Ashley sets up new long term transfer strategy - Sunday Sun

[macca888]

In the current climate, I can see the sense in this and agree with many on here that the day of fat cat players is rapidly coming to an end and rightly so too.

 

However, clubs will be forced to nurture their own youngsters so you would have to believe that those clubs with highly organised and professionally run academies will be first on the production line. I dont know whether we can safely say we are up there yet.

 

Furthermore, there are plenty of good quality players in the lokes of Scandanavia who would play for the club for a lot less than 15K a week.

 

My only problem with this is that the rich will get richer and what youngsters who come through successful academies will be picked off by them. You can bet your bottom dollar that all league and cup competitions will be won by the rich clubs whilst everyone else will be also rans in a battle for survival year in, year out.

[NG32]

In the current climate, I can see the sense in this and agree with many on here that the day of fat cat players is rapidly coming to an end and rightly so too.

 

However, clubs will be forced to nurture their own youngsters so you would have to believe that those clubs with highly organised and professionally run academies will be first on the production line. I dont know whether we can safely say we are up there yet.

 

Furthermore, there are plenty of good quality players in the lokes of Scandanavia who would play for the club for a lot less than 15K a week.

 

My only problem with this is that the rich will get richer and what youngsters who come through successful academies will be picked off by them. You can bet your bottom dollar that all league and cup competitions will be won by the rich clubs whilst everyone else will be also rans in a battle for survival year in, year out.

 

THis is why we need an agreed salary cap on all teams.

 

 

[macca888]

Isnt Platini looking to change things around with new laws that all clubs have to play a certain number of home grown players each week?

[midds]

I bet west ham wont be paying mega bucks anymore, i bet man utd have to reduce the wage bill same as liverpool I bet Frank lumpard, terry fuckwit and michael ballsack will be the only players on 150k at chelsea. Any newplayers coming in to Chelsea will not be offered those contracts.

Its over man.

 

They'd make exceptions though. If Torres or Messi ever became available City and Chelsea would give them whatever they wanted to make sure they got them. Money is not an object to a handful of clubs and as they set the benchmark the rest of the clubs will follow.

 

I don't mind players being paid £120k a week if they're earning it but there are far too many ordinary players being paid far too much. That's the problem.

[NG32]

I bet west ham wont be paying mega bucks anymore, i bet man utd have to reduce the wage bill same as liverpool I bet Frank lumpard, terry fuckwit and michael ballsack will be the only players on 150k at chelsea. Any newplayers coming in to Chelsea will not be offered those contracts.

Its over man.

 

They'd make exceptions though. If Torres or Messi ever became available City and Chelsea would give them whatever they wanted to make sure they got them. Money is not an object to a handful of clubs and as they set the benchmark the rest of the clubs will follow.

 

I don't mind players being paid £120k a week if they're earning it but there are far too many ordinary players being paid far too much. That's the problem.

 

The playes you mentioned are top top players.

 

Not scott parkers and joey bartons on 60k a week or a aging nicky butt on top $.

 

BUt then again, would roman allow another highly paid player come in without letting one go?

[midds]

I bet west ham wont be paying mega bucks anymore, i bet man utd have to reduce the wage bill same as liverpool I bet Frank lumpard, terry fuckwit and michael ballsack will be the only players on 150k at chelsea. Any newplayers coming in to Chelsea will not be offered those contracts.

Its over man.

 

They'd make exceptions though. If Torres or Messi ever became available City and Chelsea would give them whatever they wanted to make sure they got them. Money is not an object to a handful of clubs and as they set the benchmark the rest of the clubs will follow.

 

I don't mind players being paid £120k a week if they're earning it but there are far too many ordinary players being paid far too much. That's the problem.

 

The playes you mentioned are top top players.

 

Not scott parkers and joey bartons on 60k a week or a aging nicky butt on top $.

 

BUt then again, would roman allow another highly paid player come in without letting one go?

 

Parker, Butt and Barton are good examples of the overpaid ordinary players I mentioned. 

 

I think Roman would sanction it if it meant getting a Torres or a Messi. Chances are Ballack will be moving on soon anyway. The problem is that if Terry, Lampard et al are raking in £140k a week then the lesser players in the squad will expect their wage to be pretty hefty too.

[NG32]

I bet west ham wont be paying mega bucks anymore, i bet man utd have to reduce the wage bill same as liverpool I bet Frank lumpard, terry fuckwit and michael ballsack will be the only players on 150k at chelsea. Any newplayers coming in to Chelsea will not be offered those contracts.

Its over man.

 

They'd make exceptions though. If Torres or Messi ever became available City and Chelsea would give them whatever they wanted to make sure they got them. Money is not an object to a handful of clubs and as they set the benchmark the rest of the clubs will follow.

 

I don't mind players being paid £120k a week if they're earning it but there are far too many ordinary players being paid far too much. That's the problem.

 

The playes you mentioned are top top players.

 

Not scott parkers and joey bartons on 60k a week or a aging nicky butt on top $.

 

BUt then again, would roman allow another highly paid player come in without letting one go?

 

Parker, Butt and Barton are good examples of the overpaid ordinary players I mentioned. 

 

I think Roman would sanction it if it meant getting a Torres or a Messi. Chances are Ballack will be moving on soon anyway. The problem is that if Terry, Lampard et al are raking in £140k a week then the lesser players in the squad will expect their wage to be pretty hefty too.

 

Agreed,  their is also a rank culture with footballers with "i want what he is getting" without the effort going in to justify it.

 

Players need to have a long hard word with themselves.

[midds]

I bet west ham wont be paying mega bucks anymore, i bet man utd have to reduce the wage bill same as liverpool I bet Frank lumpard, terry fuckwit and michael ballsack will be the only players on 150k at chelsea. Any newplayers coming in to Chelsea will not be offered those contracts.

Its over man.

 

They'd make exceptions though. If Torres or Messi ever became available City and Chelsea would give them whatever they wanted to make sure they got them. Money is not an object to a handful of clubs and as they set the benchmark the rest of the clubs will follow.

 

I don't mind players being paid £120k a week if they're earning it but there are far too many ordinary players being paid far too much. That's the problem.

 

The playes you mentioned are top top players.

 

Not scott parkers and joey bartons on 60k a week or a aging nicky butt on top $.

 

BUt then again, would roman allow another highly paid player come in without letting one go?

 

Parker, Butt and Barton are good examples of the overpaid ordinary players I mentioned. 

 

I think Roman would sanction it if it meant getting a Torres or a Messi. Chances are Ballack will be moving on soon anyway. The problem is that if Terry, Lampard et al are raking in £140k a week then the lesser players in the squad will expect their wage to be pretty hefty too.

 

Agreed,  their is also a rank culture with footballers with "i want what he is getting" without the effort going in to justify it.

 

Players need to have a long hard word with themselves.

 

Yep. The better players will always earn the most money and there's nothing wrong with that, they deserve it if they're filling the ground every week and winning things for their clubs.

 

I just think clubs are going to look for 'value for money' players and, whilst still offering big money to top players, will look around for the right player before throwing £60k a week at them.

[juniatmoko]

reduce the salary not reduce the ticket prices & everything bought by fans...

Ashley what you could be possible thinking about this guy?

[Guest ObiChrisKenobi]

Isnt Platini looking to change things around with new laws that all clubs have to play a certain number of home grown players each week?

 

Starts next year in the EPL, where you have to have 8 registered British Trained players at the club (so that could still be an Italian who's worked his way up the team's youth academy). It doesn't mean they have to be in the starting line up either, just registered in the season's squad.

 

If this report of Ashley changing his transfer tactics is true, and it looks like it might be, then I'm all for it. Wonder if he tried it last year when we were in the Premier League, and that's why we couldn't get any bugger to sign!

[Offshore]

Put players on a basic wage with a performance related bonus scheme in place.

[Chris_R]

£500 per week basic, with a £40k/week win bonus. We'll see some commitment then and desire to play rather than sit rotting in the reserves on massive money.

[Cajun]

Some of them might even bother getting fit enough to run 7-10 miles!

[Guest malandro]

I bet west ham wont be paying mega bucks anymore, i bet man utd have to reduce the wage bill same as liverpool I bet Frank lumpard, terry fuckwit and michael ballsack will be the only players on 150k at chelsea. Any newplayers coming in to Chelsea will not be offered those contracts.

 

Its over man.

Is it? As long as Sky keep playing mega bucks for the TV rights wages will remain mega high. I think you’re right that they will drop, but not by much and only in the short run.  There’ll always be clubs who are prepared to pay just that little bit more to beat off the opposition.  Players are the capital on which football success is built, wage inflation is unavoidable.

 

The only clubs in real trouble are the medium sized ones who relied almost entirely on the TV money, and then got relegated. Manchester United and Liverpool aren’t in trouble because of wages, but the way they were purchased. Pompy are the exception not the rule, they just went mad.

 

The traditional well supported clubs have sizable debts but they’re not all about to shake hands on a wage capping agreement. This isn’t to say Football doesn’t need to get its act together; just that the belt tightening won’t be as severe as the overreaction to Pompy’s demise suggests.  A 30k cap at Newcastle would probably see us loiter around mid table, a £15k cap and we’ll be perennial relegation strugglers.

 

[NG32]

I bet west ham wont be paying mega bucks anymore, i bet man utd have to reduce the wage bill same as liverpool I bet Frank lumpard, terry fuckwit and michael ballsack will be the only players on 150k at chelsea. Any newplayers coming in to Chelsea will not be offered those contracts.

 

Its over man.

Is it? As long as Sky keep playing mega bucks for the TV rights wages will remain mega high. I think you’re right that they will drop, but not by much and only in the short run.  There’ll always be clubs who are prepared to pay just that little bit more to beat off the opposition.  Players are the capital on which football success is built, wage inflation is unavoidable.

 

The only clubs in real trouble are the medium sized ones who relied almost entirely on the TV money, and then got relegated. Manchester United and Liverpool aren’t in trouble because of wages, but the way they were purchased. Pompy are the exception not the rule, they just went mad.

 

The traditional well supported clubs have sizable debts but they’re not all about to shake hands on a wage capping agreement. This isn’t to say Football doesn’t need to get its act together; just that the belt tightening won’t be as severe as the overreaction to Pompy’s demise suggests.  A 30k cap at Newcastle would probably see us loiter around mid table, a £15k cap and we’ll be perennial relegation strugglers.

 

 

And what makes you think Sky will keep funding it with the same wedge??

 

 

[David28]

£500 per week basic, with a £40k/week win bonus. We'll see some commitment then and desire to play rather than sit rotting in the reserves on massive money.

 

That's a bit too abstract but the idea itself wouldn't be too bad tbh. Probably 10.000 a week and then a certain bonus per win/goal scored/assist/clean sheet ...

 

Only problem would be that I could hardly see any player wanting to play for us under such "hard" conditions.

[Guest malandro]

I bet west ham wont be paying mega bucks anymore, i bet man utd have to reduce the wage bill same as liverpool I bet Frank lumpard, terry fuckwit and michael ballsack will be the only players on 150k at chelsea. Any newplayers coming in to Chelsea will not be offered those contracts.

 

Its over man.

Is it? As long as Sky keep playing mega bucks for the TV rights wages will remain mega high. I think you’re right that they will drop, but not by much and only in the short run.  There’ll always be clubs who are prepared to pay just that little bit more to beat off the opposition.  Players are the capital on which football success is built, wage inflation is unavoidable.

 

The only clubs in real trouble are the medium sized ones who relied almost entirely on the TV money, and then got relegated. Manchester United and Liverpool aren’t in trouble because of wages, but the way they were purchased. Pompy are the exception not the rule, they just went mad.

 

The traditional well supported clubs have sizable debts but they’re not all about to shake hands on a wage capping agreement. This isn’t to say Football doesn’t need to get its act together; just that the belt tightening won’t be as severe as the overreaction to Pompy’s demise suggests.  A 30k cap at Newcastle would probably see us loiter around mid table, a £15k cap and we’ll be perennial relegation strugglers.

 

 

And what makes you think Sky will keep funding it with the same wedge??

 

 

What makes you think they won’t?

 

The PL has a worldwide audience of 4b and football is what sells Sky. Take it away and the number of subscriptions would plummet. They wouldn’t pay £2b for the rights if it wasn’t essential to their business, and they wouldn’t pay £2b unless it was profitable. 

 

Sky are already facing a battle to stop the clubs going it alone. Significantly  dropping what they pay for the rights isn’t going to help their cause.

 

[Wallace]

I bet west ham wont be paying mega bucks anymore, i bet man utd have to reduce the wage bill same as liverpool I bet Frank lumpard, terry fuckwit and michael ballsack will be the only players on 150k at chelsea. Any newplayers coming in to Chelsea will not be offered those contracts.

 

Its over man.

Is it? As long as Sky keep playing mega bucks for the TV rights wages will remain mega high. I think youre right that they will drop, but not by much and only in the short run.  Therell always be clubs who are prepared to pay just that little bit more to beat off the opposition.  Players are the capital on which football success is built, wage inflation is unavoidable.

 

The only clubs in real trouble are the medium sized ones who relied almost entirely on the TV money, and then got relegated. Manchester United and Liverpool arent in trouble because of wages, but the way they were purchased. Pompy are the exception not the rule, they just went mad.

 

The traditional well supported clubs have sizable debts but theyre not all about to shake hands on a wage capping agreement. This isnt to say Football doesnt need to get its act together; just that the belt tightening wont be as severe as the overreaction to Pompys demise suggests.  A 30k cap at Newcastle would probably see us loiter around mid table, a £15k cap and well be perennial relegation strugglers.

 

 

And what makes you think Sky will keep funding it with the same wedge??

 

 

What makes you think they wont?

 

The PL has a worldwide audience of 4b and football is what sells Sky. Take it away and the number of subscriptions would plummet. They wouldnt pay £2b for the rights if it wasnt essential to their business, and they wouldnt pay £2b unless it was profitable. 

 

Sky are already facing a battle to stop the clubs going it alone. Significantly  dropping what they pay for the rights isnt going to help their cause.

 

 

Sky have now also got ESPN to worry about.  Setanta were never in a position to seriously compete with them but ESPN can if they wish and that could drive the price up.

 

[NG32]

I bet west ham wont be paying mega bucks anymore, i bet man utd have to reduce the wage bill same as liverpool I bet Frank lumpard, terry fuckwit and michael ballsack will be the only players on 150k at chelsea. Any newplayers coming in to Chelsea will not be offered those contracts.

 

Its over man.

Is it? As long as Sky keep playing mega bucks for the TV rights wages will remain mega high. I think you’re right that they will drop, but not by much and only in the short run.  There’ll always be clubs who are prepared to pay just that little bit more to beat off the opposition.  Players are the capital on which football success is built, wage inflation is unavoidable.

 

The only clubs in real trouble are the medium sized ones who relied almost entirely on the TV money, and then got relegated. Manchester United and Liverpool aren’t in trouble because of wages, but the way they were purchased. Pompy are the exception not the rule, they just went mad.

 

The traditional well supported clubs have sizable debts but they’re not all about to shake hands on a wage capping agreement. This isn’t to say Football doesn’t need to get its act together; just that the belt tightening won’t be as severe as the overreaction to Pompy’s demise suggests.  A 30k cap at Newcastle would probably see us loiter around mid table, a £15k cap and we’ll be perennial relegation strugglers.

 

 

And what makes you think Sky will keep funding it with the same wedge??

 

 

What makes you think they won’t?

 

The PL has a worldwide audience of 4b and football is what sells Sky. Take it away and the number of subscriptions would plummet. They wouldn’t pay £2b for the rights if it wasn’t essential to their business, and they wouldn’t pay £2b unless it was profitable. 

 

Sky are already facing a battle to stop the clubs going it alone. Significantly  dropping what they pay for the rights isn’t going to help their cause.

 

 

If the clubs go it alone then the game is well and truly fucked.

[Guest ObiChrisKenobi]

£500 per week basic, with a £40k/week win bonus. We'll see some commitment then and desire to play rather than sit rotting in the reserves on massive money.

 

That's a bit too abstract but the idea itself wouldn't be too bad tbh. Probably 10.000 a week and then a certain bonus per win/goal scored/assist/clean sheet ...

 

Only problem would be that I could hardly see any player wanting to play for us under such "hard" conditions.

 

Thats what it is now, if you believe the papers. Lovenkrands is o £15k with the rest made up of performance bonus (Appearances, goals, etc). Seems sensible... almost too sensible. We still hate Mike Ashley, right? 

[Guest malandro]

£500 per week basic, with a £40k/week win bonus. We'll see some commitment then and desire to play rather than sit rotting in the reserves on massive money.

 

That's a bit too abstract but the idea itself wouldn't be too bad tbh. Probably 10.000 a week and then a certain bonus per win/goal scored/assist/clean sheet ...

 

Only problem would be that I could hardly see any player wanting to play for us under such "hard" conditions.

 

Thats what it is now, if you believe the papers. Lovenkrands is o £15k with the rest made up of performance bonus (Appearances, goals, etc). Seems sensible... almost too sensible. We still hate Mike Ashley, right? 

Perhaps that’s why Hughton doesn’t start him ;-)

All clubs pay players a basic wage plus bonuses, Ashley didn’t invent the idea.  So what is it we’re meant to be admiring here... paying a championship standard player 15kpw basic? 

 

[ikri]

£500 per week basic, with a £40k/week win bonus. We'll see some commitment then and desire to play rather than sit rotting in the reserves on massive money.

 

That's a bit too abstract but the idea itself wouldn't be too bad tbh. Probably 10.000 a week and then a certain bonus per win/goal scored/assist/clean sheet ...

 

Only problem would be that I could hardly see any player wanting to play for us under such "hard" conditions.

 

Thats what it is now, if you believe the papers. Lovenkrands is o £15k with the rest made up of performance bonus (Appearances, goals, etc). Seems sensible... almost too sensible. We still hate Mike Ashley, right? 

Perhaps that’s why Hughton doesn’t start him ;-)

All clubs pay players a basic wage plus bonuses, Ashley didn’t invent the idea.  So what is it we’re meant to be admiring here... paying a championship standard player 15kpw basic? 

 

 

Until very recently the club was more than willing to pay Championship standard players (Smith, Barton, Nolan, Butt, etc.) huge wages and bonuses

[Guest malandro]

£500 per week basic, with a £40k/week win bonus. We'll see some commitment then and desire to play rather than sit rotting in the reserves on massive money.

 

That's a bit too abstract but the idea itself wouldn't be too bad tbh. Probably 10.000 a week and then a certain bonus per win/goal scored/assist/clean sheet ...

 

Only problem would be that I could hardly see any player wanting to play for us under such "hard" conditions.

 

Thats what it is now, if you believe the papers. Lovenkrands is o £15k with the rest made up of performance bonus (Appearances, goals, etc). Seems sensible... almost too sensible. We still hate Mike Ashley, right? 

Perhaps that’s why Hughton doesn’t start him ;-)

All clubs pay players a basic wage plus bonuses, Ashley didn’t invent the idea.  So what is it we’re meant to be admiring here... paying a championship standard player 15kpw basic? 

 

 

Until very recently the club was more than willing to pay Championship standard players (Smith, Barton, Nolan, Butt, etc.) huge wages and bonuses

Aye, but that’s a question of judgement not policy.

 

Look at the impact the signing of KK had. He was over 30 on big wages and was getting a cut of gate receipts, but he was one of the best value signings the club has ever made.

 

Ashley - knows the cost of everything and the value of nowt?

 

[ikri]

£500 per week basic, with a £40k/week win bonus. We'll see some commitment then and desire to play rather than sit rotting in the reserves on massive money.

 

That's a bit too abstract but the idea itself wouldn't be too bad tbh. Probably 10.000 a week and then a certain bonus per win/goal scored/assist/clean sheet ...

 

Only problem would be that I could hardly see any player wanting to play for us under such "hard" conditions.

 

Thats what it is now, if you believe the papers. Lovenkrands is o £15k with the rest made up of performance bonus (Appearances, goals, etc). Seems sensible... almost too sensible. We still hate Mike Ashley, right? 

Perhaps that’s why Hughton doesn’t start him ;-)

All clubs pay players a basic wage plus bonuses, Ashley didn’t invent the idea.  So what is it we’re meant to be admiring here... paying a championship standard player 15kpw basic? 

 

 

Until very recently the club was more than willing to pay Championship standard players (Smith, Barton, Nolan, Butt, etc.) huge wages and bonuses

Aye, but that’s a question of judgement not policy.

 

Look at the impact the signing of KK had. He was over 30 on big wages and was getting a cut of gate receipts, but he was one of the best value signings the club has ever made.

 

Ashley - knows the cost of everything and the value of nowt?

 

 

I think the best I can say about Ashley is that he probably understands the cost that overpaid, disinterested, crap players have on the club.

 

Whether he understands the value of a high quality manager or a top midfielder regardless of their age is another matter.

[Guest jonlane86]

NEWCASTLE have introduced a new long-term transfer strategy aimed at bringing extra youth – and value – to their squad.

 

The Sunday Sun understands that United applied strict fresh criteria to their transfer business in January, vetoing any full-time signings over the age of 26.

 

Coupled with a new wage ceiling imposed by owner Mike Ashley, the change in policy confirms the end of trophy signings at St James’ Park.

 

All of the Magpies’ four buys last month were in their early or mid-20s, with 29-year-old Fitz Hall only arriving on loan.

 

And Newcastle turned down the chance to buy Birmingham City’s Geordie centre-half Martin Taylor because he is 30.

 

Agents and clubs were told at the start of the transfer window that United would no longer pay wages of more than £15,000 a week and were only interested in permanent deals for players with their best years ahead of them.

 

This represents a sea change in attitude from the days when Newcastle would routinely outbid rival clubs – and outdo their wage offers – to land established, high-profile players, some of whom remain at St James’ Park on big money.

 

One agent said: “Newcastle say they are fed up with paying big money to players at or around the 30 mark, and are cutting their cloth accordingly.

 

“It’s all change from the days when clubs and players could rely on getting big money if Newcastle came in for them.”

 

------------

 

thoughts?

 

Wholeheartedly agree with the policy, although I feel that the Ceiling should change to £35-40k if we got promoted, if we're going to have a chance to stay in the league.  Then its just ensuring that the contract has relegation clauses in.  I'm sure they're actually sensible enough to do that now!