Valdes not invited to UNICEF Charity Dinner | Calm down it's for first team squad and coaches

The one thing which puzzles me about this bloody saga is this: If it's true that Valdes turned into a real pest at one point, undermining Hoek and so forth, why wasn't he fecked off regardless of his contract status? I mean, what sort of contract is this twat on? Surely, you take a hit (what would, presumably, be a fairly moderate one for a club of our means) rather than letting him hang around in whatever capacity or non-capacity?

He may not be a liability in the true sense of the word, but he's an inconvenience and a bit of a bother - as this idiotic UNICEF nonsense proves. We have zero interest in him as a player, that is obvious. He's no good for anyone in a non-playing capacity either, that at least seems obvious. So, why the hell is he still around? From an outsider's POV it seems like the sound move was to terminate his contract and pay him whatever he was due, the rationale being that the guy was a cancer and should be moved on for the good of morale - or whatever. What sort of money are we talking about in said scenario?
 
Chesterlestreet said:
The one thing which puzzles me about this bloody saga is this: If it's true that Valdes turned into a real pest at one point, undermining Hoek and so forth, why wasn't he fecked off regardless of his contract status? I mean, what sort of contract is this twat on? Surely, you take a hit (what would, presumably, be a fairly moderate one for a club of our means) rather than letting him hang around in whatever capacity or non-capacity?

He may not be a liability in the true sense of the word, but he's an inconvenience and a bit of a bother - as this idiotic UNICEF nonsense proves. We have zero interest in him as a player, that is obvious. He's no good for anyone in a non-playing capacity either, that at least seems obvious. So, why the hell is he still around? From an outsider's POV it seems like the sound move was to terminate his contract and pay him whatever he was due, the rationale being that the guy was a cancer and should be moved on for the good of morale - or whatever. What sort of money are we talking about in said scenario?
Click to expand...
I think there was a Marca article that said Monaco are paying a part of his wages after breaking their pre-agreed move because of his injury. Valdes believed he was entitled to the salary that was initially agreed upon with Monaco, and they're paying compensation to make the difference, because we definitely wouldn't pay as much as Monaco initially said. Definitely not your average contract.
 
Hojoon said:
I think there was a Marca article that said Monaco are paying a part of his wages after breaking their pre-agreed move because of his injury. Valdes believed he was entitled to the salary that was initially agreed upon with Monaco, and they're paying compensation to make the difference, because we definitely wouldn't pay as much as Monaco initially said. Definitely not your average contract.
Click to expand...

Well, that would go some way towards explaining it. I mean, if some sort of twist between United and Monaco is part of the equation. That could make it harder to just kick him out the door.

Will be good to finally see the back of him no matter what the explanation is.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
The one thing which puzzles me about this bloody saga is this: If it's true that Valdes turned into a real pest at one point, undermining Hoek and so forth, why wasn't he fecked off regardless of his contract status? I mean, what sort of contract is this twat on? Surely, you take a hit (what would, presumably, be a fairly moderate one for a club of our means) rather than letting him hang around in whatever capacity or non-capacity?

He may not be a liability in the true sense of the word, but he's an inconvenience and a bit of a bother - as this idiotic UNICEF nonsense proves. We have zero interest in him as a player, that is obvious. He's no good for anyone in a non-playing capacity either, that at least seems obvious. So, why the hell is he still around? From an outsider's POV it seems like the sound move was to terminate his contract and pay him whatever he was due, the rationale being that the guy was a cancer and should be moved on for the good of morale - or whatever. What sort of money are we talking about in said scenario?
Click to expand...

Thought part of it is to ensure he doesn't join a rival this year.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
The one thing which puzzles me about this bloody saga is this: If it's true that Valdes turned into a real pest at one point, undermining Hoek and so forth, why wasn't he fecked off regardless of his contract status? I mean, what sort of contract is this twat on? Surely, you take a hit (what would, presumably, be a fairly moderate one for a club of our means) rather than letting him hang around in whatever capacity or non-capacity?

He may not be a liability in the true sense of the word, but he's an inconvenience and a bit of a bother - as this idiotic UNICEF nonsense proves. We have zero interest in him as a player, that is obvious. He's no good for anyone in a non-playing capacity either, that at least seems obvious. So, why the hell is he still around? From an outsider's POV it seems like the sound move was to terminate his contract and pay him whatever he was due, the rationale being that the guy was a cancer and should be moved on for the good of morale - or whatever. What sort of money are we talking about in said scenario?
Click to expand...

In-house means in-house, and we should be seeing that as a good thing. Remember how disgusted people were when stories were being leaked (Rio?) during Moyes's time? The leaks have really been plugged if feck all detail about this has got out, and I think we should be happy about that. The one blot recently has been this "half a player" stuff.
 
unchanged_lineup said:
The leaks have really been plugged if feck all detail about this has got out, and I think we should be happy about that.
Click to expand...

If you mean the actual falling out between LVG and Valdes, then yes - no details have gotten out. While that may be a good thing as long as the fecker is still on our books, the question still remains why he IS on our books (still). To me he appears to be nothing but an instigator. But if there is some sort of technicality keeping us from simply releasing him (and paying whatever that costs), I guess we'll just have to accept it.

The whole saga is a bloody nuisance, though. He's brought absolutely nothing but bad press to the table since he first showed up.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
That could be, of course. Seems like overkill, though, if he's truly considered a pest. Where would he go? Liverpool?
Click to expand...

He sounds like exactly the type to go to Liverpool just to piss us off.
But regardless, it makes no sense to pay his contract out AND let him join a rival.

Keep him away, keep paying his salary, and point out he's not part of the first team when his wife complains.
 
Surprised he's still around, let's hope he finds somewhere to play in Jan.
 
Can't say I'm impressed with how we've treated him. It was originally great PR in letting him rehab with us, but I personally think we've gone too far when I believe all he did was refuse to play with the U21's on some occasion(s). I've been to the U21 games, it must have been quite a come down from his Barca days!
 
m1tch said:
Can't say I'm impressed with how we've treated him. It was originally great PR in letting him rehab with us, but I personally think we've gone too far when I believe all he did was refuse to play with the U21's on some occasion(s). I've been to the U21 games, it must have been quite a come down from his Barca days!
Click to expand...

Not really.Read @jb8521's post on the previous page.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.