Welbeck on loan to Everton

FORR - at the point I joined the conversation people were saying we should offer him a 5 year deal to get a fee. My view is flog him now or if we can't then let him walk in 12 months. Poor player and unlikely to bring in fee that would warrant the cost of a new deal.

We had an 12 month option on evra hence the fee.

VC - we have invested more in nani (large fee, big wage, signing on fee) than we have cleverly. He is therefore a bigger asset to the club than clevelerly. Their respective talent is relevant as this dictates the likelihood of future interest in them and the size of any future fee.

If you can't see that then I have seriously over estimated

VC - we have invested more in nani

...............

Totally irrelevant.

The situation is the same. If you don't tie a player down to a contract than thay can leave for free at the end of it.

This is basic. Very basic.

I am off home now.

Again, a very poor response VC. I clearly did over estimate you.

I am staggered that VC honestly seems to think the club would view cleverly and Rooney's contracts expiring as the same thing with neither players ability or value making any difference to how they would view the situation.

Not sure what Rooneys contract has to do with it other than the club wouldn't let that run down either.

Or do you think they would?

Now try and understand this before one of us dies.

If the club offer Cleverley a new contract it means that we can get a fee for him if he leaves.

If they don't then he can leave for free next season.

This isn't hard to understand. It really isn't.

VC - you know exactly why iv used Rooney. To show that the players value and ability does make a difference when negotiating new contracts. Rooney is a bigger asset to United than nani. Nani is a bigger asset than cleverly.

If we sell him now we can get a fee for him. If we give him a 5 year deal we increase clevelrys cost to us but not necessarily his value. Especially if as expected he he sits on the bench for the next 9 months and their is little interest in him or little interest from him in leaving.

It really isn't hard to understand.

comment by Reddevils double (U12215)
posted 52 seconds ago
VC - you know exactly why iv used Rooney. To show that the players value and ability does make a difference when negotiating new contracts. Rooney is a bigger asset to United than nani. Nani is a bigger asset than cleverly.

If we sell him now we can get a fee for him. If we give him a 5 year deal we increase clevelrys cost to us but not necessarily his value. Especially if as expected he he sits on the bench for the next 9 months and their is little interest in him or little interest from him in leaving.

It really isn't hard to understand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No one has said we shouldn't sell him now. How are you not getting this?

The point is that its better to renew and sell next year then release him for free. We can quite easily renew his contract after the transfer window closed if we haven't sold him in that time.

For the last time, I am not arguing about contract negations.

All I have done is explained why it makes sense to offer Cleverley a new contract, due to the Bosman ruling.

If you want to go off on a totally different tangent like Nani being better and costing a fee fill your boots. It is irrelevat to my point entirely.

VC - it doesn't make sense to offer a new 5 year deal simply to secure a fee later if the fee received doesn't cover the cost of the new deal (signing on fee, years wages possibly on increases terms, loyalty bonus pay off) or if the player doesn't agree to the move.

And you were arguing about contact negotiations. My point about nani was very relevant. Nani was offered A deal as he is a more valuable asset to United as we paid a large fee, paid big wages and due to his ability is likely to attract a bigger fee In the future.

Cleverley on the other hand didn't cost a fee, is on less wages and is unlikely to be more valuable in 10 months than he is now.

The duration of the contract is quite irrelevant, and not what is being debated.