I wish it was us. I'm still very concerned that if anything happens to Maguire we'd struggle. If we are to compete near the top, we need two recognised strikers. I don't include Moult in that equation as I don't think he's good enough.
Mohamed Eisa
- Joined
- May 24, 2016
- Messages
- 5,141
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2008
- Messages
- 3,889
His dad won't have sold a duff to his son good buy for Johnson junior. He will be worth 5 million maybe more next summer
Think we missed out there
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2004
- Messages
- 6,092
Will be one of these signings that will be interesting to see how he pans out in 12 months time.
Question is what wages are they paying and for how long.
Big fees mean big wages, wouldn’t be surprised if he’s £20k a week for 4 years. It’s a gamble that we can’t afford. How many strikers have shown promise then it hasn’t happened. Nice if you can afford to risk £5.5 million in fees and wages.
So basically, you haven't a clue and are resorting to plucking random imaginary figures out of thin air.
£20k pw.
Ok. 🙄
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 9,016
moults problem isn't that he isn't good enough, its the system he needs to play as part of a pair. the only system neil seems to operate is a lone forward with one out on both flanks, trouble is they are to far away to support the likes of moult. Probably why we are looking for a big lump upfront. trouble is the market for low quality big lumps has gone through the roof lately......I mean look what we got for ours
Haven't always agreed with you on here flipper but I think you're bob on here.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
- Messages
- 6,057
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2009
- Messages
- 1,210
Overpriced, low quality big lumps. Hahahaha
I think you miss my point.
Of course I don’t know what they are paying him, it’s a guess.
His wages on a £1.5 million deal will be at least £10k a week then, which means over a 4 year deal he is still costing £3.5 million. That’s a lot of dosh on an unproven talent. Some clubs can afford the risk, some end up like Sunderland.
I don’t think we are in that gambling business.
The fact is you either take a risk on someone like Eisa after 1 good season if you can afford to, or you leave it for him to have another good season when his price rises drastically and you can’t afford him. I agree that we aren’t in the gambling business.
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2008
- Messages
- 3,889
I want to no how every football fan is suddenly an expert on players wages. Every time a player is mentiond on here and the price is over a million we can't afford him. Because he is on £15 up to £40,000 it's crazy I bet there are players at every championship club on less than some of our players. I guess our players will all be on different wages & bonuses to each.other. There will will be only so many top earners at every club and then the the rest on more modest wages a sliding scale. Not all players are on £20 £30.000 wages out side the premiership.
A player costing £1.5 million would be on at least £10k a week? What about a player who costs £0 then? A transfer fee doesn't determine someone's wage.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 6,808
Officially signed for Bristol City today.
Meh. We always do better than them anyway 🙂
Meh. We always do better than them anyway 🙂
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 6,007
No it's not a proportional relationship as other factors like contract length remaining come into play. But if the transfer fee is high it would be surprising if the wages aren't.
Bristol City pay quite well but doubt Eisa is on too much there. He was at Greenwich Borough and then Cheltenham so the bar is set pretty low regarding wages. He'll be earning a lot more at Bristol City but won't be on anything daft really.
In that case why pay £1.5 million for him?
His agent will have made sure his wage is linked to his fee.
Anyone know what length contract he got?