I blame everyone here for engaging. I couldn’t even be bothered reading that argument beyond the first few posts!
The Manchester United Club Thread **Sponsored by Comedy Central**
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
I blame everyone here for engaging. I couldn’t even be bothered reading that argument beyond the first few posts!
There is no argument, it's just people resorting to reductio ad absurdum. Of course wages "are saved" when players are sold, but they're nearly always paid for by the selling club in one way or another. I thought this was common knowledge but apparently not.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,555
- Location
- Surrey
Funny. yeah, like I said, reductio ad absurdum, cos yeah wages "are saved", but they're still paid in a different way.
What I should have said was clubs don't often save money by relieving themselves of having to pay a players weekly wages mid-contract. It's not a saving if you have to pay them anyway.
But then it's far more amusing to ignore that broader point and carry on thinking that it's a great idea to sell a load of players to save on wages isn't it Sir Jim?
What I should have said was clubs don't often save money by relieving themselves of having to pay a players weekly wages mid-contract. It's not a saving if you have to pay them anyway.
But then it's far more amusing to ignore that broader point and carry on thinking that it's a great idea to sell a load of players to save on wages isn't it Sir Jim?
Last edited:
The problem is your broader point is nonsense. It's incredibly rare (almost non existent at the highest level) that a club has to pay the entirety of a players contract up when they leave mid contract. Clubs will sometimes, and this will almost certainly apply to a number of players Utd let go this summer, have to subsidise a players wage or pay them a lump sum to leave however there will still be a net saving. And I demonstrated this by using Utd's quarterly accounts for last season. Even Utd trying to move on players on silly contracts and with buying/loaning clubs knowing Utd are desperate, they still saved hundreds of thousands per week even after having to pay a proportion of those players wages.
And before you say 'the money was accounted for elsewhere', no it was not.
And before you say 'the money was accounted for elsewhere', no it was not.
You don't have to pay them anyway. Lets do a really simple example.
Player A is on a 5 year contract worth £100k/week.
He is sold to Any Club FC after the 3rd year of his contract for £10m but they are only willing to pay him £50k/week. The player is happy to leave but unwilling to take any pay cut.
His current club says fine, we will pay you the difference for the remaining 2 years. They pay the player just over £5m.
If they hadn't done this, over those two years they would have paid him over £10m. They have saved £5m on wages and got a £10m transfer fee.
Please explain how selling him hasn't saved them money or has been paid in "a different way".
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,555
- Location
- Surrey
Yeah I'm pretty sure they aren't reading beyond the first word of each post
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 May 2004
- Posts
- 7,179
- Location
- Derby
Finally. Been following this discussion all day at work so couldn't really add anything to it, but your example sums up how it works. What Shami said, guess they only read the first word of any post
I can see the point he's trying to make. He's just jumped the gun a bit and presumed Man Utd are going to have to heavily subsidise the wages of these 5 players in order to get shot of them. Given what they earn now and their qualities as footballers, potential new clubs hold all the cards in any negotiations so he's somewhere near right. Still a saving though.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,555
- Location
- Surrey
That's not the point he's making though. He's claiming there are no wage savings when a player is saved, unless the player is paid more at their new club.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- newcastle
Even selling clubs hold the cards over Manu, look at the Mbeumo deal and how long it’s taken, you know they are going to pay exactly what Brentford wanted even after dragging it out for 2 months
Caporegime
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 28,782
- Location
- Boston, Lincolnshire
Who cares we are nothing but a mid table club. We will be in the Championship before the next decade 
.
.Who cares we are nothing but a mid table club. We will be in the Championship before the next decade
If we bring back Ole can we have old Adam cool dude who thought we were going to win the PL.
Well then clearly you don't. There is no saving!
Selling clubs always hold the cards. They don't have to sell a player in most cases. Its a negotiation. Arsenal have only just signed Zubamendi and thats been going on in the background for seemingly about 8 months. The difference is that no one really cares about Arsenals transfer dealings. Everyone loves to hear about United.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- newcastle
According to some of you lot, when “Manu” come calling, they dictate the termsWell then clearly you don't. There is no saving!
Selling clubs always hold the cards. They don't have to sell a player in most cases. Its a negotiation. Arsenal have only just signed Zubamendi and thats been going on in the background for seemingly about 8 months. The difference is that no one really cares about Arsenals transfer dealings. Everyone loves to hear about United.
Who? For at least 10 years we’re always paying over the odds and are shafted.
Some of us lot. Very common saying from United fans "we pay what we want and we get who we want". I'm always saying it.
We just don't want the best players or to pay reasonable amounts for players.