Noticed that, typical Mail to get in he snubbed us for a more lucrative contract when the facts are we pulled out as we did not value him for the wages he was after. And again why with the 400k a week, its over 500K which has been reported by many media outlets.
'Wages' aren't a set figure as such. What gets quoted is whatever the outlet thinks helps their story. In this case (as far as I can make out) it goes something like:
per week -
basic takehome (after deductions) = £400k
bonuses, image rights etc = £100k
costs to United as employer = 40k
This is simplified, and I haven't included the alleged weekly payment to his agent!
So 'serious' media outlets quote the basic as, strictly speaking, that's correct. Most want to hype the story so quote the 'possible' figure of £500k (basic + bonuses etc). Anybody stating the cost to the club needs to include those costs to bring it to £440k - £540k.
So figures quoted should vary as different media are coming at this from different angles, leaving the likes of the BBC getting abuse for using lower figures, and a raft of stories from elsewhere which rely on words like 'up to', 'rising to' and 'as much as'... But most media isn't about reporting facts and where's the entertainment value in the truth?
In short, reports of wages are about as reliable as transfer costs.
