The Manchester United Club Thread **Sponsored by Comedy Central**
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2020
- Posts
- 5,028
How the Glazer family cost Manchester United £1.2bn
Twenty years since the Glazer family bought Manchester United BBC Verify has found £1.2bn has been spent on debt interest, debt repayments, dividends and fees to the family.
www.bbc.co.uk
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 May 2004
- Posts
- 7,179
- Location
- Derby
if those 5 go, thats easy a cool circa £1m in wages a week saved surely.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 19,613
- Location
- LU7
Little bit more than that shirley? Rashford is probably highest earner on what £250-300k a week then Sancho next? I reckon best part of £600k a week between those two at least?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,555
- Location
- Surrey
It's not that much. Garnacho is only on 50k, and Antony is on about 100k. Doubt Malacia is on much
Probably about 1m once you start factoring all the other costs on top like employer nics/pension etc which I doubt gets included in the headline figures.
I still don’t see them all leaving though. Especially not whilst bringing in any decent fees.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 19,613
- Location
- LU7
Probably multiple aims for Utd: Free up squad spaces, reduce wage bill somewhat, get some kid of transfer fee, buy players suited to Amorim's playing style/formation
No-one saves wages by selling players, even if they let them go for free... Not unless the buying club pays the player more.
When a player is a sold, their contract is either cancelled by both parties, which happens in the case of a player getting a better deal at their new club, OR, the difference (or what is agreed to by the player) between the remaining contract they're on, and their contract at their new club is paid off, either in full, or instalments by the selling club.
Man Utd are not ever saving any of these wages. They might be able to account for them differently but that's about it.
When a player is a sold, their contract is either cancelled by both parties, which happens in the case of a player getting a better deal at their new club, OR, the difference (or what is agreed to by the player) between the remaining contract they're on, and their contract at their new club is paid off, either in full, or instalments by the selling club.
Man Utd are not ever saving any of these wages. They might be able to account for them differently but that's about it.
Last edited:
This makes no sense whatsoever. If Utd sell or loan these players to clubs foolish enough to match or better their contract with Utd then Utd will save that money
And re the posts above, those 5 players wages will almost certainly account for more than £1m. Reported wages these days are massively underestimated and you can fairly accurately calculate from their accounts that Utd's average first team wage is not far from £200k per week and while Garnacho and Malacia might be earning less than that, it will be more than made up for by what Rashford, Sancho and Antony are earning.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,555
- Location
- Surrey
So confidently wrong lol
This makes no sense whatsoever. If Utd sell or loan these players to clubs foolish enough to match or better their contract with Utd then Utd will save that money
And re the posts above, those 5 players wages will almost certainly account for more than £1m. Reported wages these days are massively underestimated and you can fairly accurately calculate from their accounts that Utd's average first team wage is not far from £200k per week and while Garnacho and Malacia might be earning less than that, it will be more than made up for by what Rashford, Sancho and Antony are earning.
It's total sense. And what you've said in your 2nd para has nothing to do with what I said
Why would a player who is contracted for £x a week/month or whatever go, "oh yeah, you've sold me... I'll be paid £y".
It's a contract. It lasts as long as the player is signed for. Unless the player accepts to take less money for the duration remaining (ie they get paid off), they don't sign off
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,555
- Location
- Surrey
So you think every player that is sold is getting paid by both his old club and his new club? 
So you think every player that is sold is getting paid by both his old club and his new club?
No, because that's not what I said.
Do you think players that are being paid £400k a week are happy to leave their jobs and be paid less?
It's so rare. Sometimes players are happy to do so for personal reasons, or maybe they think they can get into a World Cup squad or whatever, but they're not doing it cos Man Utd want to sell them. That's utterly ridiculous.
Same as any club, as soon as you pay a player the most amount that they think they'll ever get paid, you're stuck with them until the end of their contract. Unless you pay them off.
Same as any legal contract in any walk of life.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,555
- Location
- Surrey
You said nobody saves wages by selling players. So if the money isn't going to the player...where do you think it is going? Players take pay cuts to move clubs all the time.
Last edited:
Name one.
And specifically, name one that's on what they think is the best contract they'll ever get (which is what all of the players in question will think) that have.
And yes, the money that the player signs for on the dot, day 1, to day whatever, for the duration of the contract, is paid to the player, unless they agree otherwise. It's a contract.
Man Utd like any club may well be able to account for the money as non-wage but they'll still be paying Rashford's money right up till the last day stipulated in his contract, it'll be up to him if he accepts it differently than any other PAYE. Transferred to another club or not. When players take pay cuts, they usually either continue to be paid in instalments or a lump sum to pay their contract off.
Most of the time, players either sign new contracts, move on at the end of them, or sign better contracts. That's why people don't think about this.
Last edited:
No, it didn't make any sense. You said nobody saves money by selling players - that's a clear statement and one that's completely untrue.
Now you're seemingly referring specifically to examples where a player is offered less money elsewhere but it's still not true. Firstly, although not very often, players do sometimes take less pay to move on for varying reasons. Sometimes a player just wants to move so much that they'll accept less money but sometimes it makes financial sense for them to also because they may be getting a longer deal, which they might not get in 12 months time. However even if the selling club does have to subsidise the outgoing players wage, they've still saved a proportion of that players wage. You only have to look at Utd's Q2 and Q3 wagebill to see that. Now obviously there were savings from a couple of hundred staff who lost their jobs in there too but Utd's wagebill dropped by around £700k per week. Even if £200k of that was general staff, Utd still saved circa £500-600k (remembering to add back in Dorgu's wage) per week from loaning out and subsidising the wages of Rashford, Antony and Malacia.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,555
- Location
- Surrey
Griezmann. Martial took a paycut to join Lyon on loan too. Pretty sure Mbappe is on less than he was at PSG too. Henderson will be on less than he was on in Saudi etc etc
Ha, really?
You think Mbappe's accountant reckons he's earning less PA at Real Madrid?
I'm pretty sure Martial was paid off. Henderson is bonkers.
Last edited: