he's not on 8-9k when clingan was only offered 8k where is your logic he's probs on 5-6k
There's no logic, it was an assumption. He would have been on a fair wage at Sheff Wed, and we'd have had to pay him more to get him here (what other attraction was there at the time? Apart from Championship football), and he was brought in at a time when I think it's fair to say we weren't as tight as what we have been more recently
He has played around 70 games for us and that is with not appearing to be Boothroyds or Thorns preferred centre back, I can only remember this season injuries being a problem.Richard woods big problem is his ongoing injury problems. I think he's started 47 league games + 10 sub appearances out of a possible 114 league games since he signed for us.
so why 8-9k when clingan was only offered an 8k deal if he was one of our higher earners then wood would only be on 5-6k
No reason why he can't have been offered more than you suggest Clingan was offered.
It's going to be more than 5-6k though (of course IMO). I'd expect the likes of Sheff to be on that kind of wage, and Bell.
your saying clingan was the second highes earner in you post so it must mean he's on less
All I said was he must be our highest earner now that Eastwood and Clingan have moved on; that doesn't mean I'm ruling out he wasn't the highest earner while they were here! I'd say he'd more likely be on equal terms to them, if not there or there abouts
Well the club now have the opportunity to sign some up and coming league one players on lower salaries with a good bonus & increase if we get promoted, (assuming ofc xfer ban lifted soon).
The sort of players that will be worth money in the transfer market in 2 years who are good enough for the next level and exceptionally competative in division 3.
Makes sense to me.
More than good enough for this league, however as it stands we have currently have Wood, Cranie, Keogh, McPake and Cameron on our books, what we dont want to happen is Keogh & Cranie going then deciding to let Wood and McPake leave as well. So its a balancing act for Thorn as well as I am not sure Wood will be happy if he is not playing.
so why 8-9k when clingan was only offered an 8k deal if he was one of our higher earners then wood would only be on 5-6k
Richard woods big problem is his ongoing injury problems. I think he's started 47 league games + 10 sub appearances out of a possible 114 league games since he signed for us.
Apparantly played 70 games (inc. subs) for us and only missed 6 last season which I am surprised about but only 19 games this season.
I can tell you now since January 2010 when he signed Richard Wood has made 76 league appearances. I have counted them using soccerbaseI'm happy to stand corrected and presume that's all competitions, even so if you add another 6/7 on the league games say 70 apps out of 120 games that's still only 58% games he played.
We have so many that struggle with injuries, Hussey, Deegan, Sheffers, Baker, Bell, McPake and even cameron had his fair share.
I just think we should be looking for a few more Gunna's, Jukes and Keogh's in terms of consistently being fit.
Updated: just checked the stats, the 47(10) in 114 league games is from we permanently signed him and doesn't included the 3 month loan as he was technically Sheff Weds player. So since he became our player he was only played 50% of the league games.
I can tell you now since January 2010 when he signed Richard Wood has made 76 league appearances. I have counted them using soccerbase
The only season Richard Wood has had injury problems is this season, in his first season he appeared in 24 league games having only signed in November (5 loan appearances), in the next season he made 40 league appearances and the season just gone he only made 17 league appearances.
Yea I noticed this to, I was sure they had made a mistake which is why I counted them lolI stand corrected - soccerbase's summary page is wrong.
http://www.soccerbase.com/players/player.sd?player_id=34895&season_id=141
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?