Should pay him in line with what the other youngsters that came through last season. He is not a 60k player. 40-45k yeah ok.
IMO he hasn't made it, needs to show another step up to warrant 60-80k.
Should pay him in line with what the other youngsters that came through last season. He is not a 60k player. 40-45k yeah ok.
IMO he hasn't made it, needs to show another step up to warrant 60-80k.
I'd quite happily sell the potential.. if these so called larger sides are sniffing then let them pay.. and we go out and buy someone with experience.. McCarthy.. Sneid etc.
Let him rot on the bench at PSG.. Rabiot an example of taking the money over playing. He would not progress with PS uckinG.
I'm not happy with the comment about big clubs (CL clubs) being interested. Whilst that's a valid bargaining position it sounds nothing short of a thinly veiled threat when made public. Certainly not what you'd expect to hear from a player dedicated to the cause.Was what he said really that bad? Seemed perfectly fine to me.
Is there any reason to think that Levy isn't on top of this? No? Ok then...
I broadly agree with your point that it may set an unwanted precedent for other young players coming up through the ranks, however if Onomah, Winks or whomever are commanding a first team spot on merit then their pay should be commensurate with their standing in the squad. If they are better players than the guys they are replacing then I don't have problem with paying them. If they don't have the same impact as Kane, Mason or Bentaleb then they don't really have an argument for pay parity and they can fudge off.I hope Levy's on top of this. Surely he sees that the costs of losing Bentaleb outweigh his relatively modest wage demands. To be honest, I think it isn't about Bentaleb's wage demands being too high, per se: I suspect it has more to do with the rapid rise in wages for the likes of Kane, Mason and now (potentially) Bentaleb in the past year. Their wages aren't at all taxing to the club individually, but a parts of a trend, they could influence the likes of Onomah, Winks and Edwards (and by extension, most of our youth-teamers) and turn them towards the expectation of higher contracts than are usually the standard for players of their age.
Now, I obviously don't have to mention that I find that almost laughably cheap and simultaneously enraging, but in terms of where Levy's coming from with this seeming reluctance to give Bentaleb what most of us seem to agree is a deserved wage rise...that could be it.
Plus one. Load of fuss over nothing...Was what he said really that bad? Seemed perfectly fine to me.
Is there any reason to think that Levy isn't on top of this? No? Ok then...
Can't see the problem with what he's said. Definitely not looking to move, just wants a decent wage.
Should pay him in line with what the other youngsters that came through last season. He is not a 60k player. 40-45k yeah ok.
IMO he hasn't made it, needs to show another step up to warrant 60-80k.
I'd quite happily sell the potential.. if these so called larger sides are sniffing then let them pay.. and we go out and buy someone with experience.. McCarthy.. Sneid etc.
Let him rot on the bench at PSG.. Rabiot an example of taking the money over playing. He would not progress with PS uckinG.
I broadly agree with your point that it may set an unwanted precedent for other young players coming up through the ranks, however if Onomah, Winks or whomever are commanding a first team spot on merit then their pay should be commensurate with their standing in the squad. If they are better players than the guys they are replacing then I don't have problem with paying them. If they don't have the same impact as Kane, Mason or Bentaleb then they don't really have an argument for pay parity and they can fudge off.
Looking at the bigger picture how much have our young players saved us in transfer fees? I think there is a little wiggle room on the pay without straying into silly bugger territory.
I broadly agreed with you first!!Broadly agree with this.
I would suggest that Kane and Mason signed there deals because there heart is at Tottenham, whereas, is Benteleb's.. truly.
Talks started 9 months ago, probably the same time as Mason and Kane's. I would not be surprised if all were offered the same. But for some reason Benteleb believes in his grandeur.
Take the deal being offered or me as a fan could not give a fcuk if your gone tomorrow.. I really couldn't give a rats ar$e. Players like this are macarons for wanting more.. more.. and more.
If you don't like what's being offered.. just fcuk off, I don't care.. past caring. Bring in the next in line if need be and when they hit 20 years old, see if they accept the deal. ( I like the look of Onomah and Winks so bring them in)
Pay this kid what he wants, imo. If reports are to be believed, he wants as much as Kane's making: does that seem so unreasonable? We won't be able to hold on to him for longer than a few years anyway, and I suspect that the strategy of contract renewals that both the club and the player employs generally takes this into account: hence, if we put him on, say, a five-year deal, he'll likely ask for a contract renewal in year 2 or 3 if there's space for upward advancement through the wage ranks and we're advancing enough to make him stay. If not, he'll likely agitate for a move in the aforementioned second or third year. Either way, we won't be able to hold on to him for much longer than that (probably another couple of years into his follow-on four/five-year deal, if he does develop as much as we're hoping he will), but selling him now, when we're likely to get a Stambouli-type replacement for one of the few naturally talented box-to-box midfielders we've got left....that isn't a good move, imo.
Firstly, how do you know what Bentaleb has been offered? Secondly, what makes you think Bentaleb thinks he is better than BOTH Kane and Mason?