not sure how Martial will cope with the pressure of his price tag, but what is being overlooked here is that he's a good player (did v well vs Arsenal last season) and has just been called up into the full French squad, so not as "unknown" as a lazy media would have you believe. Utd have overspent but they have the money, and it may well pay off.
Lots of contract speculation - I think manager's contracts are often written with a pay off clause should the manager be sacked ( apart from Wenger's ). Without having seen a player's contract though, it's impossible to say whether they got a payoff or how much.
Besides, usually they are being transferred to another club so their new contract is part of the equation too. Managers are just fired and left to seek another job.
edit: a 'minor' league - far less money. But Monaco beat Arsenal and PSG k.o'd Chelsea.
He's not from one of the smaller clubs.
Managers are just fired and left to seek another job.
On the contrary, managers are never sacked - you cannot sack them for being terrible at their job - a great irony of the footballing world.
Clubs simply keep paying their manager their monthly salary. Chelsea kept paying Di Matteo for a couple of years.
Any manager who has left a club before their contract was up and is not in another jobin football management, is almost certainly being paid by their former club.
This is a discussion not about proof, but about the clubs legal duty to pay up the contract on selling the player (without submission of a transfer request).
No more, no less.
If a player decides that they do not wish to exercise their right to this, it does not mean that the contract to do so does not exist.
It becomes important, say, if Liverpools new £30m signing Firminho continues his current terrible form. Say he is on a 4 yeat contract at £100,000 per week.
After a year, Rodgers decides he has made another terrible mistake and looks to sell on. Yes, the transfer fee is rediced to the seling club, but they are not going to match his £100,000 pw wages, they offer £30,000pw.
The player has not handed in a transfer request, so is entitled to 3 years at £100,00pw from LFC. They can either pay up, or keep the player. Another option is to pay a lump sum to Firmonho to sweeten the transfer.
Im happy to talk about chelsea having a terrible start, all top clubs bar city have put in awful performances (and had equally awful transfer windows too). Im not deflecting, its there to see.
I think the scenario you are using only applies to loyalty bonuses, as the player hasn't broken their contract.
The club only have to pay their full wages if they remain at the club. It's against FIFA rules for players to be owned by two (or more clubs). By signing for another club the player has ended their previous contract.
A player choosing not to move because he won't have the same salary is not a legal requirement, it's a personal preference. Otherwise players could get same wage at their new club and still get that wage from their old club (because they'd still be entitled to it under your scenario).
What exactly has Sterling done to deserve the hype around him, just from a purely stats basis, he hasn't scored that many goals, not has he got that many assists, so apart from being "Premier League ready" what does he have over our new signing, who has similar stats, yes in a different league, but still in a good league, with good teams in it.
If people are saying that we have overpayed for Martial, then surely the same things should be being said about Sterling, who cost even more?
Or is it solely based on having Premier League experience?
Or does doing it in the Champions League not count, as Martial has actually done more in that competition than Sterling has so far.
Both players are still very young, and have a big potential to do very well in their future, it just seems strange that some people are having a go at us over one player, yet very little was or has been said (as far as I have seen) about City signing Sterling for a huge fee.
What exactly has Sterling done to deserve the hype around him, just from a purely stats basis, he hasn't scored that many goals, not has he got that many assists, so apart from being "Premier League ready" what does he have over our new signing, who has similar stats, yes in a different league, but still in a good league, with good teams in it.
If people are saying that we have overpayed for Martial, then surely the same things should be being said about Sterling, who cost even more?
Or is it solely based on having Premier League experience?
Or does doing it in the Champions League not count, as Martial has actually done more in that competition than Sterling has so far.
Both players are still very young, and have a big potential to do very well in their future, it just seems strange that some people are having a go at us over one player, yet very little was or has been said (as far as I have seen) about City signing Sterling for a huge fee.
Why does it matter?
City got the player that they wanted, we got a player that we wanted. Why compare the two deals?
If people want to claim that United have overpaid, and that City have done good business, so be it. All that I care about is Martial being a success. If he isn't, then it'll be disappointing, but it won't be the first time that a club has made an expensive mistake.
What exactly has Sterling done to deserve the hype around him, just from a purely stats basis, he hasn't scored that many goals, not has he got that many assists, so apart from being "Premier League ready" what does he have over our new signing, who has similar stats, yes in a different league, but still in a good league, with good teams in it.
If people are saying that we have overpayed for Martial, then surely the same things should be being said about Sterling, who cost even more?
Or is it solely based on having Premier League experience?
Or does doing it in the Champions League not count, as Martial has actually done more in that competition than Sterling has so far.
Both players are still very young, and have a big potential to do very well in their future, it just seems strange that some people are having a go at us over one player, yet very little was or has been said (as far as I have seen) about City signing Sterling for a huge fee.
Are you serious? City have received a ton of criticism from people claiming they overpaid. ****ing hell.
What exactly has Sterling done to deserve the hype around him, just from a purely stats basis, he hasn't scored that many goals, not has he got that many assists, so apart from being "Premier League ready" what does he have over our new signing, who has similar stats, yes in a different league, but still in a good league, with good teams in it.
If people are saying that we have overpayed for Martial, then surely the same things should be being said about Sterling, who cost even more?
Or is it solely based on having Premier League experience?
Or does doing it in the Champions League not count, as Martial has actually done more in that competition than Sterling has so far.
Both players are still very young, and have a big potential to do very well in their future, it just seems strange that some people are having a go at us over one player, yet very little was or has been said (as far as I have seen) about City signing Sterling for a huge fee.
I have a completely different recollection and at least some people were astonished at the fee City paid for Sterling as this article in the Daily Telegraph highlights, before going on to give an explanation for the transfer and fee
Raheem Sterling: Why have Manchester City paid £49m for him?
Fee paid for Liverpool winger has caused outrage, confusion and isolated outbreaks of humour. What is behind the astronomical sum?
What exactly has Sterling done to deserve the hype around him, just from a purely stats basis, he hasn't scored that many goals, not has he got that many assists, so apart from being "Premier League ready" what does he have over our new signing, who has similar stats, yes in a different league, but still in a good league, with good teams in it.
If people are saying that we have overpayed for Martial, then surely the same things should be being said about Sterling, who cost even more?
Or is it solely based on having Premier League experience?
Or does doing it in the Champions League not count, as Martial has actually done more in that competition than Sterling has so far.
Both players are still very young, and have a big potential to do very well in their future, it just seems strange that some people are having a go at us over one player, yet very little was or has been said (as far as I have seen) about City signing Sterling for a huge fee.
Haha did you not see the media backlash to us signing sterling?! Not that we're not used to it now anyway.
Or how much crap Sterling got himself for leaving beloved Liverpool for man city and a chance to win trophies?
Yet he's already proving (I've watched every game so far) that he's gonna be worth the money.
To your original point I'd say it's because people have actually seen sterling play compared to Martial who was a relative unknown last week. No one has much idea whether the signing will pay off or not, it's just hope.
Quite amusing that the two biggest clubs in the world appear unable to arrange a piss up in a brewery. Of course they are blaming each other and the piece of meat in the middle is no doubt not a happy bunny.
He will probably playing again next week and then come Jan sign a pre-contract and the fee goes in his pockets.
Funny old game....
I like the cynical conspriacy theories that Real deliberately messed up the paperwork so they could get him on a free in the summer
He signed a legally binding contract, is paid a small fortune and the club will sell him if they think it is in their interests. If I was Pulis I'd let him rot in the reserves. Who the hell does he think he is?
Didn't realise that only 2 years ago he was on £850 a week.
Comments
Here we go again, predictable as the weather. ^_^
As the weather is quite unpredictable and a chaotic environment, i will take that as a compliment. Thank you.
But it is worth talking about, its quite bizarre.
Can anyone really see that spending £36 million on an untested 19 year old striker who has only scored a dozen career goals in a minor league?
If he does wel and scores 19 goals a season for three or four seasons, then he would probably be worth around £30m.
Ive never known anything quite like this transfer in the history of the game.
Lots of contract speculation - I think manager's contracts are often written with a pay off clause should the manager be sacked ( apart from Wenger's
Besides, usually they are being transferred to another club so their new contract is part of the equation too. Managers are just fired and left to seek another job.
edit: a 'minor' league - far less money. But Monaco beat Arsenal and PSG k.o'd Chelsea.
He's not from one of the smaller clubs.
No proof whatsoever, as per the norm.
Maybe a risky buy by Martinez?
On the contrary, managers are never sacked - you cannot sack them for being terrible at their job - a great irony of the footballing world.
Clubs simply keep paying their manager their monthly salary. Chelsea kept paying Di Matteo for a couple of years.
Any manager who has left a club before their contract was up and is not in another jobin football management, is almost certainly being paid by their former club.
Absolutely!
I predict a complete write off of that money.
I'd guess that he'll only be back-up for Stones and Jagielka, so I can't see it being a huge blow, if he's a bit pony.
I think the scenario you are using only applies to loyalty bonuses, as the player hasn't broken their contract.
The club only have to pay their full wages if they remain at the club. It's against FIFA rules for players to be owned by two (or more clubs). By signing for another club the player has ended their previous contract.
A player choosing not to move because he won't have the same salary is not a legal requirement, it's a personal preference. Otherwise players could get same wage at their new club and still get that wage from their old club (because they'd still be entitled to it under your scenario).
We don't care too much for money, money can't buy you Stones.
I respect Vickery's knowledge and heard him say that last night... doesn't bode well for the Toffees....
Oh ok then its based on PURE SPECULATION then, got it.
Just to clarify you didnt know or understand constructive dismissal but know the ins and outs of a players contract and the legal definitions.
If people are saying that we have overpayed for Martial, then surely the same things should be being said about Sterling, who cost even more?
Or is it solely based on having Premier League experience?
Or does doing it in the Champions League not count, as Martial has actually done more in that competition than Sterling has so far.
Both players are still very young, and have a big potential to do very well in their future, it just seems strange that some people are having a go at us over one player, yet very little was or has been said (as far as I have seen) about City signing Sterling for a huge fee.
Why does it matter?
City got the player that they wanted, we got a player that we wanted. Why compare the two deals?
If people want to claim that United have overpaid, and that City have done good business, so be it. All that I care about is Martial being a success. If he isn't, then it'll be disappointing, but it won't be the first time that a club has made an expensive mistake.
Are you serious? City have received a ton of criticism from people claiming they overpaid. ****ing hell.
I have a completely different recollection and at least some people were astonished at the fee City paid for Sterling as this article in the Daily Telegraph highlights, before going on to give an explanation for the transfer and fee
Raheem Sterling: Why have Manchester City paid £49m for him?
Fee paid for Liverpool winger has caused outrage, confusion and isolated outbreaks of humour. What is behind the astronomical sum?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-city/11736078/Raheem-Sterling-Why-have-Manchester-City-paid-49m-for-him.html
So what are your thoughts on that player you recently spent around 30 million on and have now shipped out on loan?
If we're talking about bizarre.
Haha did you not see the media backlash to us signing sterling?! Not that we're not used to it now anyway.
Or how much crap Sterling got himself for leaving beloved Liverpool for man city and a chance to win trophies?
Yet he's already proving (I've watched every game so far) that he's gonna be worth the money.
To your original point I'd say it's because people have actually seen sterling play compared to Martial who was a relative unknown last week. No one has much idea whether the signing will pay off or not, it's just hope.