Rafael was given a chance to prove himself at 18 at right back. A 17yr old Macheda and 18yr old Welbeck was sent out to save our season in the match against Aston Villa. It's ridiculous to think that a 17yr old Messi wouldn't get his chance here.
Paul Pogba
- Thread starter dhstriker
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
- Status
Rafael was given a chance to prove himself at 18 at right back. A 17yr old Macheda and 18yr old Welbeck was sent out to save our season in the match against Aston Villa. It's ridiculous to think that a 17yr old Messi wouldn't get his chance here.
you're missing the point..
if he can't get in the mix when its at its slimmest pickings, then perhaps he is not as advanced as some of you would wish
theres way too much pressure on this lad, and this contract shit aint helping. He needs to give his agent the boot and concentrate on his football, he should be trying to make it impossible for the 1st team coach to ignore him rather than rocking the boat about non-football related stuff
Pexbo's talking a lot of sense here.
Footballers are paid according to how good they are now. Not how good they might become. Approaching this any differently would be madness. Their development is too unpredictable.
Remember when everyone was raving about Possebon? At that point in his career he had already contributed more than Pogba. Imagine if he'd been offered a long-term contract on a couple of million a year? We'd still be trying to get rid of him now. Like I said, madness.
Also have to point out the absurdity of the number of caftards demanding we break the bank for a player they've only seen play a couple of brief cameos.
Footballers are paid according to how good they are now. Not how good they might become. Approaching this any differently would be madness. Their development is too unpredictable.
Remember when everyone was raving about Possebon? At that point in his career he had already contributed more than Pogba. Imagine if he'd been offered a long-term contract on a couple of million a year? We'd still be trying to get rid of him now. Like I said, madness.
Also have to point out the absurdity of the number of caftards demanding we break the bank for a player they've only seen play a couple of brief cameos.
He'll be Paul Pogey if he keeps this crap up.
Wow.....nearly 200 pages for Morrison and Pogba
Well done Redcafe
Well done Redcafe
Yes Pexbo is talking a lot of sense but a lot people seem to be under the illusion contracts only talk about how much a player is paid each week. We could easily satisfy his demands with clauses such a appearance fees and a wage rise once he plays X games. There is a lot of room for manoeuvre here. I'm confident we'll thrash out a deal.
Excellent point! He looked a brilliant prospect.
If Earth were playing against Mars tomorrow would he be in your Earth squad though? That's the benchmark we have to judge players by these days. If he couldn't get a game against Mars then he's not worth a shit.
I think people are being slightly harsh on Pogba too, granted Possebon and Gibson looked impressive in the reserves but when was the last time you saw someone with his physique be that comfortable with the ball at the feet, please tell me.
Couldn't agree more...
Fergie already broke some of his well documented principles with a young Ryan Giggs. Pretty much answers your question.
You can't assume each player is Messi and offer wages according to that assumption though, just in case they really are. That's well beyond playing it safe. It's basically throwing money at your paranoid delusions.
Foolish and unsustainable.
Add to that, you pay your youngsters high wages and it doesn't leave enough in the pot to pay your top players the top end wages they expect. Then you lose them when they should be winning trophies for you.
(Arsenal)
Didn't someone post that Arse were paying youngsters up to double the £40K we are talking about?
This messi thing is stupid. If messi was here at that age we would have seen how good he was and played him. When has fergie ever been afraid to a play a youngster. He's always been a believer in if you're good enough you're old enough. That's another reason why I wouldn't give in to pogbas demands. He's clearly not good enough yet. Sure he looked decent against a beaten team but in two games against teams actually competing he struggled to have any impact and unlike Morrison he didn't show anything to make me excite personally. I'm sure he has plenty of talent but he's not ready to make that step yet. That's why it's not similar to pique or Rossi either. Pique was good enough to play, and he did but he had a lot of competition in his position an then got the chance to go home. Rossi also had competition though we probably dropped the ball there and should have played him more.
Somehow I doubt if Wenger has ever sanctioned that given that he's been so dogmatic about breaking their wage structure.In that regard I feel that he and SAF have more in common than we realise
They doubled the wage offer United were willing to give Ramsay by all accounts. I think it's well known they pay their young players very well.
Trying to imply that the club should have done better to offer Pogba a contract on the basis that he might be hypothetically a superstar is crazy IMO.To mention the likes of Rooney is an insult to him, not the same player, not the same ability and not the same importance.
Even if I was against all the money offered to Rooney for the renewal of his contract, at least it made a little sense as he was/is an important Man United player.What is Pogba ? He's a nobody so far
Even if I was against all the money offered to Rooney for the renewal of his contract, at least it made a little sense as he was/is an important Man United player.What is Pogba ? He's a nobody so far
In Ramsey's case I'm not surprised in terms of the time he was signed.He was one of the most sought after players.
Not so sure that's turned out to be such a wise investment...ah hindsight eh?
If you consider what we paid for bebe or even Anderson not including wages when you get a talent like pogba you'd be very silly to let him go if you have a choice (within reason)
Abou Diaby at Arsenal.
Currently surplus to their needs and impossible to sell due to the wages he's on.
It's different when you see that in an up and coming 18 year old though, that said I've always like Diaby for some reason.
They as good as tripled our wage offer. 20k per week versus 7k per week.
There is a pretense that the policy of the club is in some way consistently applied, but as I hope to highlight in this post, that is not necessarily the case.
To use the example of 19 year old Phil Jones (although there are any number of others), does anyone really believe that he was signed from Blackburn on a contract worth just £20k per week? Of course, Jones had appeared in Blackburn's first team for an entire season which is why several clubs were prepared to pay £16m for his signature.
But it's worth noting that Paul Pogba will never have that opportunity because he was prepared to leave his homeland and the club that developed him at 16 years of age in order to pursue a career at one of the biggest clubs in the world. Should Pogba go on to become a first team regular at Manchester United, the money saved in transfer fee alone (on the basis that it would have been similar to that of Jones) would pay his wages for roughly half of his eventual career at the club. Which is not bad considering that the club played only a secondary role in his development.
The point here is not that the clubs policy is unreasonable -- at least, not as a general principle. But we should not pretend that it is internally consistent or that it is the most altruistic expression of fairness and equality that has ever been devised. It is quite clearly a policy that is designed to benefit Manchester United first and foremost, both in sporting and financial terms. So, it should be unsurprising that such a general policy is not necessarily applicable in all circumstances.
And we can't have it all ways. If we wish to attract players at 16 years of age, knowing full well that it will be much harder for them to 'earn' the financial rewards of a first team squad member, while at the same time signing 18-19 year olds for tens of millions and offering them first team contracts on the basis of appearances with a team where it is much easier showacase their talent on the appropriate stage, we should expect these inconsistencies to be pointed out and possibly even for them to influence player behavior.
There are also two further problems with this policy. It may appear perfectly reasonable that a player should have to earn a contract worthy of a first team squad member, but there will likely always be a point at which an individual players contribution surpasses the market value of their current contract. In other words, it is inevitable that when a young player signs a multi-year contract the natural process of development and maturity -- should they develop at the expected rate -- will mean that the value of their talent and contribution exceeds their current remuneration at some point during that contract.
Now, to be fair, this is precisely why the club is willing to renegotiate so early in to a new contract, but that doesn't change the fact that one of the parties will lose out for an admittedly limited period of time, and that the clubs current policy -- whether by accident or design -- ensures that it is usually the player. That is, unless it is a player bought for a large fee, in which case the club is often prepared to pay a salary that far exceeds the players present contribution to Manchester United, and in the knowledge that it may take several years before that contribution respresents value for money.
Which leads me on to the second point of contention; that the policy inherently implies that the club does not believe/trust that any individual within the academy structure is likely to become a first team regular. No matter how long a player has been at the club, and no matter how highly rated they are, the club are not willing to place their trust in any individual player -- financially, at least -- until they have 'earned' it in the first team.
In one sense that is perfectly logical as the 'academy' structure and therefore the policy applies to groups and not individuals (and the clubs actions with respect to one individual can affect the group), but the club is nevertheless dealing with individuals, and the example of Phil Jones and many others shows that there is a disconnect between players that have been with the club for a period of time and those that are bought from elsewhere.
To use the example of 19 year old Phil Jones (although there are any number of others), does anyone really believe that he was signed from Blackburn on a contract worth just £20k per week? Of course, Jones had appeared in Blackburn's first team for an entire season which is why several clubs were prepared to pay £16m for his signature.
But it's worth noting that Paul Pogba will never have that opportunity because he was prepared to leave his homeland and the club that developed him at 16 years of age in order to pursue a career at one of the biggest clubs in the world. Should Pogba go on to become a first team regular at Manchester United, the money saved in transfer fee alone (on the basis that it would have been similar to that of Jones) would pay his wages for roughly half of his eventual career at the club. Which is not bad considering that the club played only a secondary role in his development.
The point here is not that the clubs policy is unreasonable -- at least, not as a general principle. But we should not pretend that it is internally consistent or that it is the most altruistic expression of fairness and equality that has ever been devised. It is quite clearly a policy that is designed to benefit Manchester United first and foremost, both in sporting and financial terms. So, it should be unsurprising that such a general policy is not necessarily applicable in all circumstances.
And we can't have it all ways. If we wish to attract players at 16 years of age, knowing full well that it will be much harder for them to 'earn' the financial rewards of a first team squad member, while at the same time signing 18-19 year olds for tens of millions and offering them first team contracts on the basis of appearances with a team where it is much easier showacase their talent on the appropriate stage, we should expect these inconsistencies to be pointed out and possibly even for them to influence player behavior.
There are also two further problems with this policy. It may appear perfectly reasonable that a player should have to earn a contract worthy of a first team squad member, but there will likely always be a point at which an individual players contribution surpasses the market value of their current contract. In other words, it is inevitable that when a young player signs a multi-year contract the natural process of development and maturity -- should they develop at the expected rate -- will mean that the value of their talent and contribution exceeds their current remuneration at some point during that contract.
Now, to be fair, this is precisely why the club is willing to renegotiate so early in to a new contract, but that doesn't change the fact that one of the parties will lose out for an admittedly limited period of time, and that the clubs current policy -- whether by accident or design -- ensures that it is usually the player. That is, unless it is a player bought for a large fee, in which case the club is often prepared to pay a salary that far exceeds the players present contribution to Manchester United, and in the knowledge that it may take several years before that contribution respresents value for money.
Which leads me on to the second point of contention; that the policy inherently implies that the club does not believe/trust that any individual within the academy structure is likely to become a first team regular. No matter how long a player has been at the club, and no matter how highly rated they are, the club are not willing to place their trust in any individual player -- financially, at least -- until they have 'earned' it in the first team.
In one sense that is perfectly logical as the 'academy' structure and therefore the policy applies to groups and not individuals (and the clubs actions with respect to one individual can affect the group), but the club is nevertheless dealing with individuals, and the example of Phil Jones and many others shows that there is a disconnect between players that have been with the club for a period of time and those that are bought from elsewhere.
Well done Joga. I was going to come in and raise a similar point about Smalling. He'd proven feck all but I bet he got a good deal. Like you said, Pogba is in this situation because he is already here and we think our history should be enough to convince him to accept what he is given.
Good post!.
My take on this is that every case is individual and if we want to keep Pogba we need to give him close to market value. As a United supporter I don't like his agent but he do his job properly when he tries to negotiate best possible deal for his client. What else can he do?
Without being disrespectful but our wage structure is irrelevant when a player renegotiate his contract. His options is what other clubs can offer and not what we paid other squad members, and that's how it works in a open market.
We don't know nothing if another club is interested in Pogba, or willing to pay more then us, but if there is a club willing to give him a better contract then we do then it's up to us to match this bid or take the chance to lose the player.
Smalling was on £25k when he first signed for us, then after the first season signed a new deal worth £50k - Smalling pens new United deal | The Sun |Sport|Football
Jones is rumoured to have come here straight on around £50k/week.
Macheda would have been on around £15k max when he was 18, probably a fair bit less.
Jones got a good deal there, but that's fair enough I suppose.
I just feel that if we were signing Pogba this summer then he would come in more than £20k. To be fair, that's not as bad an offer as I thought he would have so I was wrong there. I can still understand why the situation is tricky as both sides have a good argument as to why they believe Pogba should be on what they are saying.
As usual Joga makes some excellent points.
The problem however (as I highlighted in a previous post) is that by making an exception for one player, you open the floodgates for a domino effect of players demanding higher wages, and the overall cost becomes far greater than simply replacing the original greedy player with a more established "star" for whom the higher wage is accepted by the rest of the squad.
Having said that however, it is true that by signing players at a young age BEFORE they have become established first teamers (here or at another club) we then seem to be essentially punishing those players for NOT signing for a lesser club where they would get first team action from an earlier age.
Ultimately, the only question that matters is do united think Pogba is worth breaking policy for? I think that factor in itself may be just as important to the player as the actual wage - for the club to show that level of trust to be WILLING to break policy for him.
The problem however (as I highlighted in a previous post) is that by making an exception for one player, you open the floodgates for a domino effect of players demanding higher wages, and the overall cost becomes far greater than simply replacing the original greedy player with a more established "star" for whom the higher wage is accepted by the rest of the squad.
Having said that however, it is true that by signing players at a young age BEFORE they have become established first teamers (here or at another club) we then seem to be essentially punishing those players for NOT signing for a lesser club where they would get first team action from an earlier age.
Ultimately, the only question that matters is do united think Pogba is worth breaking policy for? I think that factor in itself may be just as important to the player as the actual wage - for the club to show that level of trust to be WILLING to break policy for him.
Welcome to madness. That's what happens in all other sports and football is behind in that sense. Now that billionaires are buying up clubs, young footballers will begin to be paid for their potential. That's just how it's going to work. You can except the reality and adjust accordingly or stick your head in the sand and be left behind.
Take a look at Arsenal. That's a club that hasn't adjusted to reality for almost a decade now.
You can't compare to jones and smalling though. This isn't about age it's about standing in the game. Both those players had shown their potential in the premier league itself. They weren't some kids we poached from someone else's reserves. Pogba has literally done nothing. He's shown potential in the reserves but not shown enough to start breaking into the first team squad, not even as a regular sub or even an infrequent one. In his two most testing appearances for us he's looked average. I'm not aware of him looking great at any international yourh tournaments. If he comes in and does well he'll get rewarded as such.
It's pretty much how I see the situation without ever matching your eloquence in my posts.
I do agree with most of that except I don't think Smalling had proven anything. He'd come from non-league football and played a couple of good performances before we signed him. Once we signed him he played now and then and looked shaky at times.
Erm.... You forgot cleverley
True but he'd still shown that he could play in the premier league if he needed some refining. That's still more than Pogba.
Going to joga's post I think he makes some good arguments but the flip side is that fergie and co see Pogba everyday in training. Sure for jones to break into blackburns team it's easier but i'm sure jones hasn't massively improved this season to last and I think he'd have got games for us last season as well. What I mean is that regardless of what team jones was playing in he was good enough to be a contributing member of our first team squad. Pogba is watched by fergie everyday and trains with and against our players. If he was showing enough to merit contention for a spot or even minutes on the pitch I don't think for a second fergie wouldn't give it to him. We need an extra defensive option for carrick. Hell if he was at that level I don't think fergie would have played rafael and park in the middle against Blackburn.
I'm sure had we not had the injuries we've had fergie would have given Pogba more game time but the fact that he's had virtually none and bar one decent half hour has looked average in when he has, plus the fact that he was left out of the us tour squad tells me that Pogba isn't quite at that level yet to make that step up. And whilst that's the case he's not in a position to be making demands and I would aid if you gave in to a player who's done nothing in the game this far and justified nothing then you send a bad message.
He's been injured this whole time.
Did Smalling not sign on a relatively small wage initially (reportedly £25k), only to get a raise soon after impressing, much like Hernandez has done?
Could Pogba not sign on at the £20k allegedly offered, safe in the knowledge that if he puts the effort in and impresses then he would be rewarded for that effort, as past examples have shown?
He scored tonight for France u.19s
I'm of the opinion that had Pogba played for another club this season, he could have, at the very least, put in some good cameos as Smalling had done. I think we have tried very hard to involve Pogba more but he has been really unlucky with the games in which he was on the bench. If things had gone to plan then he could have had 5 or more appearances now in the league. Unfortunately it didn't work out as the first team wasn't getting the job done.
Although Pogba wasn't involved on the tour, I remember Fergie mentioning him in particular as one that he wanted to take but the numbers weren't right. He was involved in two friendlies once we had returned however. All in all, he has been unfortunate when you think about it.
He could and probably should. As has been said though, he may have better offers from elsewhere. If we are offering Pogba £20k a week and his agent is now entitled to 30%, that leaves Pogba on less than £14k. Obviously it's his fault for hiring the agent, though he may not have foreseen that the club would be unwilling to cover agent fees, which could be why he has been haggling for more to bring his own wage up. If his recently replaced agents are also entitled to a slice then you can see why, financially, our offer may not be financially viable to him.
There's too many if's and but's for us to guess the situation, but I can understand why this could be a tricky situation as Fergie has said himself.
This is not my intention for setting up such hypothetical question about the young Messi situation. Someone here mentioned before we should not break our wage structure for any young player (who hasn't proved himself in the team yet), but I think there should be some exceptional cases, whether justified or not. Yes changing the structure would means we could overpay for many nobody, or worst we could keep losing the best young talents.
- Status