CovInEssex
Well-Known Member
He's on £18k a week at Chelsea, which they pay... only when he plays.
Isn't that a contradiction?He's on £18k a week at Chelsea, which they pay... only when he plays.
If we don't play him we foot his wages
Concur. What sort of a fucked up deal means we pay someone else’s player approximately 4 times the amount we pay our top earners for not even playing?No chance
Concur. What sort of a fucked up deal means we pay someone else’s player approximately 4 times the amount we pay our top earners for not even playing?
And I understand why it would be an incentive to make us play him, I just can’t believe we’d sign up to that. Surely...
Our 28 goal striker moved for 12k per week so the chances on us paying 18k to an inexperienced LB are zero
Thanks lol yep noted. Sat on my elbowRB*
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
To be fair that would still make him an inexperienced LB !RB*
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When he signed, people were jumping up and down in amazement that we'd managed to sign somebody of his class and pedigree...Can you imagine Robins going 'Hmmm, 4 more well paid L1 players in the squad or a right back that's never played a game of men's football in his life. Get the deal done!'
I was pleased too but his class and pedigree are not worth a potential 18k expense a week to a L1 club and it would be grossly incompetent to have signed such a deal given how far 18k a week stretches in L1. Robins is not a fool. He already confirmed in one of his pre game interviews that there is an expectation from parent clubs that their loanees play but he picks the team based on what they do in training.When he signed, people were jumping up and down in amazement that we'd managed to sign somebody of his class and pedigree...
He's not going to say otherwise, is he?I was pleased too but his class and pedigree are not worth a potential 18k expense a week to a L1 club and it would be grossly incompetent to have signed such a deal. Robins is not a fool. He already confirmed in one of his pre game interviews that there is an expectation from parent clubs that their loanees play but he picks the team based on what they do in training.
Concur. What sort of a fucked up deal means we pay someone else’s player approximately 4 times the amount we pay our top earners for not even playing?
And I understand why it would be an incentive to make us play him, I just can’t believe we’d sign up to that. Surely...
It doesn't. At the same time, look at it another way, we also get a top top player for free for a season if it all works out.Sterling could well be on 18k a week at Chelsea, doesn't mean we contribute 18k.
Absolutely no chance we pay £18k per week if he doesn't play. The average league one salary is only around £2.2k per week. 18k per week is around 16% of our turnover, and likely to be around 30% of the players wage budget.
Footballers vs. The Fans
Far more likely that we pay c£2k pw contributions to Chelsea, and that we don't pay it if he plays.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
So if a player has a bad attitude or is out of form, injured, suspended it costs us more? I do hope that never comes into a mangers thinking when selecting a team/squad.Exactly. It's likely we are paying a contribution (or bigger contribution) if he doesn't play, this is fairly common practice, but it will be nowhere near 18k.
So if a player has a bad attitude or is out of form, injured, suspended it costs us more? I do hope that never comes into a mangers thinking when selecting a team/squad.
I doubt it as the contribution will be budgeted for and in line with our pay scale (you'd hope).
Would give him something else to wipe his arse on instead of Tony's annual wage though.There’s more chance of Grendel purchasing a Biamou 9 shirt than this being true
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?