The old Man Utd Thread

[a big boy]

Rooney's just expressing the concerns of most fans. That thanks to the Glazers' debt once Fergie, Scholes and Giggs have gone Mancherster United will soon no longer be able to compete at the highest level. The difference is unlike the fans it actually effects his career so he's chosen to move on, and for the exact same reason that he ditched Everton to move to you in the first place. The only people United fans should be angry at is the Glazers.

[phresh]

So you 100% believe Rooney that his sole reason for moving is because of a lack of ambition at the club?

[a big boy]

I think he wants to leave because he wants to win the league, the champion's league and make as much much money as he possibly can. The same reasons he left Everton to join you in the first place. And the same reasons so many other players over the years have chosen to join you.

[phresh]

We'll just have to agree to disagree as I think he chose the only excuse that he thought might get him some respite from the fans.

On a side note, the fans of Poznan (Cities opponents tonight) spent the afternoon visting Old Trafford

[a big boy]

So if not for money or for silverware why else would he want to leave?

United supporters are just experiencing the something fans of literally every other club in the country have had to at some point since the Premier League began.

[phresh]

Well, we're experiencing the same thing we did 5/6 years ago and then the same before that. Go back 5 years ago and the doom and gloom around the club was 10 times worse than it is now and that didn't end badly!

I wasn't suggesting he wouldn't be leaving for the money either sorry, that is most likely a part of it. I think personal problems are a big part of it.

[Liamness]

Ian Holloway's comments are right on the money. Of course there should be freedom of movement when contracts run out, but compensation should always, always be paid to the club they're leaving no matter the age of the player. It seems odd to me, that a player's price will go down as they near the end of their contract; are they suddenly any less valuable? Has the investment which the club has put into them suddenly diminished? As Holloway suggests, a devious player could just run their contract down, and pocket what would've been the fee as wages. By all means allow freedom of movement, but at least let contracts be worth something, and let clubs have some protection of their investment.

The only people United fans should be angry at is the Glazers.

Judging by the fact that most of the noise during the Buraspor game was anti-glazer, you don't need to tell them that. I still think it's misdirected though. It was always a possibility so I can't really be angry, I'm just disappointed. Regardless of his motivations he should not be able to engineer this situation; that's not the Glazers' fault, even if a lot of other things are.

[phresh]

How essential are transfer fees though? I'd have thought nearly every club in the top flight (and probably at least the Championship) make a loss on transfers outside of the occasional decent player being offloaded to one of the top PL clubs. If clubs didn't have to fork out such massive amount for players then clubs further down the league would be able to pay better wages to better players without having to fork out however many millions for the player in the first place. I hate banging on about Rugby Union because it has many faults but the movement of players between clubs isn't really one of them - there are pretty much no transfer fees and players often sign contracts with new clubs midway through the season and often end up playing against their new club. Depressingly, how many footballers are there that would be mature enough to handle that situation?

Transfer fees are often described as a way of filtering money down through the leagues, which it does to some extent but I believe it plays a much greater part in maintaining the status quo that see's a small number of teams dominate.

[Gabe]

Found Holloway's rant a bit odd, to be honest. Just why are footballers such a special case when it comes to contracts? If I don't want to stay at my job - for whatever reason - I can leave and join a competitor. Unless I was a director or had certain clauses that were legally binding then my ex-employer (however much they had spent on training and development) could do nothing about it. And that's the way the world works.

The fact that Rooney or any player can engineer a situation to go elsewhere is only because of the special status footballers have, which say you are *owned* by a club. I mean, how draconian is that? Holloway's bizarre comparison about having a house makes no sense; the only valid comparison he could make is the one that has been made before (crass though it is) - that footballers are slaves. Fantastically-well paid in many cases, but if you are telling people they are owned by somebody else who will control your movements, then you are a slave.

Saying players could be a bit more honest about why they wanted to go is another discussion.

[fat flatulent git]

Found Holloway's rant a bit odd, to be honest. Just why are footballers such a special case when it comes to contracts? If I don't want to stay at my job - for whatever reason - I can leave and join a competitor. Unless I was a director or had certain clauses that were legally binding then my ex-employer (however much they had spent on training and development) could do nothing about it. And that's the way the world works.

The fact that Rooney or any player can engineer a situation to go elsewhere is only because of the special status footballers have, which say you are *owned* by a club. I mean, how draconian is that? Holloway's bizarre comparison about having a house makes no sense; the only valid comparison he could make is the one that has been made before (crass though it is) - that footballers are slaves. Fantastically-well paid in many cases, but if you are telling people they are owned by somebody else who will control your movements, then you are a slave.

Saying players could be a bit more honest about why they wanted to go is another discussion.

Well, there's one slight difference between your job and being a footballer. I assume that when you got the job, your current employer didn't pay around 25 million quid to your previous employer plus sell-on fee for the priviledge of having you work there.

While I sort of see your point, no club would ever invest millions in a player if he were able to just hand his notice in and leave in a month. The professional game would need a complete shake-up.

Slaves are forced to work without compensation. Footballers are neither forced nor lacking in compensation. I see it more a case of "if you want to join this club and take this wage that 99% of people in the country can ever have wet dreams about, then you are making a commitment to do the job for a certain time period, which can't be gotten out of easily". The slave comparison doesn't work for me.

[DC Lemon]

Well, unlike Rooney, I'm no longer worried about the day Sir Alex leaves the club now I know he'll be replaced by the future Sir Ian Holloway. Oh, and the future Sir Ian Holloway will come if asked. He'll dump Blackpool like a bin bag full of mouldy tangerines.

[Rev]

Well, there's one slight difference between your job and being a footballer. I assume that when you got the job, your current employer didn't pay around 25 million quid to your previous employer plus sell-on fee for the priviledge of having you work there.

While I sort of see your point, no club would ever invest millions in a player if he were able to just hand his notice in and leave in a month. The professional game would need a complete shake-up.

Slaves are forced to work without compensation. Footballers are neither forced nor lacking in compensation. I see it more a case of "if you want to join this club and take this wage that 99% of people in the country can ever have wet dreams about, then you are making a commitment to do the job for a certain time period, which can't be gotten out of easily". The slave comparison doesn't work for me.

He's saying that his current employer didn't pay £25m for him though, he just moved there from the last place after applying for it. What need is there for the transfer fee? You play for Slough, you get noticed by Reading who offer you a payrise, so you hand in your notice and move on. You do well at Reading, Chelsea notice and offer you a payrise so you move there. After a few years, you're not performing as well so they offer you a paycut, but find out Reading would be willing to pay more so you hand in your notice and go back there.

What help is the transfer fee? It doesn't make Reading or Slough rich - it's only the top flight that receive the true value of a player. It doesn't keep a player at a club for longer - if someone with more money wants them, they'll move. It clearly doesn't limit clubs as to how many players they can afford to buy, nor does it prevent the top flight clubs from signing a ridiculous number of promising players. It might have worked for some of those things in the past, to an extent, but now it is just an odd system.

[christaylor]

How much money has Utd made as a result of Rooney being there though? That needs to be considered.

How many "Rooney" replica shirts have they sold at £40 a pop?

[NeoGeo]

You play for Slough, you get noticed by Reading who offer you a payrise, so you hand in your notice and move on. You do well at Reading, Chelsea notice and offer you a payrise so you move there. After a few years, you're not performing as well so they offer you a paycut, but find out Reading would be willing to pay more so you hand in your notice and go back there.

What help is the transfer fee? It doesn't make Reading or Slough rich - it's only the top flight that receive the true value of a player. It doesn't keep a player at a club for longer - if someone with more money wants them, they'll move. It clearly doesn't limit clubs as to how many players they can afford to buy, nor does it prevent the top flight clubs from signing a ridiculous number of promising players. It might have worked for some of those things in the past, to an extent, but now it is just an odd system.

I seem to be missing your point. Are you saying that "Slough" wouldn't benefit from "Reading" giving them a transfer fee? It might not make them rich but it all adds up to keeping clubs big or small in the black. I dare say it probaly helps smaller clubs even more as they can't bring in big sponsorship.

[fat flatulent git]

He's saying that his current employer didn't pay £25m for him though, he just moved there from the last place after applying for it. What need is there for the transfer fee? You play for Slough, you get noticed by Reading who offer you a payrise, so you hand in your notice and move on. You do well at Reading, Chelsea notice and offer you a payrise so you move there. After a few years, you're not performing as well so they offer you a paycut, but find out Reading would be willing to pay more so you hand in your notice and go back there.

What help is the transfer fee? It doesn't make Reading or Slough rich - it's only the top flight that receive the true value of a player. It doesn't keep a player at a club for longer - if someone with more money wants them, they'll move. It clearly doesn't limit clubs as to how many players they can afford to buy, nor does it prevent the top flight clubs from signing a ridiculous number of promising players. It might have worked for some of those things in the past, to an extent, but now it is just an odd system.

I know his employer didn't pay for him. I was pointing out that Rooney's situation is not the same as his for many reasons, the transfer fee being one of them.

I don't know what the effect of abolishing transfer fees would be. I just think it's a massive leap to call footballers slaves because they don't quite have the same mobility between jobs as, say, secretaries. It is obvious to them before they sign these contracts with huge wage packets that there are going to be ripples of discontent if they leave without their employers' consent before seeing out the contract that they signed. Calling them slaves sounds hysterical.

[phresh]

I seem to be missing your point. Are you saying that "Slough" wouldn't benefit from "Reading" giving them a transfer fee? It might not make them rich but it all adds up to keeping clubs big or small in the black. I dare say it probably helps smaller clubs even more as they can't bring in big sponsorship.

Does it really though? When you get to League 1 and below you probably get more clubs that make a profit on transfers but if clubs are relying on that to keep them afloat then they aren't being run particularly well in the first place. It also puts pressure on clubs to sell for financial reasons when a player doesn't want, or even have, to leave weakening the team in the process. The most extreme (and recent) example probably being Kaka's move to Real.

If you were to abolish transfer fees and introduce salary caps (although current squad limits at least do something to stop player hoarding) you would go someway to ensuring the long term financial stability of the majority of professional clubs in this country.

[Boobni82]

Breaking news on the Guardian site saying that Rooney has signed a new 5 year contract. Hopefully some money is going to be spent in January as a result

[Takizawa]

BBC has the same, crazy!

[Liamness]

http://www.manutd.com/default.sps?pagegid=%7BB4CEE8FA%2D9A47%2D47BC%2DB069%2D3F7A2F35DB70%7D&newsid=6653000

LOL

[Smoothy]

Fergie wins, yet again!

[oli]

What the fuck? He's going get booed to hell surely? Is this a genuine offer or 'sign the 5 year deal and we'll let you go in the summer when your contract is all but run down' type approach?

[Smoothy]

What the fuck? He's going get booed to hell surely? Is this a genuine offer or 'sign the 5 year deal and we'll let you go in the summer when your contract is all but run down' type approach?

He's signed a new contract. So he's not going anywhere without the permission of Man Utd (till 2015 at least).

[The Fox]

Weird.

[Mr Do 71]

WOO!

[oli]

He's signed a new contract. So he's not going anywhere without the permission of Man Utd (till 2015 at least).

I understand the principal of a contract but there's no denying selling Rooney in the summer with 4.5 years left on his contract would yield a greater transfer fee the with 1 year left?

[phresh]

What the fuck? He's going get booed to hell surely? Is this a genuine offer or 'sign the 5 year deal and we'll let you go in the summer when your contract is all but run down' type approach?

Yeah, I wonder if it's case of "sign a new contract and see where we are next summer, if you still want to leave we'll get a big transfer fee".

[stephen129]

So all this was just an attempt to get a higher wage?

[Liamness]

What the fuck? He's going get booed to hell surely? Is this a genuine offer or 'sign the 5 year deal and we'll let you go in the summer when your contract is all but run down' type approach?

He's going to get booed? Well I'm sure the shy, retiring flower that is Wayne Rooney will practically wet himself the next time he runs out onto the Old Trafford pitch. Poor lad.

Great news. He's a fucking excellent player, hopefully now we can stop playing Park out on the left.

[Smoothy]

I understand the principal of a contract but there's no denying selling Rooney in the summer with 4.5 years left on his contract would yield a greater transfer fee the with 1 year left?

That's only assuming they actually still want to sell him, and there's no indications they would now, seeing as he's just signed a new contract.

[The Fox]

I don't understand this. He's put himself in a really awkward position with his bosses, his team mates, and the fans. Bizarre.