"Who exactly argued against selling him now?"

We are supposedly offering him a contract extension, that would stop any sale now. That's the whole reason we are having this debate. A contract extension means the unlikelyhood of selling now.

comment by VC - Darren Fletcher is the white Bryan Robson (U3584)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Reddevils double (U12215)
posted 59 seconds ago
VC - nani's situation is different as I explained.

..........

Your explanation was irrelevent. Utterly irrelevat. And thus completey ignored by me.

The fact that Nani cost a fee makes no differnce what so ever, and the fact that Nani is better than Cleverley was a childish comment with even less relevance.

The relevant issue is we tied Nani down to a contract so that he couldn't leave on a Bosman.

Exactly the same as tying down Cleverley. And Anderson last season.

All very simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly.

Very simple to understand. same thing every other club does with every other player.

comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 5 seconds ago
"Who exactly argued against selling him now?"

We are supposedly offering him a contract extension, that would stop any sale now. That's the whole reason we are having this debate. A contract extension means the unlikelyhood of selling now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

And yet Evra signed a new contract and was then sold for £2m

FORR - You want to offer cleverly a deal to ensure we receive a fee. There is no guarantee we will get a better fee for him than we will now hence me saying sell now for £2m rather than paying a signing on fee, possibly increase his terms and run the risk of giving him a pay off IF somebody bids for him in a year or so.

comment by Reddevils double (U12215)
posted 15 seconds ago
FORR - You want to offer cleverly a deal to ensure we receive a fee. There is no guarantee we will get a better fee for him than we will now hence me saying sell now for £2m rather than paying a signing on fee, possibly increase his terms and run the risk of giving him a pay off IF somebody bids for him in a year or so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No mate you have completely changed your argument.

you were saying yourself that we should let him see out his contract and leave for free next season. that is what I am arguing against.

This is a point i have already stated too.

Forr

Incorrect, we had a deal in place that allowed us to extend his contract without his consent. You really think we will sell h in the next week if a new contract is given?

"you were saying yourself that we should let him see out his contract and leave for free next season. that is what I am arguing against."

Did he?

comment by Reddevils double (U12215)
posted 2 hours, 3 minutes ago
VC - Let him go. He cost us nothing and we'd likely get next to nothing for him anyway. Pay rise or not his current wage demands will also probably be beyond the clubs Likely interested in him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That doesn't state he wants to let him go for nothing next season, that's your interpretation of it.

comment by VC - Darren Fletcher is the white Bryan Robson (U3584)
posted 2 hours, 14 minutes ago
Sell on value, perhaps?

..........

There you go.

At the moment Cleverley can run down his contract and leave on a free next season.

We tie him to a new contract and we will get a fee (maybe) for him.

There is nothing to say that we have to increase his wage in a new contract.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

manutd1982 - his comment was a reply to this comment by VC.

It's quite obvious he was saying to let him go for free.

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.