Teasy Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 You're just thinking about it the wrong way that's all Tooj. If this was Owen saying "I want £20,000 on top of my wages just to step onto the pitch" then I'd agree. Instead its (if it happens that is) the club taking his current wage and making chunks of it contingent on appearances and goals. For a player with injury problems who's purpose is to score goals that's a brilliant deal for the club if we pulled it off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 get rid, if he doesn't sign just as long we have a replacement ready to come in Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen927 Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 He'll be lucky to recieve as much when this contract runs out at another club. I hope he stays but what hes demanding is ridiculous for a player that is now a shadow (though still very good in that 4-3-3) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 principle is a performance type of pay system for footballers. I would totally agree with teasy proposing a step in that direction. The problem is the players, and the PFA, who would simply not entertain the idea, despite it being a step in the right direction for many hundreds or thousands of its members that would see committment to their clubs, and actual good consistent performance, being paid its due merits. I agree, but I find it absurd offering someone that much for actually being fit to do something they are already paid very handsomely for. Fair enough for goal bonuses, win bonuses etc but that much for just actually being fit to play is mental. depends how you dress it up though mate, call it "appearance pay", and encompass it with actually being selected ? What utter tosh. He's the captain, of course he'll be selected if he's fit. oh dear. Oh yeah, sorry, you're the voice of reason who is idolised on these boards, aren't you? Think about it, you dolt. Provided Owen hasn't turned into Robbie Fowler and lost basically every form of striking ability then he'll be the first name on KK's teamsheet when fit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 At the end of the day, what incentive does Owen have to sign an extended contract at anything less than what he's currently on? Unless he has a career ending injury, it's unlikely that the same deal will not still be there at the end of the season, at which point he can take the best offer going both monetarily and career wise. If (IF) we are indeed set for a couple of years of "consolidation", I'd doubt he'd want to spend what should be some of his prime years treading water. To those saying he wouldn't get anything like what he's getting here anywhere else, well when you consider you could have eg Crouch or Defoe (£10m + £50kpw) or Owen (£0 + £100kpw / £5m up front + £75kpw) for a similar outlay over 4 years, I don't think he'll have too much of a problem at least matching what we're offering. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 Are you mental? Its there to make sure he doesn't get paid if he's injured you cracker. Instead of paying him £105,000 per week no matter what. He gets £70,000 every week regardless, £20,000 if he's fit to play and £20,000 if he scores. So if he's injured he only costs us £70,000 instead of £105,000. But if he's fit and on form he can potentially earn £110,000, but he'd have to be banging them in left right and center to do that, which means we'd then be happy to pay it... get it? What if he plays 3 games (PL, Carling Cup, FA Cup for example) in a week? That's an extra £90,000! You can't just say also "An extra £20000 for making an appearance in the week" because what if there's a week with no games? It's hardly fair because he doesn't have the potential to earn any more that week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 If its based on payments per game then obviously some weeks he'd earn more and others he'd earn less depending on how many games in that week (in a lot of them there'd be none). At the end of the day Newcastle United played about 40 something games last season, less then there are weeks in a year so... If he helps us get into Europe that's more games and more money for him.. I'm sure they can work out a way of doing this that suits both parties, but however they do it IMO his contract should be based on performance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alan Shearer 9 Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 This type of thing only ends in tears. http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iBWUemcrW0a5SHC1_yXl3bdkeV8A Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 I'd be happy if Owen accepted the same 33% cut, doubt we'll ask for 90% though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ObaStar Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 First off Owen would have no problem getting 105 K a week at another club. Whenever he has had a run of games he scores like a maniac and people know this. Secondly, why would a player that has been serially injured throughout his career accept a salary that is contingent on him being fit. If he leaves on a free we are losing a 10-15 Million asset for free. Now to replace Owen would cost around 15-25 Million plus the 100+ K salary we would have to pay that new player. If we remain adamant with the 30 K pay cut we would be absolutely stupid. 30 K a week works out to 1.5 million a year we would save. If Owen doesn't sign it will cost us minimum 25 million (taking the lower numbers from above). So ask yourself is it better to save 25 Million or 1.5 Million pounds? I think we should just shut up and pay him what he asks because right now he is one of 2 maybe 3 players (Martins, Beye?) we have at this club who would start at a top 4 team. And right now it is near impossible to attract those sort of players to our club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 principle is a performance type of pay system for footballers. I would totally agree with teasy proposing a step in that direction. The problem is the players, and the PFA, who would simply not entertain the idea, despite it being a step in the right direction for many hundreds or thousands of its members that would see committment to their clubs, and actual good consistent performance, being paid its due merits. I agree, but I find it absurd offering someone that much for actually being fit to do something they are already paid very handsomely for. Fair enough for goal bonuses, win bonuses etc but that much for just actually being fit to play is mental. depends how you dress it up though mate, call it "appearance pay", and encompass it with actually being selected ? What utter tosh. He's the captain, of course he'll be selected if he's fit. oh dear. Oh yeah, sorry, you're the voice of reason who is idolised on these boards, aren't you? Think about it, you dolt. Provided Owen hasn't turned into Robbie Fowler and lost basically every form of striking ability then he'll be the first name on KK's teamsheet when fit. Dolt ? Read the thread, properly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 Weren't you the one who said Souness was 'a top boss'? Anyway, I know perfectly well what the thread is about thanks, and like to think I'm making a constructive contribution to it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 Weren't you the one who said Souness was 'a top boss'? Anyway, I know perfectly well what the thread is about thanks, and like to think I'm making a constructive contribution to it. no, I didn't, somebody edited the thread. Anyway, the fact that quite a lot of people on here and other message boards actually backed him for months, his buys, his sales, right up until the end, it shows you don't open your eyes too much. This thread has proved it. Read it properly. Dear dear me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 I just seem to remember you harping on about it the most, NE5. And you don't seem to have grasped the fact that I have read the thread, you are merely commenting on my knowledge of an event of 2-3 years ago now, which has nothing to do with this thread, I was just using it to prove you are talking out of your arse quite frankly. Now, why don't you do another of your page-breaking posts and leave me alone? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrette Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 Weren't you the one who said Souness was 'a top boss'? Anyway, I know perfectly well what the thread is about thanks, and like to think I'm making a constructive contribution to it. no, I didn't, somebody edited the thread. Wasn't it proved that they didn't? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 I just seem to remember you harping on about it the most, NE5. And you don't seem to have grasped the fact that I have read the thread, you are merely commenting on my knowledge of an event of 2-3 years ago now, which has nothing to do with this thread, I was just using it to prove you are talking out of your arse quite frankly. Now, why don't you do another of your page-breaking posts and leave me alone? didn't you respond to a post of mine, or are you making things up ? you may have read the thread, but you certainly don't understand it. here is the phrase again, think about it, if thats possible for you. "depends how you dress it up though mate, call it "appearance pay", and encompass it with actually being selected ?" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 Weren't you the one who said Souness was 'a top boss'? Anyway, I know perfectly well what the thread is about thanks, and like to think I'm making a constructive contribution to it. no, I didn't, somebody edited the thread. Wasn't it proved that they didn't? no, and it has all been sorted out amicably. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 Give him £200k a week if it stops Shola and Smith ever starting together up front. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 Weren't you the one who said Souness was 'a top boss'? Anyway, I know perfectly well what the thread is about thanks, and like to think I'm making a constructive contribution to it. no, I didn't, somebody edited the thread. Wasn't it proved that they didn't? no, and it has all been sorted out amicably. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 Weren't you the one who said Souness was 'a top boss'? Anyway, I know perfectly well what the thread is about thanks, and like to think I'm making a constructive contribution to it. no, I didn't, somebody edited the thread. Wasn't it proved that they didn't? no, and it has all been sorted out amicably. oh dear, what are you laughing at you silly boy mackems.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 NE5 mate, I responded to your post because it was horseshit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 Weren't you the one who said Souness was 'a top boss'? Anyway, I know perfectly well what the thread is about thanks, and like to think I'm making a constructive contribution to it. no, I didn't, somebody edited the thread. Wasn't it proved that they didn't? no, and it has all been sorted out amicably. oh dear, what are you laughing at you silly boy mackems.gif No one edited your post, you big tart, stop lying and trying to get out of what you posted. Anyone else would just accept they were wrong and move on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 Weren't you the one who said Souness was 'a top boss'? Anyway, I know perfectly well what the thread is about thanks, and like to think I'm making a constructive contribution to it. no, I didn't, somebody edited the thread. Wasn't it proved that they didn't? no, and it has all been sorted out amicably. oh dear, what are you laughing at you silly boy mackems.gif No one edited your post, you big tart, stop lying and trying to get out of what you posted. Anyone else would just accept they were wrong and move on. gan to bed. Somebody edited my post. Do you think I'd have left it like that , how dumb can you get ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 NE5 mate, I responded to your post because it was horseshit. Thanks for confirming I'm not following you around. Like I said, go away and try to understand the phrase, but if you can't, then stop following me around. 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