leffe186 Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 The £80K would be a massive turn off for most clubs I'd imagine, even if the £5m transfer fee is an absolute steal. I don't know if I've skimmed over it, but how ling is the contract for, 2 year? We don't know yet, not confirmed on the site. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leffe186 Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 he's shown plenty of attitude problems in the past which is why (with the stupid wages) us and others weren't beating down the door for him I get that. So why is everyone so pissed off then? Surely we're the fools for paying 80K a week (our new highest earner, in all likelihood). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 I imagine that for £5m plenty of clubs would be beating down the door for him if it wasn't for the wages like, I doubt there's a club in the league who hasn't signed a know cunt. He'll get 15+ goals even with his attitude problems and he links up play well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Becomes a problem when he plays against City. Paying a player who's playing for the opposition? Dodgy... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Still can't get my head around this. Hope it backfires on the player and both clubs big style. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Becomes a problem when he plays against City. Paying a player who's playing for the opposition? Dodgy... Not really. As they can't exactly say play shit or we won't pay you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Becomes a problem when he plays against City. Paying a player who's playing for the opposition? Dodgy... Not really. As they can't exactly say play s*** or we won't pay you. Say for instance he misses a last minute penalty that hands City the title/cup. Then what? Questions will be asked. Why would the League allow for such a possibility? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leffe186 Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Becomes a problem when he plays against City. Paying a player who's playing for the opposition? Dodgy... Yeah that's the issue. But like I said, it's as if they're paying us 10M in instalments. It's as if they're simply paying us 5M to take him off their hands, and they might be saving that in offsetting amortisation over the last two years of his contract. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Becomes a problem when he plays against City. Paying a player who's playing for the opposition? Dodgy... Yeah that's the issue. But like I said, it's as if they're paying us 10M in instalments. It's as if they're simply paying us 5M to take him off their hands, and they might be saving that in offsetting amortisation over the last two years of his contract. It's not really like that though. If he signs a full time contract with THFC, he should have severed all links with MCFC. If there is some kind of arrangement to "pay you to take him off their hands", it should never ever be released in the press. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beren Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Becomes a problem when he plays against City. Paying a player who's playing for the opposition? Dodgy... Yeah that's the issue. But like I said, it's as if they're paying us 10M in instalments. It's as if they're simply paying us 5M to take him off their hands, and they might be saving that in offsetting amortisation over the last two years of his contract. I don't know why they didn't structure it as a free transfer tbh. This way is just... messy, suspicious and stinks of corruption An equivalent reduction in transfer fee would be the wages Citeh will pay Adebayor over the length of the new contract. Unless the contract is long enough to put Spurs at a profit on the purchase :lol: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinho lad Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Great cross by Samaras..... good finish by Commons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Becomes a problem when he plays against City. Paying a player who's playing for the opposition? Dodgy... Yeah that's the issue. But like I said, it's as if they're paying us 10M in instalments. It's as if they're simply paying us 5M to take him off their hands, and they might be saving that in offsetting amortisation over the last two years of his contract. I don't know why they didn't structure it as a free transfer tbh. This way is just... messy, suspicious and stinks of corruption An equivalent reduction in transfer fee would be the wages Citeh will pay Adebayor over the length of the new contract. Unless the contract is long enough to put Spurs at a profit on the purchase :lol: Amazing how well suited 'Arry was to that club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Great cross by Samaras..... good finish by Commons. Sweet. Wrong thread tho Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 The whole thing just stinks imo, fair play to Spurs though they have done f*cking well there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinho lad Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Becomes a problem when he plays against City. Paying a player who's playing for the opposition? Dodgy... Not really. As they can't exactly say play s*** or we won't pay you. Say for instance he misses a last minute penalty that hands City the title/cup. Then what? Questions will be asked. Why would the League allow for such a possibility? It's happened loads of times in the past and nobody has questioned it then, so why now? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 SSN: Spurs have accepted £9m from QPR for Dawson. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Sky Sources: QPR bid accepted in region of £9million for Tottenham's Michael Dawson. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leffe186 Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Becomes a problem when he plays against City. Paying a player who's playing for the opposition? Dodgy... Yeah that's the issue. But like I said, it's as if they're paying us 10M in instalments. It's as if they're simply paying us 5M to take him off their hands, and they might be saving that in offsetting amortisation over the last two years of his contract. I don't know why they didn't structure it as a free transfer tbh. This way is just... messy, suspicious and stinks of corruption An equivalent reduction in transfer fee would be the wages Citeh will pay Adebayor over the length of the new contract. Unless the contract is long enough to put Spurs at a profit on the purchase :lol: Well, we're not exactly at a profit because from our point of view we're just paying 5M plus 80K a week. All it does is offset City's costs for FFP, as Dave so succinctly put it. We're at a profit if you think we actually should be paying 175K a week for him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarrenBartonCentrePartin Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Man Utd have been granted a work permit for Angelo Henriquez Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenham Mag Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 FFS £9 Million Spurs squad is pretty thin now like with Bassong and Dawson away. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 QPR Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 That's how you negotiate. QPR: We offer £5.5m. Spurs: No deal. QPR: Hmm, we can afford a little more... £9m? Spurs: Deal. This method would satisfy many on here I suspect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leffe186 Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Sky Sources: QPR bid accepted in region of £9million for Tottenham's Michael Dawson. I mean, I'd rather keep him as back-up and all, but Jesus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 I personally wouldn't even pay 4m for Dawson matter about 9m Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts