Dokko Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Viduka is currently doing what he does best, being injured, as he did for too much of the season just gone, and it wouldn't be a big gamble to say they same is going to happen in the following season. So shifting him is a bit of a problem, especially since he's on obscene wages (apparently) So my question is: What do you think we should do with him? A: Keep him, 1st team when fit B: Get a younger replacement and have them battle for next season C: Sell him for as much as we can D: Give him away for free and get rid of £3-4m (apparently) a year off the wage bill I can't see the club taken up the 3rd year option so in 12 months he's gone imo. Is he worth keeping for 12 months? Personally i say no, i'd try and sell him of course, but if we could simply offload him for nothing i'd take that option in an instant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 B. We need a replacement because he's unreliable with his fitness at the best of times but he's a very dangerous player to have off the bench. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newcastle Fan Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 B defintly, thing is that with the right motivation Viduka can be class, maybe having someone to compete with will be that motive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrette Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 He can still score goals, so B. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I'd get rid of him, for nothing if neccesary, but only after we've signed a replacement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Better off with than without, B. His wages are exagerrated in my opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Three people have already voted D. Were these people on holiday for the last two months of the season or what? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I'd get rid of him, for nothing if neccesary, but only after we've signed a replacement. Yeah when i was thinking of D i was thinking of that and using his wages to almost buy the player outright! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 To people suggesting B, one question for you, are you all f***ing crazy or what? You're talking about keeping a player who we pay between £60,000 and £70,000 per week as backup... mental. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Better off with than without, B. His wages are exagerrated in my opinion. I doubt it. £1.2m a week we dish out, its got to go somewhere. Boro offered him £60kpw to stay so... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tisd09 Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 C. Based on his high wages (if true) and some teams may still be willing to pay. On his day he is a very useful player but we just don't see enough of him. Replacement is a must though!! and a back up to that replacement. I would hope we would be going into the new season with a better strikeforce than Oba, Owen, Viduka & Carroll (I am assuming that Shola will be gone by the start of the season) Ideally Carroll on loan to a top Championship team or lower end Prem like Hull or Stoke! And Viduka sold, so at least 2 more forwards should be bought IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 B. When he was fit, and up for it, he was reliable. He's never going to be a guy that starts every match ever again, but with seven subs on the bench, we could do considerably worse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Is this another case of only believing the press when it says what you want to think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Viduka's the second highest paid player at the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Is this another case of only believing the press when it says what you want to think? Why don't you pull out some pointless statistic to prove your case if it is then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Three people have already voted D. Were these people on holiday for the last two months of the season or what? He did a good job, well and effective one on his day, still had a lot of missing days amongst those though. If he was fit every game then i really wouldn't have made the poll, but since he cannot be relied upon, and everyone is happy at our new wages cutting approach from Ashley, then Viduka really is a big target that needs taken out to suit the new streamline self supporting club, and not paying over the odds in wages for has beens and household names. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Is this another case of only believing the press when it says what you want to think? Why don't you pull out some pointless statistic to prove your case if it is then? If I wanted, I could pull out a comparison of win percentages with and without Viduka. The difference between the two would imply that Viduka has an impact on results on the pitch, and is therefore worth keeping. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Three people have already voted D. Were these people on holiday for the last two months of the season or what? He did a good job, well and effective one on his day, still had a lot of missing days amongst those though. If he was fit every game then i really wouldn't have made the poll, but since he cannot be relied upon, and everyone is happy at our new wages cutting approach from Ashley, then Viduka really is a big target that needs taken out to suit the new streamline self supporting club, and not paying over the odds in wages for has beens and household names. At the end of the day, we can't afford to lose him. Even if we sell him, buy (for example) Gomis, whenever Gomis (or Oba for that matter) takes a knock, we're down to Smith or Carroll. Losing Vids is a non-starter imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Buy his replacement and I'm not too bothered if he stays or not tbh. Not a bad player but let's be kind and say he 'lacks mobility'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenige Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 D isn't even an option anyway, you can't just release a player of his wages, you'd have to pay up his contract because he'd have no reason to leave. I'm pretty certain it was a two-year deal rather than a one-year deal with an option for a years extension. So option D would actually be give him almost £4m to get his wages off the wage bill. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 D isn't even an option anyway, you can't just release a player of his wages, you'd have to pay up his contract because he'd have no reason to leave. I'm pretty certain it was a two-year deal rather than a one-year deal with an option for a years extension. So option D would actually be give him almost £4m to get his wages off the wage bill. No D is giving him to a club for nothing, no transfer fee to encourage a move. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Lol Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 If his wages are as high as they're always reputed to be, get him out now, on a free if necessary. Then bring in 2 or 3 squad players whose wages would be covered by the savings made on Viduka's exit. That's what Arnesen did when he first arrived at Spurs and it worked well. Can't see any reason why it wouldn't work for Newcastle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 B, but it depends entirely on who his replacement is as to whether we then get rid altogether. Assuming Owen and Martins stay - and depending on the formation Keegan wants to use - if the replacement is good enough, I'm not sure we need Viduka. He's a good player though and much more so than Carroll. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Look at it this way: Viduka + Shola out, Derdiyok in = £3.5m transfer fees plus £3.64m saved wages Smith + Shola out, Derdiyok in = £6.5m transfer fees plus £2.86m saved wages What is better? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now