• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Lets Talk About Wages

K

Kingdawson

Banned
Deadwood and our wage cap.

So it's becoming clear that we're in good/very good financial shape but how do we progress with the wage structure we currently have?

Tbh i don't think it's as hard as some people are making out but it's not going to be as easy as it was before being that we're running out of deadwood to shift. In order to increase our top players contracts and compete financially with the teams around us in regards to transfers we'd first have to shift some deadwood.

Definate deadwood
Bentley
Jenas

Probabable deadwood
Gio
Pav

Players that certainly are not deadwood but we can shift to free up wage
Niko
Bassong
Pienaar
Charlie

(btw i rate all 4 of these guys but i' just putting it out there that we can do fine without them in the future)




Ok so my question is, would shifting all those players allow us to bring in 3 or so real quality players as well as improve our top players wages to fend of interest?
 
Right now we're a team fighting for the title, and players such as Bassong and Pienaar are certainly not players that can help us win the league
 
If Pav is on 50k, Bentley 50k, Pienaar 50k and Jenas 40k as an example. Doesnt shifting those players allow us to increase our wage ceiling from say 80k to 100k? The above 4 are on 190k in my examples (Not far off Id imagine) which would allow us to bump up a player on say ?ú60k to ?ú70k and so on and so on...
 
Niko
Bassong
Pienaar
Charlie

I don't want any of them to leave. Too good a backup option (All would have walked into our team just a few seasons ago)

Whether they will stay is another matter
 
COYS said:
Right now we're a team fighting for the title, and players such as Bassong and Pienaar are certainly not players that can help us win the league
Click to expand...

That's a ridiculous post. You need a massive squad to win the league, with lots of 'help' from players outside the first team, that includes Pienaar and Bassong. If we can upgrade on them, fine, but to write them off because they are not incredible players is folly when if anything we need a bigger squad, not a smaller one.
 
It doesn't matter that players are much better than us, they're better than nearly every fan, but they can still be brick relative to their peers. Surely that's the main issue when comparing them with the rest of the squad?
 
TheRealGordinho said:
Neither do I, it's insulting and unimaginative considering how talented they are in relation to the people calling them that.
Click to expand...

Lol whats that got to do with anything Gord? Id be deadwood compared to those lifesize players they use in training to mock up the wall to practice free kicks!! But compared to the level were aspiring to achieve they're not good enough so its an unacceptable term and one that, as fans of the club, we are entitled to use.
 
Charlie = deadwood

Bassong is borderline as we know Harry doesn't rate him.

Personally I think Pienaar is useless, but Harry seems happy with him in the squad

I would get rid of these 3.
 
Need to keep a big squad if we want to compete on all fronts. Agree that Jenarse and Bentley can go however if we sell Pav or Bassong then we need a replacement for them so I cant see that there is massive scope for reducing the size of our squad. And there wouldnt be that much point reducing the size of our squad this Jan and then having to increase the size of it for next year when we're in the CL. Can probably sell Gomes or Gio without getting replacements perhaps
 
Wages (why per week?)

With regards to European football, why are player salaries discussed as on a weekly basis as opposed to a season-long number (50,000 per week as opposed to 8 million per season)? Is there a logical reason for this? Or is it just the way things have always been done?
 
Way its been done

In general (having worked in several countries), not many reference salaries per year as is common in the US, add the issue that some place pay monthly, some bi-weekly, pure guess is weekly is the easiest for common reference.
 
Raziel said:
Way its been done

In general (having worked in several countries), not many reference salaries per year as is common in the US, add the issue that some place pay monthly, some weekly, pure guess is weekly is the easiest for common reference.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
 
It's easier to think of it that way. What's ?ú8 million a year per game? League games are usually paid on a weekly basis, so it's basically how much per game.
 
COYS said:
It's easier to think of it that way. What's ?ú8 million a year per game? League games are usually paid on a weekly basis, so it's basically how much per game.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but when there's fixture pile-up, and they're playing up to 3 games per/week, it's hardly worth them getting out of (someone else's) bed for!!
 
Great question!

I think its a hangover from when nobody had salaries, or at least you could say 'that worker earns ?ú1 a week compared to that man who earns ?ú10'. A salary is a professional term while a wage is specifically an hourly aggregate for a week. Ie, minimum wage is ?ú425 maximum per week.

Its probably kept to illustrate the gap between fan and player with terms the fan can understand. We dont actually know whats in any players contract, we just get an approximate number fed through the media via a players' PR office.
 
milo said:
Smaller numbers are easier for us proles to understand
Click to expand...

This.

Is it true Emirates Marketing Project are to offer Ibrahimovic ?ú300,000 per week? Seriously?

So, this is "doing it the right way, is it? The ability to pay 3 x what our maximum would be?

Just fudge off city.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back