The Footie Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 15344
  • Start date Start date
Hobbit said:
Cheapskates! :ROFLMAO:

England international, and bringing him in to be club captain and offering peanuts.
Click to expand...

Paquata is our highest paid apparently on 150k

Next is ings
Then zouma (£120k) and areola

The drop off then is 95k Emerson 85k Antonio 60k Bowen
 
ColchesterFC said:
Isn't the £5 million the difference between what he could have earned at United if he stayed for the rest of his contract and what he would have earned at West Ham if he'd left? That's how I always assumed it worked. If he's on £150k per week at Utd but was "only" offered £100k per week at West Ham he would be losing £2.6 million per season, and with two years left on his deal that would be the £5 million he wanted. Utd would have effectively been paying him £50k per week to play for West Ham to make up for lost wages, so they would've been saving £5 million per season?
Click to expand...

I read somewhere he was offered £5 mil but he wanted 10 mil pay off or similar numbers
 
Stuart_C said:
With FFP its not as easy as you've described Bri.

Chelsea will be in the same sticky position 24/36 months time with all of there players on long massive contracts.
Click to expand...

I don’t know all the detail but it guess it will include all the outgoings, including outstanding balances for transfers/wages etc etc etc. There’ll also be diminishing values on saleable assets like players. And clubs only make losses on players when they’re sold for less than they bought them in for. Until they’re sold they’ll actually show as a positive on the balance sheet.
 
Hobbit said:
I don’t know all the detail but it guess it will include all the outgoings, including outstanding balances for transfers/wages etc etc etc. There’ll also be diminishing values on saleable assets like players. And clubs only make losses on players when they’re sold for less than they bought them in for. Until they’re sold they’ll actually show as a positive on the balance sheet.
Click to expand...

I think If they sell an academy player then the full balance can be offset against FFP. If they sell a non academy player (maguire in this case) then they can only defer a % depending on value to length of contract left on there balance sheet.

So in this case it would be Maguire's intial cost £80m ÷5 (length of contract) × 2 (length of contract left) =£32m so they'd break even or thereabouts. Pay him his contract up by £5m they'd be out of pocket.


Does all that make any sense?
 
Stuart_C said:
I think If they sell an academy player then the full balance can be offset against FFP. If they sell a non academy player (maguire in this case) then they can only defer a % depending on value to length of contract left on there balance sheet.

So in this case it would be Maguire's intial cost £80m ÷5 (length of contract) × 2 (length of contract left) =£32m so they'd break even or thereabouts. Pay him his contract up by £5m they'd be out of pocket.


Does all that make any sense?
Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense but surely a club can make a loss on one deal balanced out by a profit on another.
 
Hobbit said:
It makes perfect sense but surely a club can make a loss on one deal balanced out by a profit on another.
Click to expand...
They could but i believe they're already upto their cap badge in FFP. They had to loan Amrabat and another player that i cant think of. Im sure google/twitterphil will help:)
 
Hobbit said:
It makes perfect sense but surely a club can make a loss on one deal balanced out by a profit on another.
Click to expand...


They can hence why most clubs make profits on academy players because there is no negative balance to offset first

It’s why City when selling academy players is helping their FFP hugely , same as Chelsea etc

It’s not often that any of the bigger clubs buy players and then sell them off for profit in recent years , Brighton etc do it very well.

Can’t recall the last time Liverpool , City , Arsenal or United did , maybe Coutinho for us

United selling McTominay would have been a big profit on FFP and would have helped them bringing in others - Maguire going for £30mil would have released a small amount
 
pauljames87 said:
It didn't help that Ming's was injured aswell.. he was the next choice

Ben White? We don't know what happened at the world cup but he out of favour now

That's 1st choice (stones) out
3rd choice Ming's out

And Ben White unavailable

You can see why Harry gets the call
Click to expand...
There's literally about six English centre backs who should be in the side ahead of Maguire at the moment. What does Tomori have to do? The lad won the league with Milan year before last!
 
The discussion regarding Maguire and United is clearly rumbling on, and I remain really uncomfortable with the suggestion that the club are being unreasonable in not paying up the remainder of his contract. As I said yesterday, I have never heard the same argument trotted out whenever any other player has been sold and his new club have paid him less than the selling club. Not once. And yet it surely must happen.

So here’s something for us all to ponder on. Surely, at the point Club A sells a player to Club B, Club A’s contractual obligations to that player cease. The slate is wiped clean. I would go as far as to suggest that contracts probably include clauses to that effect.

And yet all I am hearing are howls of derision here about how Maguire is owed this money, and how United are behaving in a despicable manner in denying him what is rightfully his.

Think about it for a moment. There are lots of players at United and elsewhere on big contracts. It’s actually quite rare for clubs to allow those contracts to wind down so that players leave for nothing, so we continue to see them being sold. If a player is approaching the end of his career, or has consistently shown that his performances don’t warrant the salary being paid, it’s very likely that his new club will offer a lower salary.

So why should Manchester United, or any other club for all that matter, be held to ransom by someone like Maguire? If they pay him what he is contractually owed, despite the sale meaning that contract is brought to a premature conclusion - he will be contracted to a new club, let’s not forget - then a clear and dangerous precedent is set. It means any player sold prior to the end of their contract, for whatever reason, can claim financial settlement from the selling club totally disregarding the fact they are under a new contract and still earning very good money elsewhere.

Sorry, but I still maintain those arguing that Harry Maguire is being hard done by are singling his circumstances out for unrealistic criticism despite players being moved on in this way quite regularly. So again, I ask why?
 
Billysboots said:
The discussion regarding Maguire and United is clearly rumbling on, and I remain really uncomfortable with the suggestion that the club are being unreasonable in not paying up the remainder of his contract. As I said yesterday, I have never heard the same argument trotted out whenever any other player has been sold and his new club have paid him less than the selling club. Not once. And yet it surely must happen.

So here’s something for us all to ponder on. Surely, at the point Club A sells a player to Club B, Club A’s contractual obligations to that player cease. The slate is wiped clean. I would go as far as to suggest that contracts probably include clauses to that effect.

And yet all I am hearing are howls of derision here about how Maguire is owed this money, and how United are behaving in a despicable manner in denying him what is rightfully his.

Think about it for a moment. There are lots of players at United and elsewhere on big contracts. It’s actually quite rare for clubs to allow those contracts to wind down so that players leave for nothing, so we continue to see them being sold. If a player is approaching the end of his career, or has consistently shown that his performances don’t warrant the salary being paid, it’s very likely that his new club will offer a lower salary.

So why should Manchester United, or any other club for all that matter, be held to ransom by someone like Maguire? If they pay him what he is contractually owed, despite the sale meaning that contract is brought to a premature conclusion - he will be contracted to a new club, let’s not forget - then a clear and dangerous precedent is set. It means any player sold prior to the end of their contract, for whatever reason, can claim financial settlement from the selling club totally disregarding the fact they are under a new contract and still earning very good money elsewhere.

Sorry, but I still maintain those arguing that Harry Maguire is being hard done by are singling his circumstances out for unrealistic criticism despite players being moved on in this way quite regularly. So again, I ask why?
Click to expand...
I couldn’t give a fig what UTD do with their players.
For me it was about England and if he’s good enough.!

But threads usually morph into this sort of thing.
It’s very hard to feel sorry for a multi millionaire arguing over money.
Plus most of it is just guessing.
 
Billysboots said:
The discussion regarding Maguire and United is clearly rumbling on, and I remain really uncomfortable with the suggestion that the club are being unreasonable in not paying up the remainder of his contract. As I said yesterday, I have never heard the same argument trotted out whenever any other player has been sold and his new club have paid him less than the selling club. Not once. And yet it surely must happen.

So here’s something for us all to ponder on. Surely, at the point Club A sells a player to Club B, Club A’s contractual obligations to that player cease. The slate is wiped clean. I would go as far as to suggest that contracts probably include clauses to that effect.

And yet all I am hearing are howls of derision here about how Maguire is owed this money, and how United are behaving in a despicable manner in denying him what is rightfully his.

Think about it for a moment. There are lots of players at United and elsewhere on big contracts. It’s actually quite rare for clubs to allow those contracts to wind down so that players leave for nothing, so we continue to see them being sold. If a player is approaching the end of his career, or has consistently shown that his performances don’t warrant the salary being paid, it’s very likely that his new club will offer a lower salary.

So why should Manchester United, or any other club for all that matter, be held to ransom by someone like Maguire? If they pay him what he is contractually owed, despite the sale meaning that contract is brought to a premature conclusion - he will be contracted to a new club, let’s not forget - then a clear and dangerous precedent is set. It means any player sold prior to the end of their contract, for whatever reason, can claim financial settlement from the selling club totally disregarding the fact they are under a new contract and still earning very good money elsewhere.

Sorry, but I still maintain those arguing that Harry Maguire is being hard done by are singling his circumstances out for unrealistic criticism despite players being moved on in this way quite regularly. So again, I ask why?
Click to expand...

It happens a lot in football - loyalty bonuses some use , players get them in contracts to protect from a loss of earnings if they are sold on to another club

Because it’s Man Utd that want Maguire to leave then it’s the club wanting the contract to be stopped and for the player to end up losing money so he has asked that if you want me to leave then I would like a compensation package as such , maybe it’s a bit like being made redundant.

If it was the player engineering the move then it’s down to the player and there is no compensation etc

It’s why clubs tell players if they want to leave - put in a transfer request , it removes loyalty bonuses etc


Slime said:
I really hope something controversial happens in the Premier League this weekend, if only to change the subject matter away from Maguire.
Click to expand...

It will be back to Henderson soon
 
I really hope something controversial happens in the Premier League this weekend, if only to change the subject matter away from Maguire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hobbit
Another footie thread
2
Replies
36
Views
975
WorldHandicapSystem
W
road2ruin
Fantasy Footie 25/26
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
3K
Orikoru
Orikoru
C
Weather apps
2
Replies
20
Views
302
jim8flog
jim8flog
SwingsitlikeHogan
Rental Rights Act
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
jim8flog
jim8flog
jim8flog
Golf or football
2
Replies
33
Views
6K
Voyager EMH
Voyager EMH
Top