It's just accounted for differently.
The Manchester United Club Thread
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
It's just accounted for differently.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 59,359
- Location
- Surrey
It sounds strange but not everyone is motivated solely by money. That is why players reject Saudi money.
Sorry, what?
It's not PAYE if it's paid as a fee is it?
True, sell them all to Saudi then. Good luck with that.
Any pay to a player still employed by the club, which would include players on loan would still be included in their wagebill. If the player has left the club and received a payment then it will potentially* be recorded as an exceptional item. I'm not sure the relevance of that to what I said though.
If a club sells or loans a player, even if they have to pay 90% of that players wages to get them to move, they've still saved 10%. And using real world examples, we can roughly estimate that Utd saved over £500k per week by loaning out 3 first team players in January, even after having to subsidise their pay.
*I say potentially as we know that when Klopp and co left Liverpool there were pay-offs of circa £10m that were included in the clubs overall wagebill rather than as an exceptional item.
Yeah. My original point being transferring any player does not, on it's own, negate any of the the wages that any club owes to a player for the duration of their contract.
"if they have to pay 90%" is up to the player, not the club.
It's all on an individual basis and entirely up to the player if they think they're better off out. Anyone think Rashford or Garnacho, or any of the rest of them are saying "oh, okay, I'll not take the money that's contractually obliged to me."?
Like any of them are gonna get a better offer.
Last edited:
What you originally said is quite clear and not what you're now saying. A player under contract will only leave if they are happy with the terms of their departure and choose to leave, that's not the same as what you said, that a club only saves money if the buying club pays a player more than he's already earning.
With exception to a tiny percentage of cases, where a club terminates a players contract and has to pay the balance in full, all outgoing transfers and loans save the selling club money to some degree.
But anyway I fear you're just going to keep digging and I'm going to bed so I'll leave it there.
Oh whatever. I stand by what I said, it's rare that players (people) don't expect their contracts to be fully paid up on completion/termination. There are exceptions. That's that.
Man Utd are not gonna save any money/wages just by selling their players. Man Utd will continue to pay them the difference unless they and their agents are financially illiterate as that money is already contractually bound. It would take a change in that for that to differ which would not include their transfer alone. okay?
It's not an exception. That's the norm, however it's dressed.
selling them alone does not equal saved wages.
Last edited:
What you're saying seems to mix two things together. Everyone accepts that not many clubs will be willing to match Rashford's existing salary, so Man U will probably have to make some sort of pay off before he accepts any new offer.
But any pay off will be significantly less than his remaining contract is worth. So they will of course save some money.
For simplicity, let's assume Rashford is on £12m per year and has two years left on his contract. If a club comes in and offers him a 2 year contract worth £9m per year, then he's probably unlikely to accept this offer. Utd might need to "pay him off", but in that case it would most likely be in the region of £6m (£3m per year that he'd 'lose' by accepting the new offer).
Yes, that £6m might be "accounted for differently", but Utd will have gone from potentially owing £24m in wages, to paying only £6m to the player. How can you argue that is not saving on wages?
But any pay off will be significantly less than his remaining contract is worth. So they will of course save some money.
For simplicity, let's assume Rashford is on £12m per year and has two years left on his contract. If a club comes in and offers him a 2 year contract worth £9m per year, then he's probably unlikely to accept this offer. Utd might need to "pay him off", but in that case it would most likely be in the region of £6m (£3m per year that he'd 'lose' by accepting the new offer).
Yes, that £6m might be "accounted for differently", but Utd will have gone from potentially owing £24m in wages, to paying only £6m to the player. How can you argue that is not saving on wages?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 59,359
- Location
- Surrey
Nobody is paying Garnacho 50k? Come on.
Even if that were true (it isn't) paying them the difference would still be a saving over paying the full amount. So basically you're talking crap you're just scared to admit it.
Last edited:
Yeah fine, clutch at whatever you want... Selling players and using their transfer fees to pay them off, "saves their wages".
Then you can spend the money you've "saved" on players of the same standard that your next manager will want shut of and you can "save" their wages too.
No wonder Man U are in so much financial trouble.
Then you can spend the money you've "saved" on players of the same standard that your next manager will want shut of and you can "save" their wages too.
No wonder Man U are in so much financial trouble.
Last edited:
I can’t believe you are genuinely arguing this point. The most basic of maths will tell you that selling a player saves you on their wages unless for some reason you decide to keep paying the wages of a player you no longer employ.
I would love for you to give us an example of how this isn’t the case though.
I would love for you to give us an example of how this isn’t the case though.
The only reason you can argue that you "save" on their wages is that you pay the rest of their contract up from money you receive from their transfer fee.
So lets take transfer fees out of the equation...
You sign a player for free and give him a 5 year contract. You then decide you no longer want them and "sell" them for free after 3 years... you still have to pay their contract for the remaining 2 years. Their registration and the contract are two entirely separate things.
So take Garnacho for instance. Yeah, you can say you're "saving" giving him 50k a week if you sell him, but in reality, you're still gonna be giving him the equivalent of it. He's not going to get any fewer 50ks a week. They'll just be being paid with the fee that you receive.
That's why players like Casimiero will be so hard to shift cos any transfer fees you get won't cover many £350ks a week will it?
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 59,359
- Location
- Surrey
Again this isn't true. The maximum you would have to pay is the remaining 2 years. Players agree less all the time. For example us with Ronaldo, or Arsenal with Aubameyang.
Other than that you clearly just can't work out numbers, if we sell Garnacho we're obviously not paying him 50k a week any more, we call that a saving.
Yeah, players do agree less, I'll concede that. Though it's not as common as them not agreeing less. Most players quite rightly when transferred want their contracts paid up in one way or another. Like most people do. Some people agree to less redundancy than they're entitled to as well for instance, but it's not common.
You'll not be paying Garnacho 50k a week cos you'll have already paid him all of the 50kpws that he's contracted for and I really can't see him ever agreeing to be paid less so I don't see why that's so hard to understand. It's all about how you want to see it I suppose. For me to think that's being saved would involve not paying him the money that you think you've saved but each to their own.
And to make things clear, as this is now getting boring, I'm not saying that Garnacho (for example) is going to be paid twice once he's gone. OR that he'll get a lump sum (though he might) but in the scheme of things Man U are still paying that contract one way or another, either with a lump sum to cover the difference if he's paid less at his new club (unlikely) or it'll be wrapped up within the terms of the transfer fee and loyalty bonuses etc. Either way Garnacho is still gonna be getting his 50kpw until his contract ends. If that's paid by his new club that money will be coming from a lesser transfer fee being paid to Man U. So it's not really a saving is it?
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 59,359
- Location
- Surrey
Translation: I'm wrong