Dokko 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? Is this another case in terms of wages of only believing the press when it says what you want to think? 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? Is this another case in terms of wages of only believing the press when it says what you want to think? More of a 'suppose it's true' scenario. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I'd get rid of him if I didn't think we were going to struggle to attract quality players this summer. I'm pretty certain we'll be starting next season with at least 9 of the 11 players we finished last season with, so getting rid of Viduka isn't really an option, even though he's always injured. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 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. Then we'll buy someone like Gomis and a backup striker.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 B, for the simple reason he still scores goals and due to the lack of depth in quality up front if he was to leave, even with a replacement brought in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie 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? Did you just make those figures up? What a pointless exercise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds 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? How can you make an assumption as to how much we're going to pay this Derdiyok gadgie if/when he signs his contract? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 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. Then we'll buy someone like Gomis and a backup striker.. Will we? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko 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? Is this another case in terms of wages of only believing the press when it says what you want to think? More of a 'suppose it's true' scenario. Which was all i was doing (in a lot less way tbf) and you had a problem with it. It's all we can do, we don't see the figures, but what we do know as a fact is we spend £1.2m per week (at the end of this season) on players wages. Try and break it down, £120k for Owen, £80k for Viduka, £60+k for Emre, Barton, Smith, Duff and even then its still hard to reach. 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? How can you make an assumption as to how much we're going to pay this Derdiyok gadgie if/when he signs his contract? No assumption bigger than others are making. Viduka = £75k pw value of £1m Shola = £25k pw value of £2.5m Smith = £60k pw value of £4m Derdiyok on £30k pw, very fair wage for a 19 year old. Probably should have deducted Derdi's £6m transfer fee, but no doubt you will approve of the arithmetic Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds 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? How can you make an assumption as to how much we're going to pay this Derdiyok gadgie if/when he signs his contract? No assumption bigger than others are making. Viduka = £75k pw value of £1m Shola = £25k pw value of £2.5m Smith = £60k pw value of £4m Derdiyok on £30k pw, very fair wage for a 19 year old. Probably should have deducted Derdi's £6m transfer fee, but no doubt you will approve of the arithmetic Do you think I'm going to check the fucking thing like? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko 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? How can you make an assumption as to how much we're going to pay this Derdiyok gadgie if/when he signs his contract? No assumption bigger than others are making. Viduka = £75k pw value of £1m Shola = £25k pw value of £2.5m Smith = £60k pw value of £4m Derdiyok on £30k pw, very fair wage for a 19 year old. Probably should have deducted Derdi's £6m transfer fee, but no doubt you will approve of the arithmetic Do you think I'm going to check the fucking thing like? Just give him a D- and be done with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sniffer Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Why would Viduka leave? He's on big money for the rest of his contract and he's injured. Then he'll retire. We're stuck with him unless he's bought out. Pisses me off that contracts are a one way street these days. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hakka Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 If Viduka is on the £50k to £60k mark per week, I can't see any other club in the league wanting him... even if its on a free. He is good player when on the pitch and fit, but those two things are what Viduka can't be relied upon... So, back to the choices... would like to say C or D, but don't believe it is possible. So will chose B. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 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. Then we'll buy someone like Gomis and a backup striker.. Will we? Why not? The way your talking we only have the option to buy one striker.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Obviously B. Quality player when he's in the team (providing we're not constantly pumping long balls to his head, which isn't his fault), and if he's not in the team then the new signing will be. Would be utterly pointless letting him go, he isn't expendable like the likes of Emre, Smith, Duff and Shola are imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I don't think anyone would let him go without a replacement, but if we sign a replacement every effort should be made to move him on IMO, he's a big fat waste of money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I don't think anyone would let him go without a replacement, but if we sign a replacement every effort should be made to move him on IMO, he's a big fat waste of money. That just isn't true. When he's in the team, he scores, and he was as much a catalyst as the likes of Martins and Owen for our improved fortunes at the end of the season. Other than the odd performance, the only time he hasn't been on his game is when we've played long ball, which 'coincidentally' - isn't his game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubaricho Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 When he's fit, he's one of the best in the biz in his position. His creativity is astonishing at times. He's a great target man to have on the pitch because he will usually create something and is great at holding the ball up. I don't see why we'd get rid of him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirge Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Replace Viduka with Gomis, Viduka replaces Shola.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I don't think anyone would let him go without a replacement, but if we sign a replacement every effort should be made to move him on IMO, he's a big fat waste of money. That just isn't true. When he's in the team, he scores, and he was as much a catalyst as the likes of Martins and Owen for our improved fortunes at the end of the season. Other than the odd performance, the only time he hasn't been on his game is when we've played long ball, which 'coincidentally' - isn't his game. That doesn't make him value for money though! He played 21 games last season and scored 7 goals, he's on £60-£70,000 per week, that's a f***ing waste of money! Its the kind of wages the club should pay a top player who plays almost every game and contributes big things to the team, its not the kind of money we should be playing a lazy bit part player who's class for 45 minutes when he's fit enough to play! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Thought cutting costs was a bad thing etc etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Who said that?, not me that's for sure. Asnwer this anyone, who else in world Football would be prepared to pay a backup player £65,000 per week? Its f***ing mental and has the stop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 At the end of the day, we aren't going to be a perfect club with perfect players straight away. Almost every player at NUFC will have something wrong with them, be it Martins inconsistency, Butt or Geremi's physical ability, N'Zogbia being all potential. With Viduka, we have a player who despite the injuries and lack of pace/fitness will earn us key goals and win us matches when he does play. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Who said that?, not me that's for sure. Asnwer this anyone, who else in world Football would be prepared to pay a backup player £65,000 per week? Its fucking mental and has the stop!! He certainly isn't a back up player. He is easily good enough to start for most teams, and I bet every manager in the league would love to have unfit Viduka come off the bench for the final half hour. 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