It makes no difference. If you earn £50k a week over a contract period of 4 years, you are a very wealthy man who never needs to work again.
Eden Hazard | "I am signing for Chelsea"
- Thread starter jdmufc
- 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
It makes no difference. If you earn £50k a week over a contract period of 4 years, you are a very wealthy man who never needs to work again.
That's a bizarre way of looking at it when there is an easier scale which most clubs follow. A percentage of revenue. And ours hasn't changed much at all.
Easy for you to say that, your perspective is that they're earning so much that anything more is irrelevant... for arguments sake I'm going to say you earn £30k a year, would you be interested in a 5k pay rise? I'd assume so.. by your logic, someone who is incredibly poor would say you're not interested because you're already rich compared to them.
Don't forget that a high wage usually means an expensive lifestyle, and that a footballers career ends before 40. Footballers have every right to seek the money they can get and actively do so IMO of course.
Our wage % has remained relatively constant (although it is a few % down), whilst our transfer spend has drastically reduced % wise.
I understand transfer spend reducing as players are now cheaper than they were 10 years ago (pro-rata), however we haven't compensated (as other clubs have) in the wage department. If a club for instance pays 50% of turnover on wages and 25% on transfers (theoretical scenario), if you change philosophy and pay 5-10% of turnover on transfers naturally you'd assume that wages would go up to c.65-70%. If it doesn't and the c.15-20% isn't being spent on a new stadium/new facilities etc, then it is disappearing.
If we could afford Rio/Veron/Rooney a decade ago, we could comfortably (in theory) afford Aguero/Toure/Silva without breaking a sweat.
You are deluded if you think you get to a set figure of earnings and think "I am now completely satisfied with my wage, why seek any more I am already very wealthy". If this was the case no company would ever make more than a few hundred grand a year profit as everyone would just sit back and be happy that they're rich.
The difference between £3m and £6m a year to a footballer is the same in their mind as the difference between 30k a year and 60k a year to someone else.
Sadly the agents seem to be able to blind their young clients to this fact, the players themselves only need to look at Hernandez to see how fast you can be rewarded at United if you deliver on your potential.
I think £80K would be a fair starting point given we'd have to offer a good wage to at least get him interested, if he can see beyond the pay cheque's thrown at him by other clubs he'd realize United take gifted young players like him to the elite level better than anyone and put his long term career ahead of short term monetary gain.
I get that, but it doesnt really clear things up.... is Hazard going to be the best or one of the best in his position? Otherwise 30m+ just does not add up.
Deluded no, speaking from both personal experience and common sense. There are lots of high earners who when have reached a level move on to more lifestyle jobs, where they can work with projects and things that they enjoy, without having to worry about being able to pay the mortgage.
If someone earnings millions think that the difference between earning 30k and 60k is the same as the difference between earning 3m and 6m, I pity those.
The high earners in company, from my experience, is not result-driven because of their salaries, but because they are winners.
It's called capitalism, supply and demand.
There are no inflated prices, we are just not competitive.
Would be 100% true if it were a perfectly competitive market with the same rules for everyone. City, Chelsea and many, even non sugar daddy clubs, are breaking their structures to get immediate success. We shouldn't compete with those. The effect of wages reverberates through the entire club. You can't just buy a player and put him on 150K and not expect the rest of the players to accept it.
They are employees who produce an incredible amount of economic output. Why the feck shouldn't top footballers get top money for filling stadia and selling shirts? The money they make pales compared to what the Glazers make.
If only we were not showered in debt from a leveraged buyout
Bullshit.
It isnt that. Its about clubs like City having endless cash which potential sellers are aware of. Hence the ridiculous prices that they charge which affects the market in general. The player in question then knows he can ask for outrageous wages and get them because city dont give a feck which again raises the wages that other players think they are deserving of.
Its still demand and supply though.
BTW football had always worked like that. You always had that rich guy who'll pay ridiculous prices for players whether he's Agnelli, Berlusconi, Moratti, Abramovich, the Maktoums or the Qatari guys.
Demand and supply for me means a player X being in demand by 2-3 different clubs hence spiralling his actual price upwards. that hasnt been the case with most of City's signings. No one would have paid what they dd for some of their players. It was just a case of them paying over the top for mediocre players. I've never had a problem with a club paying a tad over the top for top quality talent. Its city paying ridiculous amounts for the Lescotts and the Milner's of this world that is the problem.
Neither is supply and demand in any way responsible for the ridiculous wages they pay their players. adebayor at 200k? de jong refusing 100k? supply and demand my ass. No other club would pay them that and they know it. Its just city not giving a feck because of their limitless cash and other clubs suffering as a result of it.
But that's the norm in football. You've always had 1-2 rich tycoon that overspend on all others. For example back in the early 90s the EPL champions couldn't sign the star striker of a middle tier Serie A club because we couldnt afford his salary.
The player in question being arguably one of the best strikers of his generation if not the best. My point is precisely that. The best have always come at a price and high wages which is fair enough. What city have done is ridiculously inflate the market even for the average players. That is the major problem imo. Both in terms of transfer value and wages.
Even the de jongs of this world now think they deserve more than 100k a week. Is it really wrong if welbeck actually believes he should get 60k if not more? City have set a bad precedent. They wont really be affected by it but not many other clubs can afford to spend like city do when it comes to ridiculously average players.
Even the de jongs of this world now think they deserve more than 100k a week. Is it really wrong if welbeck actually believes he should get 60k if not more? City have set a bad precedent. They wont really be affected by it but not many other clubs can afford to spend like city do when it comes to ridiculously average players.
Don't you think that the Serie A didn't inflated the market back then? Batistuta and Dunga with Fiorentina, Maradona with Napoli, Voeller with Roma, Taffarel with Reggiana, Hagi with Brescia. At a time Milan had players like Brian Laudrup and Raducoiou constantly on the bench.
We were never the big guys in the transfer market but thanks to the EPL money we were able to compete better. Unfortunately thanks to the income tax rule in Spain + Malaga and Shitty we're back to square 1. We either revise our wage structure or else it will be hard to compete.
I dont think you're getting my point so i'l say it again.
I have no issues with clubs paying high wages to their best players. Its totally fine with me. Top players cost high transfer values and wages. Its the mediocre ones that city pay a lot for(to) that is my beef with them. That is the problem.
Am okay with city paying say 180k to silva. he's their star man. but i have serious issues if they pay 120k to a de jong in a new contract. that inflates the market for all average players. Much like them paying whatever they did to get the likes of lescott and milner to their club. they should never have gone for that much.
I have no issues with clubs paying high wages to their best players. Its totally fine with me. Top players cost high transfer values and wages. Its the mediocre ones that city pay a lot for(to) that is my beef with them. That is the problem.
Am okay with city paying say 180k to silva. he's their star man. but i have serious issues if they pay 120k to a de jong in a new contract. that inflates the market for all average players. Much like them paying whatever they did to get the likes of lescott and milner to their club. they should never have gone for that much.
Depends what sort of lifestyle you lead and how much you spend.
In the UK that'd be probably less than £1.5million a year net. If you pack in at 35 and live till 70 that's plenty for you and me but for a player used to spending £50k on watches and £200k on cars its not a fortune.
So what? - the point is that a lot of those transfers set new benchmarks.
Ferdinand for example was a huge figure for a defender in the PL - one which still hasn't been matched, and allowed clubs with young english talent to ask for even more money for their players.
My point is that when Fergie had more cash than anyone else he was more than happy to outbid other sides to get the players he wanted, often paying amazing sums for the time.
For the club or fans to moan now when other clubs want to do the same is, to my mind hypocritical, as United have done as much as any club to spike transfer fees over the years.
For me the club should be producing the majority of talent through a succesful youth policy - but its a fact that they will need to be able to compete at the top end of the market for players from time to time in order to maintain their success.
I could be wrong but to me the fact that the issues in midfield have not been addressed suggests that their is no significant funds available to do so and considering the money the club squeezes from the fans in record profits every year that pisses me off a bit.
Heh. You know when you see a posters name at the bottom of a thread and you know exactly what they're going to be saying before you even click on it?
I've read this kind of thing posted here many times, and can never understand it. If lack of funds was the reason why Fergie hasn't addressed the 'centre midfield problem', how was he fit to spend around £50million in the summer, on a 20 year old goalkeeper, a 19 year old centre half, and another winger, signings which we didn't really need. If he really had limited funds, and felt there was a deficiency in midfield, would he not have addressed that issue first, then made further signings with the change left over?
It isn't lack of funds, it is a lack of players available for anything near a reasonable price.
Hazard is a case in point, £35m plus probably 100 -150k a week for a player who has done feck all yet really. That is the problem, i don't think Fergie is willing to set that type of precedent. The alternative is spending 40-50m on the like of Modric or Sneijder and 150-200k a week.
Either scenario is not really that appealing. Which is why Fergie seems content to bide his time. I'm with you on this, i feel if the right player had been available at the right price last summer, then we would still have signed them, despite us already having spent £50m. So it's not about lack of funds, it is about not paying way over the odds imo.
we'd be better of buying that Darron Gibson lad from Everton, he looks very promising. sigh
Rooney was completely unproved basically and we broke the English transfer fee for him. £30m back then would get you a hell of a lot more than it would now as well!
If there is a truly special talent in the eyes of our scouts (proven or not), I'd like to think we can put forward that kind of money. not saying Hazard is that special of a talent, I haven't really seen him. I was just making a point really.
Rooney had just been one of the stars of Euro 2004, Hazard's recently been one of the main players blamed for not doing enough in the Euro qualifiers...there's a world of difference between the two in terms of what they'd done at the highest level.
There are lots of high earners that move on to more lifestyle jobs so that they enjoy what they do, totally agree. The difference is that footballers are already participating in a lifestyle job. Why get paid £80k a week to do something you love when an almost identical offer is on the table for double the pay.
If I had the choice of living my life in absolute luxury or living my life in absolute luxury and making sure my close relatives, kids, grandkids and great grandkids lived exceptionally comfortably I know which I'd choose.
You could argue it's selfish to take a few trophies in the short term over £10-15m extra for all your loved ones in the long term.
Before the Rooney affair I'd have agreed with you. However the situation with him has put to bed the myth that if a great player is signed on huge wages, every squad member would be knocking on the door asking for a pay-rise (either put the myth to bed or showed we don't care about it)
During the Summer we replaced a Goalkeeper with a Goalkeeper and 2 defenders with 1 defender, then bought Ashley Young. Fergie has already implied that the c. £16m for Jones has come out of next years transfer budget, whilst the Goalkeeper situation was more than obvious. I'm of the opinion that the Young signing was more opportunistic as he was coming to the end of his contract (although I still believe we overpaid). You often hear "how can we be skint, we've just spent £50m!!!!", but if you look at it objectively at absolute best we have a team that is nearly as strong as we had going into last season.
I think the wages are the real issue/problem however: De Gea, Jones and Young vs Brown, O'Shea, Obertan, Scholes (at the time) and VDS is certainly a net wage decrease. As I said earlier I am of the opinion that setting wages strictly at 50% of turnover, whilst admirable, is only allowing us to buy bright prospects and squad players, not the top drawer "first name on the team-sheet" caliber of player we require.
My point was that if lack of money were really an issue we'd have not bothered selling on O'Shea or Brown, meaning we wouldn't have needed to sign a 19 year old centre half for over £16million. We also surely would've gone into the new season with PIG, Lindegaard and Amos as our keepers, or signed a lesser priced alternative, rather than the second highest transfer fee ever for a goalkeeper. And we wouldn't have signed Young. If money was the issue we'd have siged a midfielder, addressed the need we had, and signed nothing more, kept what we have.
We didn't do that, we signed players in other area's, that weren't really what we needed if you will, or more precisely, they weren't necessity signings, which makes me think money, or lack thereof, is not the issue.
And as for wages being the issue, that may be, but it still doesn't explain why we didnt sign a midfielder. If Fergie thought midfield was a problem, could he not have taken the fee spent on Young, and his weekly wage, and signed a bright prospect/squad player midfielder, who surely wouldn't have cost any more than Young, or wouldn't be on any higher a weekly wage?
My belief then, based on what happened over the summer, is that Fergie doesn't see a real issue with the midfield, or doesn't see the solution to any problem he see's out there. It doesn't look to me like lack of money is preventing him signing someone in the midfield area, so it can only be his choice, and not Glazer holding him to a tight budget.
This is how i see it too. Its not lack of funds per se but unavailability of quality we want at the prices we're willing to pay.
SAF will bide his time i feel till the summer. He's almost certain to buy a CM then i reckon. Scholes coming back from retirement is all proof you'd need. Injuries played a part, yes, but we're short on numbers and quality there and SAF knows it. Hence our interest in both sneijder and nasri.
I'm making an assumption based on the fact that every man and his dog can see we need midfield investment.
As posted above - we needed a keeper and with Ferdinand getting on (and suffering from injuires a lot over the last few seasons) a centre back was smart buy - I also think Fergie's hand was forced by interest from other clubs.
Young is a good player at a reduced fee, which gives us three established wingers - hardly overburdened with players in that role.
I alsomake my assumption on the fact that when he's had to spend massive sums before, he's been willing to do it. I suspect that he wanted a certain player and/or players and the club simply can't afford them, so rather than buy average player he hasn't bothered.
We didn't need to sign the second most expensive keeper in football history though, that's my point. Signing a 20 year old keeper at around £20 million, a 19 year old centre half (who wouldn't have been guaranteed to be first choice) at around £16 million (less than a year after signing a 20 year old centre half for around £10million) and a third winger at around £16million isn't what a club with no money to spend does. He could have found cheaper alternatives elsewhere, and focused on midfield. He didn't, he focused his whole transfer kitty on area's other than midfield, leaving the only possible conclusion, that he doesn't see a problem with his midfield options.
He already spent big one Ando years ago. When fit, he does look like he's coming around nicely. There's Carrick who he obviously trusts. And then there's the emergence of Cleverley. It's not as bad as the doom mongers believed.
If we didn't have the money, we wouldn't have spent 18m on Ashley Young. Valencia, Nani, Park, Giggs/Cleverley/Welbeck.. take your pick.
If we didn't have the money, we wouldn't have spent 18m on Ashley Young. Valencia, Nani, Park, Giggs/Cleverley/Welbeck.. take your pick.
Clearly we disagree.
He has spent big on a keeper because he probably had to in order to get the player he wanted. He can justify that sum because the lad is young and if succesful will either be a long term investment (making the actual fee minimal) or produce a return in the future if sold.
Young was necessary to give stregth in depth with only Valencia and Nani as real wingers but was still a shrewd buy - a player who would have gone for a lot more had his contract been running down.
All were, in my opinion, good signings but it highlights that money is there for certain players - seemingly young with potential sell on value, or shortly out of contract. Young excepted they're probabaly also on less wages than a lot of the squad - a wage bill which will have been reduced significantly by the players shorn last year.
The midfield situation is different - United have been spoilt with the class of Scholes and Giggs and haven't needed to buy top players to fit straight in in the past. Now (in my opinion) they do.
Top established players don't cost £20 million, they cost more, want more wages and often have little sell on value past the end of one long contract - and that's where the problem lies.
I may be proven wrong and the club may invest but I fear that if they don't and the current trend continues they'll eventually suffer and fall behind other top European sides.
Young was in no way necessary. If anything his signing would be the only real indication that we do have funds available, 18m and 110k a week wages? I sincerely hope Fergie wouldn't have spent that money on him if it would mean he wouldn't have enough left to buy a midfielder too, otherwise it's an utterly baffling signing.
There is a difference between having to be very shrewd in the transfer market and being totally inept to the point of harm.
Keeping Brown/O'Shea whilst not buying Jones would have just delayed the need to buy a defender for another 1-2 years (which Fergie would have done had other teams not moved for Jones this window). It is highly doubtful that a defender with the potential of Jones would be available in 2 years at £16m. Getting rid of 2 and bringing in 1 whilst only spending £16m was exceptionally shrewd.
The same applies reference the Goalkeeper situation. He was never going to rely on Kuszczak & Amos as backups for the at the time a totally unproven Lindegaard. That would be absolutely retarded, not shrewd. He went in for a very talented young Goalkeeper who he felt could be our number one for 20 odd years.
The Young situation is a bit bizarre in my opinion, as I felt he was only ever a £15m player irrespective of contract situation. Fergie obviously felt he was a much better player who was available at a bargain £17m. I can't honestly believe that he is on £110k+ a week, despite it being quoted everywhere, although again if Fergie rated him as a £25m player maybe it is true.
I honestly believe the situation with midfield is such that Fergie could easily have brought in a bright prospect who might be good in 3~ years, but he has already done that with Anderson and already has Cleverley who he feels will be ready in a season or two. I think Fergie knew that we needed to solve the problems right now, but also knew he couldn't go out and pay the £30m transfer fee along with £160k+ a week in wages needed to do so.
He gambled that Anderson would step up, Cleverley would take to our team like a duck to water, Giggs would continue to defy the aging process and Carrick would improve drastically/become consistent, all whilst sustaining minimal injuries. In all fairness we have been quite fortunate that 2 of these 4 have occurred, but have still needed to bring Scholes out of retirement as cover.
I also think Fergie gambled that City would require another season to gel and that the weakening of Chelsea/Arsenal might allow us to win the league whilst not being as strong as we should be.
Pretty fair assessment imo finneh.
United only spent money they made and budgeted accordingly. Clubs bankrolled by billionaires don't. We were a PLC in the 90s and paid very little in salaries compared to other clubs in England and Europe. Your main point is seriously flawed.
- Status