Really……your telling me that pearson, davies and fisher would not be in your starting 11 v hull????? .agree re vdb and iverseon but struggling to see that it is a no brainer that strongerWe have lost Davies, Pearson and Fisher. We have gained Olisande, VDB, Lindsay, Whiteman and probably Iversonand a new striker compared to the beginning of last season. I would suggest that we are not weaker, especially as Pearson offered very little last season and certain players like Ledson are better than a year ago.
We have also gained Evans and Cunningham compared with a year ago and therefore I think it is a no brainier that we are stronger than a year ago.
Correct, and just observed how the club 'manage' their top talent last season also. Over 200 championship appearances, he'd be an idiot not to be looking to maximize his salary.Given how he was allegedly treated previously I can't see him/his agent being in any hurry to get talking.
IMO he could get more than he's on here at most Championship clubs, even as a bench warmer.
Just had this argument with a Fulham or 2 fan on twitter, they don’t get the problem with parachute payments.Yep, the champ is becoming like the Prem. Absolutely pointless for a club like pne. 3 down , same 3 back up
And why would they?Just had this argument with a Fulham or 2 fan on twitter, they don’t get the problem with parachute payments.
Would rather pay him good money to be a good option off the bench than having someone like Harrop, who has done very little to be on the money he is on just because he came from UnitedHe will be an expensive sub for many matches
It wasn’t stated as a reason not to extend his contract. He was one of the 4 players I have stated that we should be negotiating with. Pretty daft to misinterpret IMO.Barkhuizen has probably played significantly more minutes and started more matches than anybody else at the club since he signed. His appearance record is remarkable.
As such, citing underuse as a reason not to extend his contract is pretty daft imo.
I'm guessing the rationale of parachute payments is that if you get promoted to the Premiership you won't get decent players to sign if you only offer 1 year contracts. So you need Premiership type money in subsequent seasons should you get relegated in your first season.Sheffield United were awarded 180 million pounds for what they served up last season.
It’s rewarding failure. 180 million for finishing last and winning literally four games. Nothing short of an absolute disgrace.
Are you paying his wages fella?He will be an expensive sub for many matches
The question was about whether we have a stronger or weaker squad than at the beginning of last seasonReally……your telling me that pearson, davies and fisher would not be in your starting 11 v hull????? .agree re vdb and iverseon but struggling to see that it is a no brainer that stronger
Especially THAT oneBarky has scored some brilliant and important goals when you look back at his time here.
Loved it when he went through a stint of scoring against Rovers.
I am not bothered how much he is paid. Why should I be.To repeat, I have advocated that he should get a new contract. I am merely pointing out that he is frequently not in the starting eleven.Are you paying his wages fella?
I don’t rate Barkhuizen that highly, but if the gaffa wants him, let him and live and die by them decisions.
Don’t understand why fans are bothered how much ‘x’ is paid or worth.
Managers should be praised for getting the owners to spend money, not criticised. A managers job isn’t to save the owners of a football club money, its to deliver success.
Course they don't get it. As long as they see the riches, no shits are given about the rest who get 4 million compared to their 100m plus. Parachute payments are an absolute mockery of the game.Just had this argument with a Fulham or 2 fan on twitter, they don’t get the problem with parachute payments.
If a player gets relegated they probably aren’t justifying their wages.I'm guessing the rationale of parachute payments is that if you get promoted to the Premiership you won't get decent players to sign if you only offer 1 year contracts. So you need Premiership type money in subsequent seasons should you get relegated in your first season.
If a player gets relegated they probably aren’t justifying their wages.
Id make relegation clauses in contracts for players mandatory. Stop awarding relegation with 180 million, they’d soon reset their wage structure.
To put into comparison.
Manchester City were awarded 100k for winning the League Cup. A trophy, one of the aims of the sport.
Sheffield United were awarded 180 million for being nothing but utter tosh all season, finishing stone last and winning only 4 games of a possible 38.
You can’t even make that make sense.
Then why mention he’d be an expensive sub if you don’t care how much he’s paid?I am not bothered how much he is paid. Why should I be.To repeat, I have advocated that he should get a new contract. I am merely pointing out that he is frequently not in the starting eleven.
Agree.Parachute payments reward failure.
Simple as that really.
Exactly, put relegation clauses into contracts and stop spending 100 million to try and compete.If a player gets relegated they probably aren’t justifying their wages.
Id make relegation clauses in contracts for players mandatory. Stop awarding relegation with 180 million, they’d soon reset their wage structure.
To put into comparison.
Manchester City were awarded 100k for winning the League Cup. A trophy, one of the aims of the sport.
Sheffield United were awarded 180 million for being nothing but utter tosh all season, finishing stone last and winning only 4 games of a possible 38.
You can’t even make that make sense.