Gylfi Sigurdsson

[erikolaf]

Fake innit? ^^^

Come to think of it, yeah.

[my left foot]

If that is true then it just goes to show how badly mis-managed we've been for years - including the Rafa years.

We're paying out huge sums in wages to players that frankly don't deserve them.

Exactly. The revenue is there for us to pay better money than anyone outside the top four who doesn't have a billionaire owner backing them, our wage bill is way bigger than Spurs so the money is there. Our problem is like you say, going to all the wrong players. Carra, Cole and Aquilani. Henderson, Downing and Carroll on big money too. What percentage of our wage bill is going on those players who provide next to nothing in return? A sizeable one i'd imagine.

No guarantee that we'll be able to move any of those players on either. That is the reality of the situation.

[danperkins]

Hes going to be a very good player and long term I think its a great buy for Spurs

That said I dont think hes worth £70K per week as things stand today, I'd pay £40-50K per week max

However I do feel he has the potential to be worth more than £70K per week

Its a really tough one for the club, I can understand why they would baulk at those sort of wages

I suppose we move on to the next player but I genuinely feel players of Sigurdssons level/quality are about as good as it gets for us at this moment in time and to be priced out of that sort of deal is concerning

[danperkins]

Exactly. The revenue is there for us to pay better money than anyone outside the top four who doesn't have a billionaire owner backing them, our wage bill is way bigger than Spurs so the money is there. Our problem is like you say, going to all the wrong players. Carra, Cole and Aquilani. Henderson, Downing and Carroll on big money too. What percentage of our wage bill is going on those players who provide next to nothing in return? A sizeable one i'd imagine.

No guarantee that we'll be able to move any of those players on either. That is the reality of the situation.

[my left foot]

If speculations are correct we offered £55k per week which is more than fair amount for a player that only had good 6 months in PL.

No doubt he had the potential to be a good player but at this point it is just that potential.

I have no problem with us passing on him as long as his 'replacement' will be the player with the same or better qualities.

That said, If Rodgers really wants him I'm pretty sure FSG would relax their stand in this case and let him sign subject that his wage demands are no higher than what Spurs are allegedly willing to offer.

More than fair. I'm sure there'd be stipulations too that meant if we make CL football then his contract would be revised up. I think that's the way to go anyway.

[Nick77]

More than fair. I'm sure there'd be stipulations too that meant if we make CL football then his contract would be revised up. I think that's the way to go anyway.

I think ALL contracts in football should be performance based even for the top players. I don't think it's fair that we finished 8th last season & the squad gets paid all their wages. The club lost money last year due to an underperforming squad therefore the players themselves should also have lost some of their revenue imo.
It works that way when a squad over-achieves in that they get bonuses, so why not apply the same logic when under-achieving??

[ronanm]

I think ALL contracts in football should be performance based even for the top players. I don't think it's fair that we finished 8th last season & the squad gets paid all their wages. The club lost money last year due to an underperforming squad therefore the players themselves should also have lost some of their revenue imo.
It works that way when a squad over-achieves in that they get bonuses, so why not apply the same logic when under-achieving??

I agree completely. But it will never happen unfortunately. Other teams would just offer them more £. Even if it became commonplace, it would only take 1 team (like City) to distort the market.

[red g]

I think ALL contracts in football should be performance based even for the top players. I don't think it's fair that we finished 8th last season & the squad gets paid all their wages. The club lost money last year due to an underperforming squad therefore the players themselves should also have lost some of their revenue imo.
It works that way when a squad over-achieves in that they get bonuses, so why not apply the same logic when under-achieving??

I think that would be very unfair on Downing, How could you expect him to make a living?

[dom9]

I think ALL contracts in football should be performance based even for the top players. I don't think it's fair that we finished 8th last season & the squad gets paid all their wages. The club lost money last year due to an underperforming squad therefore the players themselves should also have lost some of their revenue imo.
It works that way when a squad over-achieves in that they get bonuses, so why not apply the same logic when under-achieving??

Er, that is the definition of a bonus, no?

You get your basic wage, then you get additional rewards based on performance.

As far as I know, goal / win / performance bonuses are pretty standard in football and they achieve exactly what you are proposing.

[Nick77]

Er, that is the definition of a bonus, no?

You get your basic wage, then you get additional rewards based on performance.

As far as I know, goal / win / performance bonuses are pretty standard in football and they achieve exactly what you are proposing.

I'm proposing that if a squad under-achieves then they should get a reduction on their basic wage in the same way if they were to over-acheive they would get bonuses - it's not difficult to understand really...
And if they achieved a par performance (e.g. us finishing 5th or 6th), then no reduction or bonus. Simple...

[dom9]

I'm proposing that if a squad under-achieves then they should get a reduction on their basic wage in the same way if they were to over-acheive they would get bonuses - it's not difficult to understand really...

Well, it is a preposterous idea really.

Would you ever sign up to it with your employer?

A lower basic wage with greater rewards for success would be a more realistic and sensible approach, don't you think?

Then again, if you don't pay the percieved market rate, you don't tend to get yer man, in any industry.

[Chazza]

Well, it is a preposterous idea really.

Would you ever sign up to it with your employer?

A lower basic wage with greater rewards for success would be a more realistic and sensible approach, don't you think?

Then again, if you don't pay the percieved market rate, you don't tend to get yer man, in any industry.

Amen brother

[dom9]

Amen brother

This whole thing about footballers being overpaid, so we should therefore apply a different set of rules to them than anyone else really gets my goat.

[Chazza]

This whole thing about footballers being overpaid, so we should therefore apply a different set of rules to them than anyone else really gets my goat.

They just happen to be lucky enough to work in an industry that has a higher pay scale than most

The only way to attempt to level the playing field will be to bring in a salary cap and the more American owners we get the more they will push for it

And unless that is adopted by the whole of Europe then the real quality will all **** off to Spain, Germany, Italy and France

[Lee]

Some people also have different opinions on what counts as an achievement.

I'm with Dom on this. It's a ****ing bollocks idea.