The Footie Thread

[Swango1980]

Clubs negotiate when players move club. They all do it. Clearly, Utd did not really see a future for Rashford at the club, nor did Rashford see his future there. So, they negotiated a loan deal with Villa, and what proportion of the wages they'd cover. Once that was sorted, Man Utd were happy that they are getting a large chunk of his salary covered, and Villa were happy because they got a player at a price they were willing to pay.

Once the season ends, more negotiations will occur. If Rashford had a stinker, Utd would be on the back foot. If Rashford became the greatest player that ever lived in his short time at Villa, Man Utd would be in a better position. Either way, if Villa want Rashford they will have a maximum value in mind. And if Utd want rid, they will have a minimum value. Either they agree, or they do not. If it gets to the last minute with no transfer, but one club desperately wants it to happen, they may blink first. Either Villa willing to pay more, or Utd reducing their demands.

It seems strange that Utd get criticised for paying way too much for players, and also being an awful selling club. Yet, when they decide NOT to by a player because they feel it is too much to pay (Branthwaite), or when they look to get a better deal for a player they are selling (Rashford), they also get criticised.

They tried the same with Maguire. Manager stripped him of captaincy and told him to find another club. We had deal agreed they got tight on not honouring his new contract .. sorry you make a contract he has a right to it .. you pay him off if you want him gone. Deal falls apart. Luckily for them he is a very very professional footballer and just got on with it.

Sometimes you just have to cut a loss

Harry Maguire ultimately didn't want to go, and Man Utd obviously didn't feel strongly enough that he had to go to pay off his contract, so he stayed. I'd say that worked out well for Man Utd, and not too bad for Maguire. If West Ham wanted him even more badly, they could have offered more money. But they obviously had their price.

 

[PJ87]

Clubs negotiate when players move club. They all do it. Clearly, Utd did not really see a future for Rashford at the club, nor did Rashford see his future there. So, they negotiated a loan deal with Villa, and what proportion of the wages they'd cover. Once that was sorted, Man Utd were happy that they are getting a large chunk of his salary covered, and Villa were happy because they got a player at a price they were willing to pay.

Once the season ends, more negotiations will occur. If Rashford had a stinker, Utd would be on the back foot. If Rashford became the greatest player that ever lived in his short time at Villa, Man Utd would be in a better position. Either way, if Villa want Rashford they will have a maximum value in mind. And if Utd want rid, they will have a minimum value. Either they agree, or they do not. If it gets to the last minute with no transfer, but one club desperately wants it to happen, they may blink first. Either Villa willing to pay more, or Utd reducing their demands.

It seems strange that Utd get criticised for paying way too much for players, and also being an awful selling club. Yet, when they decide NOT to by a player because they feel it is too much to pay (Branthwaite), or when they look to get a better deal for a player they are selling (Rashford), they also get criticised.


Harry Maguire ultimately didn't want to go, and Man Utd obviously didn't feel strongly enough that he had to go to pay off his contract, so he stayed. I'd say that worked out well for Man Utd, and not too bad for Maguire. If West Ham wanted him even more badly, they could have offered more money. But they obviously had their price.

Sorry but you are incorrect on the last bit. No way should a club pay the pay off for another clubs mistake in offering a new contract to a player for meeting conditions

Your club is very poorly run and you are tied down by these contracts. Why should any other club pay the fee to the player? Either you lower the price asking for them so they can pay or you pay them as the contract is with you and the player.

You were expecting harry to walk away out of pocket or have the buying club pick up the tab

Not a chance.

You make these deals you honour them. That's business

 

[Don Barzini]

They have a history of being stubborn over transfers though

We loaned lingard and let's be honest the fit was perfect. We kept trying to get him back following year but they wanted more and more money so we moved onto other targets and he left for free the next year

Agree with this. We really wanted Dean Henderson and James Garner on permanent deals once they'd had their loans with us. But they dicked us about mercilessly and in the end we had to walk away and look elsewhere.

In amusing contrast though, the deal for Anthony Elanga went off pretty seamlessly and we've turned him into something better than anyone else they've got at their club in his position!

 

[Swango1980]

Sorry but you are incorrect on the last bit. No way should a club pay the pay off for another clubs mistake in offering a new contract to a player for meeting conditions

Your club is very poorly run and you are tied down by these contracts. Why should any other club pay the fee to the player? Either you lower the price asking for them so they can pay or you pay them as the contract is with you and the player.

You were expecting harry to walk away out of pocket or have the buying club pick up the tab

Not a chance.

You make these deals you honour them. That's business

That isn't what I was saying.

I was saying that if West Ham really really wanted him, pay more. Offer Utd a fee they can't refuse, and a fee that means Utd are happy to pay off Maguire's contract. Ultimately, If Man Utd don't feel it makes financial sense to them to pay off Maguire's contract, they have no requirement to sell. If Maguire has no desire to leave Man Utd, he has no requirement to go. And if West Ham don't want to pay a certain fee, they have no requirement to buy.

We all know that Man Utd have made many poor decisions, especially under the previous regime. It doesn't mean that the old regime, or the new regime, have to bend over backwards every time another club tell them what they must do. It seems to have worked out pretty well for Maguire and Man Utd that he stayed, so it is one outcome that we can actually look at in hindsight and say it worked out reasonably well for us.

Regarding the last sentence, Utd are honoring the contract they made with Maguire.

 

[PJ87]

That isn't what I was saying.

I was saying that if West Ham really really wanted him, pay more. Offer Utd a fee they can't refuse, and a fee that means Utd are happy to pay off Maguire's contract. Ultimately, If Man Utd don't feel it makes financial sense to them to pay off Maguire's contract, they have no requirement to sell. If Maguire has no desire to leave Man Utd, he has no requirement to go. And if West Ham don't want to pay a certain fee, they have no requirement to buy.

We all know that Man Utd have made many poor decisions, especially under the previous regime. It doesn't mean that the old regime, or the new regime, have to bend over backwards every time another club tell them what they must do. It seems to have worked out pretty well for Maguire and Man Utd that he stayed, so it is one outcome that we can actually look at in hindsight and say it worked out reasonably well for us.

Regarding the last sentence, Utd are honoring the contract they made with Maguire.

Just reinforcing the arrogance of man united

30 million for a 30 year old the manager has told to find another club

A fee I will add was accepted however the deal fell apart over this bonus.

If a club wants a player out they have to be flexible.

 

[PJ87]

Agree with this. We really wanted Dean Henderson and James Garner on permanent deals once they'd had their loans with us. But they dicked us about mercilessly and in the end we had to walk away and look elsewhere.

In amusing contrast though, the deal for Anthony Elanga went off pretty seamlessly and we've turned him into something better than anyone else they've got at their club in his position!

Unfortunately "big" clubs flex their muscles with transfers out. Man united just finding out they aren't the force they were IE clubs won't bow to their demands.

The Micky's used to (not sure they can do anymore with the rules now days) have massive clauses in their loans over appearances in the team etc .. we signed Neil meller on loan back in the day from them and we picked him up at the services , met the team on the bus and straight in the line up over David Connelly (annoying him) because those were the deal terms

It's why Sheffield united bought Brewster off them as they gambled it would be cheaper than paying all the fines etc if they didn't play him on loan

 

[Swango1980]

Just reinforcing the arrogance of man united

30 million for a 30 year old the manager has told to find another club

A fee I will add was accepted however the deal fell apart over this bonus.

If a club wants a player out they have to be flexible.

It is not arrogance. You have already said, they've made big mistakes in a financial sense. They are paying for those mistakes. I'm not saying anyone SHOULD pay £30 million for a 30 year old centre back. Ultimately, a club values him at whatever price they want. That is why it is so hard for Utd to get rid of players. They have given them such huge contracts, that there is no value in another club buying them, and there is no value is Man Utd selling them. It also makes it difficult for a buying club. They can't just come in and come to a nice easy agreement, because Utd have put themselves into that mess in the first place.

I can't say they've done too badly this winter, in all honesty. Just for numbers in the squad, we could have probably just kept Rashford, Antony and Malacia. Especially as 2 of them were on very high salaries, it was always going to be tough to get another club to take them. But, they managed to negotiate with Villa to pay 75% of Rashford's salary, Real Betis to pay 70% of Antony's and PSV to pay 50% of Malacia's. So, although Utd are still paying for players not available to them (paying the price of giving them huge contracts in the first place), I reckon they are saving themselves just over £80 million in salaries, if the loan deals are over a 20 week period, compared to keeping them and having them play intermittently throughout the second half of the season.

 

[Billysboots]

Unfortunately "big" clubs flex their muscles with transfers out. Man united just finding out they aren't the force they were IE clubs won't bow to their demands.

I hope you can see the hilarious irony in that comment. Clubs have been having United’s pants down for at least 20 years whenever we’re interested in a player.

Whilst recently the club have paid over the odds because those in charge of transfer negotiations have been inept, for years United have paid a premium because selling clubs knew we’d pay top dollar.

Take the blinkers off.

 

[Swango1980]

Unfortunately "big" clubs flex their muscles with transfers out. Man united just finding out they aren't the force they were IE clubs won't bow to their demands.

The Micky's used to (not sure they can do anymore with the rules now days) have massive clauses in their loans over appearances in the team etc .. we signed Neil meller on loan back in the day from them and we picked him up at the services , met the team on the bus and straight in the line up over David Connelly (annoying him) because those were the deal terms

It's why Sheffield united bought Brewster off them as they gambled it would be cheaper than paying all the fines etc if they didn't play him on loan

I'd say Man Utd have been aware of this for a very long time. To me, it feels like they have an inferiority complex compared to many of the other big / wealthy sides when it comes to transfers.

When we talk about big player transfers, I'm trying to think of the last time Man Utd would even dare consider themselves worthy enough to even try and bid against other teams? Pogba potentially, and even Pogba had past links to Man Utd so that made it easier I guess. They certainly seemed to have no desire to get in the market for players like Kane, Rice, Haaland, Bellngham, etc. because they pretty much know or believe these players will not come. Instead they go for average players or players with potential, and pay extortionate prices for them. I'd say it has been other clubs that have taken advantage of Utd for a very long time, and perhaps now Utd are going to be harder for other clubs to rip off? As a fan, I certainly hope that will be the case anyway. But it'll be difficult as other clubs will have expectations. Even players have expectations. For example, if reports are correct and Mainoo is asking for £200,000 a week, would a 19 year old demand that at any other club?

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Unfortunately "big" clubs flex their muscles with transfers out. Man united just finding out they aren't the force they were IE clubs won't bow to their demandsThe Micky's used to (not sure they can do anymore with the rules now days) have massive clauses in their loans over appearances in the team etc .. we signed Neil meller on loan back in the day from them and we picked him up at the services , met the team on the bus and straight in the line up over David Connelly (annoying him) because those were the deal terms

It's why Sheffield united bought Brewster off them as they gambled it would be cheaper than paying all the fines etc if they didn't play him on loan

Can we stop with the derogatory comments

I hope you can see the hilarious irony in that comment. Clubs have been having United’s pants down for at least 20 years whenever we’re interested in a player.

Whilst recently the club have paid over the odds because those in charge of transfer negotiations have been inept, for years United have paid a premium because selling clubs knew we’d pay top dollar.

Take the blinkers off.

West Ham didn’t mind when they upped the price when big clubs come calling for their players

Not sure why they would expect clubs to sell them players on the cheap

 

[PJ87]

Can we stop with the derogatory comments


West Ham didn’t mind when they upped the price when big clubs come calling for their players

Not sure why they would expect clubs to sell them players on the cheap

Phillip considering you are the self imposed king of Google you fail to understand what Mickey mousers actually means don't you.

Google it.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

I heard an interesting discussion in regards Salah last night

This season he has been by far the best player in Europe , think it was 3 games in Prem and CL where he didn’t either score or provide an assist

Until the last 4 games where he has been nowhere near the level before

He isn’t injured so they were discussing reason why such a sudden drop off ( the final was his worst performance in a Liverpool shirt )

And the discussion moved to Ramadan and the players fasting

They went back through his years and in most seasons he has a drop off at the same time when it’s Ramadan and he is fasting

I had a look back and you can see that Feb/March are his worst periods each season

Can world-class footballers maintain high level performances whilst fasting during Ramadan? - Sports Gazette

The quarter-final first leg of the tournament saw 10 goals scored across the four games. 60% of the goals were scored by Muslim footballers who are observing Ramadan.

sportsgazette.co.uk

It’s not something I thought of before and I wonder how top athletes cope with fasting - there are some that say it helps and for some it hinders

So do we see it in any other players for teams - the other player currently we have is Konate and he has been ok

Mane used to fast and it didn’t affect him at all

Can anyone think of others in their teams where potentially the fasting could be affecting them

 

[clubchamp98]

Phillip considering you are the self imposed king of Google you fail to understand what Mickey mousers actually means don't you.

Google it.

It has an Irish twist in Liverpool though are you aware of that.

Dosnt bother me but might bother some people.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Phillip considering you are the self imposed king of Google you fail to understand what Mickey mousers actually means don't you.

Google it.

I know exactly what it means

Urban Dictionary: mickey mouser

Derogatory term relating to natives of Liverpool uk (Scousers) Orig. Cockney rhyming slang (London uk) although widely used across the UK. Term makes fun of scousers cartoon-like: Character, appearance, use of language and squeeky accents.

www.urbandictionary.com

it’s seen as a derogatory term - please don’t use it

 

[Beezerk]

It has an Irish twist in Liverpool though are you aware of that.

Dosnt bother me but might bother some people.

I didn’t realise Walt Disney was Irish

 

[clubchamp98]

I didn’t realise Walt Disney was Irish

Only if you use the Mouser surname.

Micks was a derogatory term for Irish navvies working in England.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Let's leave out the name calling please. What might be harmless to some can be hurtful to others. Just stay away from it.

 

[Beezerk]

Only if you use the Mouser surname.

Micks was a derogatory term for Irish navvies working in England.

I think it’s a little convoluted to relate an Irish slang word to a cockney rhyming phrase but I’m no language historian.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Just showing the new Everton stadium

It does look impressive

 

[Lord Tyrion]

@Arthur Wedge we have Doucoure and Gueye who fast. They've talked about it previously and on the whole they / the club have managed things without any noticeable drop off in form. Saying that, players are individuals and what might affect one may not affect another.

What does surprise me, if Salah is affected, even by 5%, then the club need to manage that and sub him, use other players etc. They don't seem to do that too well.