it all their way and there'll be no cheap loans.
Click to expand...

The club should try to sell them first and if not then try to loan them with the other club covering their whole wages.

As they're on high wages and don't really perform anything close to deserving such high salary it's going to become hard to move them on.

So yeah, if it was my club I'd rather the club freezes them out if they're not willing to take a pay cut or play elsewhere. It would send a message but the club also needs to stop giving those contracts in the first place and not give so much power to the players.
 
Rashford is worth considering depending on the offers we get and who we bring in. Clearly plan A is a sale and B is a loan away so C would be not getting our signings and having him as a backup

Sancho might do okay in our system but he's made it clear he doesnt like it at United and has a year on his deal. So a loan and then a free transfer is obviously the way forward if nobody will pay for him this summer
 
Remember how we played against those giant cones before the ASEAN tour? I’d replace those cones with these two and maybe a few others.
 
I understand how we've arrived at this situation, but freezing out players on huge contracts hasn't really worked.

We absolutely could have used Rashford, Antony and even possibly Sancho at times last year. I guess we'll see next season whether the potential boost in squad togetherness and cohesion will pay dividends in the long run. Because despite the fact that the remaining players did seem to largely be trying and working together, it certainly didn't do anything to improve results in the short term.

If we find ourselves wanting to remove a bad influence from the squad in the future, we need to be a lot more clever about it. With that in mind, if we don't get a good offer for Rashford then I'd keep him and let him try, or not, to earn a place in the team. Antony too. Not so much for Sancho. He's the one I'd happily take a financial hit just to be done with him.
 
Nah I’d definitely loan them out with some of the wages covered if nothing permanent happens. I don’t want those two anywhere near the team. Keep them far away from OT as possible!
 
It sounded like there was a lot going on during training that was problematic. If they're stuck with us, any reason we couldn't record training focused on them and publish them to YouTube for everyone to see?
 
Rashford - loan.

Sancho can sit on the bench for a year until he leaves on a free.
 
They've had their loans - Sancho 2 ffs

Freeze them out to force their agents into finding them deals elsewhere. They've both played for other premier league clubs at their (or close to) so called peaks. No coming back from that.
 
Flying high said:
I understand how we've arrived at this situation, but freezing out players on huge contracts hasn't really worked.

We absolutely could have used Rashford, Antony and even possibly Sancho at times last year. I guess we'll see next season whether the potential boost in squad togetherness and cohesion will pay dividends in the long run. Because despite the fact that the remaining players did seem to largely be trying and working together, it certainly didn't do anything to improve results in the short term.

If we find ourselves wanting to remove a bad influence from the squad in the future, we need to be a lot more clever about it. With that in mind, if we don't get a good offer for Rashford then I'd keep him and let him try, or not, to earn a place in the team. Antony too. Not so much for Sancho. He's the one I'd happily take a financial hit just to be done with him.
Click to expand...
Yes, agree mostly with this, freezing could maybe work with a trainer that's almost larger than life, and even then they don't really beat around the bush about it. The backup if not sold is usually the thing that works for anyone else, as I think maybe Pep has that status now? And even then you know he'll say, I feel so bad about not having space for him. Or how he called Joao Neves isn't smart enough but still plays and tries for the club. SAF probably had that status, the way everybody talked about him (plus we all remember Beckham and more, even me who started watching football later). Maybe Mourinho did for a bit, but I think even Klopp and Ancelotti wouldn't be able to nowadays. If Zidane's next job looks more like his first Real stint than the second.

(Don't mind this tired mind)

But while Sancho could've done a job (poooooossibly), for their own careers and maybe even lives, the Rashford and Antony loans were good decisions. Rashford didn't peak, but was playing with less weight on his shoulders already, and Antony had plenty of games showing things that we didn't know was in his package, showing more playmaking sides than he did at Ajax, at least more than I remembered as a more clear-cut dribbling winger that was only just about to improve his efficiency at the time.

With the earlier Rash-freeze, I don't think it's a good idea to stay (plus he said he wanted to go shortly thereafter, too), while Antony seems to associate United/Old Trafford with a bad time in his life. So, perhaps at their core they could go for their Amorim shots, but unless he surprisingly leaves this summer, I think it's best for both to go. Betis-Antony with his energy could have been an interesting experiment for wingback (though not sure if that could be a lasting experiment)

For United slimming the squad that was already see-through-thin they would have helped to some degree, but in the long run, they get a bigger chance to move on, while Amorim got to practice more with a core that he (sort of?) likes compared to them. And have more space to add players he thinks will fit his ideas more, and who he starts off with on a clean slate.
 
appleman said:
Sancho didn't exactly show to deserve a second chance while here, though he does seem more Amorim profile than Rashford. But if he doesn't find another club in the summer, no need to keep freezing him out to pretend to make an example out of him that you won't. If he adds more than expected, great. If he f's up again, you can take him out then. A clear action-result is much stronger than a preemptive bullying tactic.
Click to expand...

Sancho has had many chances already, why does he deserve another? All he has shown is a terrible attitude. We are worse off for having him around. Our stance needs to be a strong "find a new club as you are not welcome here and won't play for us again." That's not being a bad employer, that's just not letting people who are supposedly a professional in a competitive team sport take the piss with half arsed performances and poor discipline.
 
As long as they're as far away from influencing anyone as possible ill be happy.
 
Sancho doesn't care if he is frozen out or hung upside down. We already put him in footballing Siberia for half a season and he didn't give a shit. Man is nuts and I seriously doubt he cares about making England team. Loaning him, if we can, and making some chump change is the best we can hope for with that a-hole.

Rashford is a very different deal. It is almost certain he does care about returning to the national team so he will do a lot to make sure he gets playing time. Playing hardball should work with him.
 
Get rid on loan if need be. We need to be rid of all disruptive influences. Building a team with players who have the right attitude and mentality is as important as their ability to play football

Also if you keep them but they're made to sit in the stands every week, you just get skysports or whoever constantly panning the camera to them, and it attracts negative attention and creates an opportunity for journalists to shit stir and create drama. No thanks. I want this club to be in the news again for the right reasons, like challenging for the league and winning stuff. Had enough of the drama
 
Last edited:
They both know the club 's stance, Jim, Barrada & Amorim are in agreement that both are surplus to requirements, and also, they made it clear when Sancho was loaned out to Chelsea in the summer & Rashford in the winter, that whoever wants to loan them, will foot the bill for their wages (Chelsea & Villa paid the majority of their wages).

With the above, they know it is best for them to find a club, Sancho might decide to run his contract down, but Rashford needs to be playing somewhere if wants to play in the WC next year.

I think the best thing the club can do is to tell them that they will be sold, no loans even if loaning club is willing to cover their full wages, because that does not bring much value and the loaning club gets to have player while our club does not have money to buy players, if we can't get money for them then no club should get to have them too.
 
Insane to think we'd even consider letting them sit on the bench and rot. Whatever you think of them, it's idiotic, spiteful behaviour, both from a human standpoint as well as a business and financial one.
 
No one will take them, it’s not them it’s their wages.

Sancho only has a year anyway. So a loan is an option.

Plan C could be to freeze them out until January. They might suddenly reduce their wage demands.
 
Loan rashford, sancho must be subbed in as GK with full glove for all u8, u10, u16 matches. And subbed out during half time.
 
Sancho would be more than happy to just sit a year out, get paid and come to an agreement with another club for a sign-on fee and wages. I don't think we'll achieve anything by having him sit here. Let's get whatever we can for him and cut our losses.

Rashford has a couple more years left on his contract and we'll be only lowering his value even further. We can try all kind of brinkmanship and hope someone blinks first & take him of our hands but the chances are minimal.
 
Ted Lasso said:
It sounded like there was a lot going on during training that was problematic. If they're stuck with us, any reason we couldn't record training focused on them and publish them to YouTube for everyone to see?
Click to expand...
Yes because it’ll ruin whatever is left of the interest in them from other clubs.
 
I’m always in the you honour your contract position. If you hand out a bad contract, you bite the bullet. The player doesn’t owe you any favours.

The only thing I would agree with is them training separately from the group during the window until a solution is found.
 
Dont really care what as long as we dont have to pay their full wages. So loan for both.

And i dont care about us being petty to them either, just want to save money because we will need it.
 
The club has to honour the ridiculous contracts they handed out. I don't blame the players for wanting their money. Most of us would want the same.

The most likely scenario is a subsidised loan for both.

The hope is the club considers the consequences of contracts in the future and doesn't pay well above market rate. Many complaining now will be those that said "pay whetever it takes", "it's not my money" and "who cares about an extra £5m".
 
I think freezing out players completely is only worthwhile if they are massive bad influences on the changing room and everyone hates them. I don't see either player falling into that camp, it's more fan anger more than anything. Try to sell both and if it has to be a loan, so be it. After that it's up to Amorim to judge based on training. If Amorim thinks they deserve minutes, whether it be due to injuries or they show good application then fair enough.

I think the Ronaldo interview and Greenwood situation are the only two times I've felt strongly about a player never playing for the club again.
 
I'd keep Sancho - it's a wildly unpopular opinion but I think he'd suit the #10s and if his professionalism can be improved then I think he's worth it.

Rashford I just don't think can play any of the system roles
 
Freezing out for this reason is dumb and spiteful in my opinion. Might be the hard man move, but who really wins? We want them off our books and a loan will at least help with the wages and a potential move.
 
ItDoesntEvenMata said:
I'd keep Sancho - it's a wildly unpopular opinion but I think he'd suit the #10s and if his professionalism can be improved then I think he's worth it.

Rashford I just don't think can play any of the system roles
Click to expand...
Not this again.
 
If we can find a suitable club for Rashford, meaning a club that plays more counter attacking football and not relies on pressing, we send him on loan while covering some of his wages.

Despite his attitude being a bit stinky, and myself wanting to sell him for 4 years now, I believe he is a good lad who has has offered to us. He is still an academy product, who played an important role in our few cups the last 10 years.

His wages never matched his ability and contribution. But that was part of our mistake, paying too much attention on marketing. If we were paying him 120k per week, we would be OK to have him in our squad. We, as a club, do not owe him, but we can try to help him at least.

Sancho, apart some few good moments in his first year, even if we were paying him 5k per week, it would still feel bad for us. So I don't really care if we freeze him or send him on loan for half his wages.
 
I would rather loan them but if they remain at the club I wouldn't freeze them out unless they do something that warrants it. I'm totally against clubs doing these kind of things, I would tell them that they are at the bottom of the squad but that good and consistent performances on the training pitch and on match days can always change the hierarchy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.