mrmojorisin75 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 wouldnt pay more than 12-13m for sturridge. it'd be better not to pay it all up front, i reckon an offer in that region with some heavy performance/appearance incentives would be the way to go for us which is why it won't happen anyway, i mean have we even been linked to him? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxfree Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Really can't understand people wanting Hargreaves. Talk about not learning from past mistakes. It's not like he won't be paid when he's injured,even if we manage to get him on a pay-as-you play deal. Old, injury prone, and would probably demand quite a hefty wage. Huge no. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 It was only Ethi tbf. The guy's deranged. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 man remember that one world cup where hargreaves basically was the england team? might even have been some euros or other, fucked if i can remember, down to 10 men and he was basically in every position doing everything such a shame for the lad, genuine world class midfielder imo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sifu Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 It was only Ethi tbf. The guy's deranged. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Imagine having Hargreaves at the 2010 World Cup instead of Barry man ffs, we would have still be s*** like, but we would have atleast been playing with 11 men. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sifu Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 man remember that one world cup where hargreaves basically was the england team? might even have been some euros or other, f***ed if i can remember, down to 10 men and he was basically in every position doing everything such a shame for the lad, genuine world class midfielder imo It was the World Cup in 2006, he was brilliant back then. Yeah, it's a shame how his career has turned out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 man remember that one world cup where hargreaves basically was the england team? might even have been some euros or other, f***ed if i can remember, down to 10 men and he was basically in every position doing everything such a shame for the lad, genuine world class midfielder imo World Cup 2006, England's best player by a country mile. Superb. Was getting stick from the press and England fans for being picked beforehand as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 aye that was it, my memory is fucked...he was fucking class Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinho lad Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 wouldnt pay more than 12-13m for sturridge. it'd be better not to pay it all up front, i reckon an offer in that region with some heavy performance/appearance incentives would be the way to go for us which is why it won't happen anyway, i mean have we even been linked to him? nope. don't know why he gets mentioned so many times. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shayno Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 wouldnt pay more than 12-13m for sturridge. it'd be better not to pay it all up front, i reckon an offer in that region with some heavy performance/appearance incentives would be the way to go for us which is why it won't happen anyway, i mean have we even been linked to him? nope. don't know why he gets mentioned so many times. Young, English. And everyone wonders why they are so expensive... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 wouldnt pay more than 12-13m for sturridge. Agreed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorJ_01 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Chelsea don't need the money so he'll only go if it's an unreasonably high amount. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
henke Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I'd go to £15mil for Sturridge, maybe a little more if i was feeling horny. Liverpool probably value him at £45mil Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smal Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 nah, Liverpool are planning on a £25m bid for Danny Rose. Sturridge isn't overrated enough for them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EthiGeordie Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Really can't understand people wanting Hargreaves. Talk about not learning from past mistakes. It's not like he won't be paid when he's injured,even if we manage to get him on a pay-as-you play deal. Old, injury prone, and would probably demand quite a hefty wage. Huge no. Whats the meaning of pay as you play in your head? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 taxfree vs Ethi Please fight to the death. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I fully expect Jonas to leave. Ben Arfa, Marveaux and Ferguson all cover that position so I don't see him hanging around. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxfree Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Really can't understand people wanting Hargreaves. Talk about not learning from past mistakes. It's not like he won't be paid when he's injured,even if we manage to get him on a pay-as-you play deal. Old, injury prone, and would probably demand quite a hefty wage. Huge no. Whats the meaning of pay as you play in your head? Every player would demand a basic salary. A significant amount would though be, as the deal says, payed if he plays. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Ben Arfa can line up at RW as well, though. And Jonas as well. And Marveaux. Having this kind of flexiblity is great because the players can switch wings during a match. There's no reason to sell Jonas just because he won't be starting. He'll be the first winger to be subbed on, even if we get Barnetta/N'Zogbia, and he'll start if we don't get one of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxfree Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 taxfree vs Ethi Please fight to the death. Idiot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EthiGeordie Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Really can't understand people wanting Hargreaves. Talk about not learning from past mistakes. It's not like he won't be paid when he's injured,even if we manage to get him on a pay-as-you play deal. Old, injury prone, and would probably demand quite a hefty wage. Huge no. Whats the meaning of pay as you play in your head? Every player would demand a basic salary. A significant amount would though be, as the deal says, payed if he plays. Nope the is no basic salary involved in it is better to check up the facts before you shoot the idea. How can the deal is pay as you play if there is a basic salary? If we only pay him when he plays I think he will be an awesome buy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlacknWhiteArmy Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeloEmre Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Really can't understand people wanting Hargreaves. Talk about not learning from past mistakes. It's not like he won't be paid when he's injured,even if we manage to get him on a pay-as-you play deal. Old, injury prone, and would probably demand quite a hefty wage. Huge no. Whats the meaning of pay as you play in your head? Every player would demand a basic salary. A significant amount would though be, as the deal says, payed if he plays. Nope the is no basic salary involved in it is better to check up the facts before you shoot the idea. How can the deal is pay as you play if there is a basic salary? If we only pay him when he plays I think he will be an awesome buy. Without being 100% sure im pretty confident that you're wrong about this. How i see it is that there will always be a low basic wage, but bonuses for apperances, goals ect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EthiGeordie Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Really can't understand people wanting Hargreaves. Talk about not learning from past mistakes. It's not like he won't be paid when he's injured,even if we manage to get him on a pay-as-you play deal. Old, injury prone, and would probably demand quite a hefty wage. Huge no. Whats the meaning of pay as you play in your head? Every player would demand a basic salary. A significant amount would though be, as the deal says, payed if he plays. Nope the is no basic salary involved in it is better to check up the facts before you shoot the idea. How can the deal is pay as you play if there is a basic salary? If we only pay him when he plays I think he will be an awesome buy. Without being 100% sure im pretty confident that you're wrong about this. How i see it is that there will always be a low basic wage, but bonuses for apperances, goals ect. You don't call that pay as you play act because most normal contracts have that. The Ashley regime always insert such clause in the contract you don't call that pay as you play.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts