Agreed. Doesn't change the fact you were paying John O'Shea around £80,000 per week.
Reported by Sun?
Agreed. Doesn't change the fact you were paying John O'Shea around £80,000 per week.
Agreed. Doesn't change the fact you were paying John O'Shea around £80,000 per week.
Denial? That's fine.![]()
60k per week + bonuses. Not unsurprising given the amount of time he had been at the club...
Yeah, that's fine.
When does Giggs get his £500,000 per week bumper contract then? He's been around for a while.
March. Shame King could have got the same, but the dude hardly plays 50% games.
Glad you agree that time spent at the club shouldn't dictate wages.Point made.
Glad you agree that time spent at the club shouldn't dictate wages.Point made.
time at club, wage structure and squad status go hand in hand
Also greed of player/agent
Eh? He was good player who covered many positions. He was worth it, not to forget he was with us for years. Glad you are being yourself in drawing random conclusions.
time at club, wage structure and squad status go hand in hand
Also greed of player/agent
He was a good player at being awful in many positions, I'll agree with that much.
I don't think time at club should be a factor, if the player has no ability.
Anyway, this has veered off topic considerably. I was originally directing my reply towards sanket who brought up City paying high wages when United do exactly the same.
O'Shea is a God. Less hate.
Lol. Ok. Awful player but still played so many games for the best team in the league. Yeah..
Unlike City, we aren't currently paying a left back who plays golf on match days 90k a week though Bill.![]()
Unlike City, we aren't currently paying a left back who plays golf on match days 90k a week though Bill.![]()
Or 200k for Tevez to golf in buenos aries.![]()
I know you said that tongue in cheek anyway, but I just want to clarify; United fans have no right whatsoever to judge City on wage structure when theirs is pretty horrific too.
There were also moments like this to deal with though.