Time keeping was reported to be an issue with England too.
Jadon Sanchos contract terminated
- Thread starter GibbosEmpire
- Start date
viv_andersons_nana
Well-known member
I agree with you on Sancho’s performances. He hasn’t delivered for them but which of their signings have? The point I was making about his possible mental health issues was that he was apparently unaware that the club were going to release that information to the press, back when he went off to Holland for that spell of personal training. His relationship with ten Hag has never really recovered, I don’t think the club or its manager was supposed to mention anything about Sancho’s personal life or mental health.
The timekeeping thing definitely appears to be an issue. It would drive me mad as a coach, manager, teammate. But if it was happening at Dortmund, which we are told it was, then Manchester United appear to have failed to do due diligence on a player before spending £70m plus £350,000 a week and bonuses across a five-year contract.
GibbosEmpire
Well-known member
Man Utd still pay installments of about £14 million a year for Sancho for a few more years
Andy_W
Well-known member
From a HR perspective, to get rid of Sancho it would be very easy to terminate his contract, without pay, if he's had warnings, been late, been disruptive in work, not met performance criteria etc. Nobody is getting a 350k a week contract nowadays without there being some protections to the club, if he's acting like a tosser etc.
As for Greenwood, it's a bit of a different situation, as I presume he was a "normal pro" with regards for turning up for training, on time, not being disruptive to the club etc, actual job related things. It would be harder to fire someone for something they do in their personal life, if they've been good in their pro life. Then as for Greenwood, as the proceedings were dropped, his name is effectively clear in the eye of the law, which means Man Utd would struggle to sack him without having to pay compensation. What he did was wrong of course, and morally very bad for the club, but they couldn't go after him from bringing the club into disrepute, until he was actually convicted, which he wasn't.
This above doesn't mean that Sancho/ Greenwood are worse in different ways, but seems like Sancho is a poor performer, and a crap pro, so probably a tosser in his personal life too, but Greenwood is effectively an unconverted criminal which is obviously worse than anything Sancho did, but from a HR point it's likely untouchable.
Greenwood has benefitted massively from the effective "innocent until proven guilty" law, which wasn't really designed to help criminals get off, or get their cases quashed/ paid off, it was more about protecting people who wouldn't actually be found guilty, usually as they had done nothing wrong (which doesn't seem to apply here, as per the evidence).
Morally, Man Utd could not have terminated his contract, but they could have paid his contract up and released him, but this could be seen by many as a reward, as he could basically then go to another club, sign another contract and basically get double pay. It's a difficult situation for them, no real win, so maybe it is best to let his contract run out, with pay, and have some other club pay his wages to man u (or maybe they're not even paying his wages). He won't get another Man U contract, and won't ever end up on the pay he could have had, had this not happened etc, so it's the only way he can get punished, and seems Man U's only real route out, without the player benefitting more than they should or could under protection of UK law.
Would Sancho then be free to sign for any other club? This could well be what he wants - a £70m player available for free could negotiate a very healthy contract.
Andy_W
Well-known member
Yeah, if they terminate his contract due to performance, then they won't have to pay him anything in wages, I assume, but yeah it means he can sign for another club and they can pay him what they want and won't have to pay Man U a penny. That's how I assume it anyway, which is how most contracts like that probably work as a "norm".
Andy_W
Well-known member
To add onto that, Sancho's contract was like £350k per week, for 5 years, so £91m in wages (maybe over £100m with club/ player bonuses), plus the £70m fee, so like a £170m deal in total, and Man U probably either expected him to stay on similar wage or be able to sell him for £100m plus, so were not expecting to burn £170m in 5 years etc, but that's the reality they face now.
As his wages are "worth" more than the fee, and nobody else is going to commit £170m on him, or even £100m on him, it makes Man Utd's options very limited. Either cut their losses, or let the losses get worse.
If they get rid now, for nothing, it's cost them ~£42m in wages and £70m fee, so writing off ~£110m, but if they kept him, nobody is going to buy him, and meet Sancho's wage demands, so they will look at that like saving £60m, from the current expected position.
As nobody would be "buying Sancho", and nobody is going to give him 350k a week, Sancho probably wouldn't accept a transfer away anyway for like £0 to the club and 200k wages, so if they terminate they still get zero, but it stops them forking out 350k, and Sancho will have to accept 200k a week.
Even 200k a week for 5 years, is a 50m commitment, and there could be better/ safer options for other clubs. My bet is he gets a 150k a week deal somewhere, or something higher but appearance based, so if he's a tosser they don't have to fork more out to have him sat there playing his playstation.
Hammies_Tash
Active member
They're not going to terminate his contract, his transfer fee depreciates by 25% each year so he will still be worth £35m on their balance sheet. With FFP the days of terminating players contracts is well & truly over, writing off £35m off your balance sheet will restrict their ability in the transfer market, with just about every club always sailing as close to the limits as they can it just not feasible to write off transfer values on balance sheets. They'll send him out on loan in January (to spain is my guess), pick up most of his wages and then sell him for £20m in the summer and pick up the wage difference for the remaining couple years of his contract.
They haven't wrote off Greenwood (yet) they chose to loan him rather than terminate his contract, which they easily could have because his bail conditions prevented him entering Greater Manchester, so couldn't train or play so he was technically in breach for the entire time he was on bail. Greenwood came through the academy so is valued at £0 on their balance sheet, terminating his contract wouldn't have any effect on FFP, so easily done, but they chose not too and loaned him with a view to getting a transfer fee for him this Summer, which looks like a wise move with Real Madrid reportedly going to sign him, again prob get £20-30m for him.
They haven't wrote off Greenwood (yet) they chose to loan him rather than terminate his contract, which they easily could have because his bail conditions prevented him entering Greater Manchester, so couldn't train or play so he was technically in breach for the entire time he was on bail. Greenwood came through the academy so is valued at £0 on their balance sheet, terminating his contract wouldn't have any effect on FFP, so easily done, but they chose not too and loaned him with a view to getting a transfer fee for him this Summer, which looks like a wise move with Real Madrid reportedly going to sign him, again prob get £20-30m for him.
Andy_W
Well-known member
If they terminate the contract, and he's no longer playing for them, then they can surely write off the £35m immediately. I.e if he's not there, to play, and he's not on their registration, he has no "worth", and then their balance sheet will effectively show £0 for him, as he won't be one it, so basically the depreciation figure goes out the window. The "depreciation" is just a basic valuation method, for "normal" circumstances, which the tax man lets them get away with, for assets you're actually keeping, until you sell them, but if they go for zero, then the worth is zero, so it all gets written off. Surely FFP will see that they didn't want to shell out all that cash, for zero return, it's not like a company buying kit early in a good year, to dodge a corporation tax bill, when they know they might need the kit next year etc.
They might not have written off Greenwood, they're probably playing it by ear in the off chance there's going to be a positive development, but we all know it's not coming. He was effectively guilty in all but conviction, nothing is going to counterbalance that and they know if they could have had him ever play in a Man U shirt again, then the best chance to do it was this year and just get the carnage out of the way. They know the fans would never really accept him back, never mind the rest of English football. He can get away with it abroad, as it's more out of sight, out of mind, but that's poor form.
I'm only guessing here, but wouldn't contract termination be treated the same as selling a player for a £0 transfer fee? Also, if Sancho claimed unfair dismissal, would his contract/future wages remain on the books as a contingent liability until the claim is settled?
Says who ? Ten Hag is his boss. Vastly overrated footballer who thinks the sun shines out of his r sole
LaPennaBianca
Well-known member
Says all the reporting?
He's refused to apologise to Ten Hag who then humiliated him by forcing him to train and eat(!) away from the first team.
You've just said he thinks the sun shines out of his rsole - that is conjecture
ForssAwakens
Well-known member
There is no way in this world Man Utd can terminate sancho’s contract without severance
It’s amortisation. Even if Man United paid all of his fee upfront they will still amortise the cost so that for FFP his cost is spread across the length of his contract. But as soon as they leave or are sold, there is a balance that is realised, in this case, as a huge loss.
It’s what Chelsea are doing/were doing spending the best part of a billion pound on players under the new owner. Seems impossible under FFP, but the cost of the players is being spread across those 7/8 year contracts.
The above re Greenwood is why it sounds like there is a chance Chelsea might sell Gallagher. He came through the academy so if they sell him he is all profit from an FFP perspective.
Gunslinger
Well-known member
Another example of man utds failed transfer policy post Ferguson
As talented as sancho is, he is arguably the laziest player off the ball in man utds history
There seems to be a lot of his type around, fluffy winger types who just stand around off the ball playing purely for themselves
As talented as sancho is, he is arguably the laziest player off the ball in man utds history
There seems to be a lot of his type around, fluffy winger types who just stand around off the ball playing purely for themselves
Priv
Well-known member
Not necessarily, it will depend what’s in his contract, There is every chance his outburst against the manager on social media is enough on its own to sack him. I have one in mine that can have me dismissed if I portray my company poorly in public or on social media. That’s ignoring what might be in there for his poor time keeping.
His outburst against the manager was in response to a public criticism Sancho maintains was untrue. He has an arguable case even if he has a clause in his contract similar to yours.
Priv
Well-known member
Think that would be Irrelevant, it was still a public criticism, he called his manager a liar in public. There’s no coming back from that.
He’s entitled to disagree and argue his case to his manager and or someone else at the club but not on social media.
The club will also have all the data from his monitors so will be able to prove their case or not should it go to a tribunal / court on the fitness / laziness issue. They wouldn’t sack him unless they believe they had enough to back it up.
Last edited: