José Enrique

[Dave]

I understood this argument with Carroll considering his age, lack of experience, recent new contract and the silly money on the table (even though I still disagreed with the sale), but it just doesn't wash with me when talking about Enrique, sorry.

[Guest icemanblue]

I couldn't give a f*** what money he's on. He's one of our best players and we should be paying him what is necessary to keep him.

 

'He's not worth more' than £x ffs. As long as he's doing the business, who gives a s***? Honestly, some people seem more interested in the balance sheet than the team sheet.

 

It's a dangerous path to take. If he's given let us say £80 000 a week, that's not suddenly going to improve his play further. If his heart is not in the right place, his performances will suffer, like the ones he's given us lately.  There's no direct connection between pay and performance, like you obviously think. We cannot buy motivation. We've experienced that earlier through the likes of Owen and Luqe.  The most important thing for us now is to improve our overall squad depth. If Enrique doesn't sign, we're able to bring in van aanholt and an two three good talents for the money we save on Enrique's salary and his sales price. That might hurt us in the short run, but Van Anholt might improve, and if he's injured or suspended we have better players to replace him than Perch.

 

Bollocks, as usual.

 

Why is it also a given that Chelsea will sell us Van Aanholt?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Obviously I don't want us to put finances ahead of football, but at the same time I know the club has to be managed within its means.

 

At the end of the day we should be trying everything to keep Enrique and get him a new deal, but any wages we offer him will be within strictly-defined limits.

 

As to whether the limits are too low or whatever, then we're back in to the realms of opinion and speculation... it'll pretty much always be impossible to say. If he ends up leaving we'll be gutted, if he stays we'll be ecstatic.

[mrmojorisin75]

for clubs like us it surely has to be performance-based inclined from here on in no?

 

i mean you say to Enrique here's a competitive wage but play xx games you get this, do this you get that etc...so it all adds up to a more than competitive wage

 

crazy bonuses for success really...that way it becomes win win

[Dave]

for clubs like us it surely has to be performance-based inclined from here on in no?

 

i mean you say to Enrique here's a competitive wage but play xx games you get this, do this you get that etc...so it all adds up to a more than competitive wage

 

crazy bonuses for success really...that way it becomes win win

 

There's obviously a reason all football clubs don't do that.

[mrmojorisin75]

for clubs like us it surely has to be performance-based inclined from here on in no?

 

i mean you say to Enrique here's a competitive wage but play xx games you get this, do this you get that etc...so it all adds up to a more than competitive wage

 

crazy bonuses for success really...that way it becomes win win

 

There's obviously a reason all football clubs don't do that.

 

what is it then?  fucking hate the way football is sometime - oh well it's this way and it's always been like that so there's no way it could work any other way

 

bollocks

 

[Dave]

I doubt it's owt to do with tradition as such, but if club A is offering you an amount of money per week based only on doing really well and club B will pay you it regardless then you'd probably end up with the latter. Presumably the players (or more likely their agents) argue that they play better when they feel relaxed and more valued, trusted to deliver etc. Not saying it's right like.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I think the main reason must be that market conditions are established and there's no way a player would accept it.

[Conjo]

I couldn't give a f*** what money he's on. He's one of our best players and we should be paying him what is necessary to keep him.

 

'He's not worth more' than £x ffs. As long as he's doing the business, who gives a s***? Honestly, some people seem more interested in the balance sheet than the team sheet.

 

I know what you mean Dave, but surely you can't want the club to be held to ransom by every player?

 

I agree that it's impossible to say "he's worth £Xk a week" though, as all footballer's salaries are insane anyway.

 

Of course I'd rather the club wasn't held to ransom by every player, but not every player can justify their wages. Some of the players on our books can't even justify League Two wages and yet we don't seem to have a problem paying them.

 

Enrique can, quite clearly. Sure, we can't offer European football etc and I have doubts over the club's ambition at present so it's understandable if the players do too, but I just find the concept of prioritising the finances over the team f***ing ridiculous. We're meant to be football fans. It's as if some would rather we turned a profit than finish higher up the league.

 

That's because many of us would like to have a club to support in coming years as well. That would probably not be the case if we went on like we did.

 

Of course, nobody wants to prioritize finances over the team, but sometimes you have to. Take one step back to get two steps forward.

 

Finances of football clubs are pretty well documented these days. and it does matter. If the club pays money it doesn't have, why shouldn't someone express their concern about the club paying more than it can?

[Conjo]

I doubt it's owt to do with tradition as such, but if club A is offering you an amount of money per week based only on doing really well and club B will pay you it regardless then you'd probably end up with the latter. Presumably the players (or more likely their agents) argue that they play better when they feel relaxed and more valued, trusted to deliver etc. Not saying it's right like.

 

And they wouldn't risk it in case of injuries, and not being played because it would cost the club more money.

 

Performance based contracts are well and good in theory, but not in this cynical world.

[Dave]

I couldn't give a f*** what money he's on. He's one of our best players and we should be paying him what is necessary to keep him.

 

'He's not worth more' than £x ffs. As long as he's doing the business, who gives a s***? Honestly, some people seem more interested in the balance sheet than the team sheet.

 

I know what you mean Dave, but surely you can't want the club to be held to ransom by every player?

 

I agree that it's impossible to say "he's worth £Xk a week" though, as all footballer's salaries are insane anyway.

 

Of course I'd rather the club wasn't held to ransom by every player, but not every player can justify their wages. Some of the players on our books can't even justify League Two wages and yet we don't seem to have a problem paying them.

 

Enrique can, quite clearly. Sure, we can't offer European football etc and I have doubts over the club's ambition at present so it's understandable if the players do too, but I just find the concept of prioritising the finances over the team f***ing ridiculous. We're meant to be football fans. It's as if some would rather we turned a profit than finish higher up the league.

 

That's because many of us would like to have a club to support in coming years as well. That would probably not be the case if we went on like we did.

 

Of course, nobody wants to prioritize finances over the team, but sometimes you have to. Take one step back to get two steps forward.

 

Finances of football clubs are pretty well documented these days. and it does matter. If the club pays money it doesn't have, why shouldn't someone express their concern about the club paying more than it can?

 

Like we did when?

 

Also, tell me how many clubs have ceased to exist since the Premier League began.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Dave, are you arguing that how we were spending before Ashley arrived was sustainable?

 

Or that we should have just continued to get into more and more debt because banks are reluctant to force Premier League clubs out of existence?

[Dave]

Dave, are you arguing that how we were spending before Ashley arrived was sustainable?

 

Or that we should have just continued to get into more and more debt because banks are reluctant to force Premier League clubs out of existence?

 

 

Not even worth responding to either of those questions.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Dave, are you arguing that how we were spending before Ashley arrived was sustainable?

 

Or that we should have just continued to get into more and more debt because banks are reluctant to force Premier League clubs out of existence?

 

 

Not even worth responding to either of those questions.

 

Eh, why not?

 

You asked how many clubs have ceased to exist in the Premier League. Obviously none, but I was trying to get to the logic behind your point... it seems a pointless thing to raise unless that you mean a Premier League team will never go bust no matter how irresponsibly they manage their finances.

[Conjo]

I couldn't give a f*** what money he's on. He's one of our best players and we should be paying him what is necessary to keep him.

 

'He's not worth more' than £x ffs. As long as he's doing the business, who gives a s***? Honestly, some people seem more interested in the balance sheet than the team sheet.

 

I know what you mean Dave, but surely you can't want the club to be held to ransom by every player?

 

I agree that it's impossible to say "he's worth £Xk a week" though, as all footballer's salaries are insane anyway.

 

Of course I'd rather the club wasn't held to ransom by every player, but not every player can justify their wages. Some of the players on our books can't even justify League Two wages and yet we don't seem to have a problem paying them.

 

Enrique can, quite clearly. Sure, we can't offer European football etc and I have doubts over the club's ambition at present so it's understandable if the players do too, but I just find the concept of prioritising the finances over the team f***ing ridiculous. We're meant to be football fans. It's as if some would rather we turned a profit than finish higher up the league.

 

That's because many of us would like to have a club to support in coming years as well. That would probably not be the case if we went on like we did.

 

Of course, nobody wants to prioritize finances over the team, but sometimes you have to. Take one step back to get two steps forward.

 

Finances of football clubs are pretty well documented these days. and it does matter. If the club pays money it doesn't have, why shouldn't someone express their concern about the club paying more than it can?

 

Like we did when?

 

Also, tell me how many clubs have ceased to exist since the Premier League began.

 

1. Like we did under Shepherd.

 

2. Don't know, BUT:

We were in equal trouble like Chelsea before Abramovich came in, and Leeds, who haven't had the best of years latley. Southampton, Portsmouth etc has also been in dire straits and several other smaller clubs. No need to tempt fate just because the numbers are few.

[Dave]

1. I never mentioned anything to do with the club before Ashley arrived nearly four years and six managers ago.

2. Jose Enrique signed after Ashley arrived.

3. With the possible exception of Joey Barton and aside from youth products, every single player currently on the books was signed by Ashley.

 

Within this discussion there is no link to the previous regime's stupid spending habits whatsoever and yet it's what everyone falls back on when trying to justify losing good players.

 

BUT WE MIGHT DO A PORTSMOUTH! YOU MUST HAVE PREFERRED SHEPHERD! LUQUE! OWEN*!

 

It's an absolute joke.

 

PS: *http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/n/newcastle_united/7578328.stm

[JH]

1. I never mentioned anything to do with the club before Ashley arrived nearly four years and six managers ago.

2. Jose Enrique signed after Ashley arrived.

3. With the possible exception of Joey Barton and aside from youth products, every single player currently on the books was signed by Ashley.

 

Within this discussion there is no link to the previous regime's stupid spending habits whatsoever and yet it's what everyone falls back on when trying to justify losing good players.

 

BUT WE MIGHT DO A PORTSMOUTH! YOU MUST HAVE PREFERRED SHEPHERD! LUQUE! OWEN*!

 

It's an absolute joke.

 

PS: *http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/n/newcastle_united/7578328.stm

 

I did a bit of research a couple of months ago and I don't think there is a single member of the first team squad that wasn't either signed by Ashley, or given a new contract under Ashley - Even Barton was like ridiculously close to his buy-out of the club.

[Stu]

1. I never mentioned anything to do with the club before Ashley arrived nearly four years and six managers ago.

2. Jose Enrique signed after Ashley arrived.

3. With the possible exception of Joey Barton and aside from youth products, every single player currently on the books was signed by Ashley.

 

Within this discussion there is no link to the previous regime's stupid spending habits whatsoever and yet it's what everyone falls back on when trying to justify losing good players.

 

BUT WE MIGHT DO A PORTSMOUTH! YOU MUST HAVE PREFERRED SHEPHERD! LUQUE! OWEN*!

 

It's an absolute joke.

 

PS: *http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/n/newcastle_united/7578328.stm

 

I did a bit of research a couple of months ago and I don't think there is a single member of the first team squad that wasn't either signed by Ashley, or given a new contract under Ashley - Even Barton was like ridiculously close to his buy-out of the club.

 

I would imagine that most reasonable people would accept that the ongoing transfers of Ashley's takeover period (i.e. players that Allardyce had targetted before the takeover was confirmed) were allowed to go through.

 

Mort/Ashley subsequently admitted that they'd made mistakes as they hadn't realised the full extent of the financial problems.

 

Players like Smith, Barton, Enrique were signed on very good salaries which the owner later realised weren't sustainable.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

How does the fact that our players were signed by Ashley affect how much we should be offering new players?

 

Yes, he gave a few stupid contracts to Smith and co when he first arrived, but since then haven't the wages been reduced? Presumably we're now operating under a tighter policy regarding wages and contracts.

 

A couple of mistakes at the beginning (I'm talking only to do with wages, obviously) don't invalidate any discussion about how much people should be paid in the future.

[Dave]

How does the fact that our players were signed by Ashley affect how much we should be offering new players?

 

Yes, he gave a few stupid contracts to Smith and co when he first arrived, but since then haven't the wages been reduced? Presumably we're now operating under a tighter policy regarding wages and contracts.

 

A couple of mistakes at the beginning (I'm talking only to do with wages, obviously) don't invalidate any discussion about how much people should be paid in the future.

 

I'm not the one bringing up the past.

[Punk77]

When I was referring to the previous salary-regime, it pointed to to the previous salary policy that was installed by FS but continued by MA,until the latter took to his senses  and installed a wage cap.  

[Optimistic Nut]

I couldn't give a f*** what money he's on. He's one of our best players and we should be paying him what is necessary to keep him.

 

'He's not worth more' than £x ffs. As long as he's doing the business, who gives a s***? Honestly, some people seem more interested in the balance sheet than the team sheet.

 

He should be on a par with Ben Arfa, Tiote, Barton (if he signs a new contract), Jonas, etc. Anymore than that and you get a situation where the rest want more which completely goes against the idea of any wage structure we've set up.

 

Also, I'm sure he was more than happy with £40k or whatever it was when he was playing the likes of Doncaster, Preston & Scunthorpe.

[Conjo]

BUT WE MIGHT DO A PORTSMOUTH! YOU MUST HAVE PREFERRED SHEPHERD! LUQUE! OWEN*!

 

That's not what I meant at all, it's just that it's a better comparison than only using Enrique, Colo, Barton and Smith.

 

It's not about the previous regimes spending habits, but how much the club can sensibly spend. Just because we have got rid of many big earners doesn't mean that the club can afford to start paying out as much money as it has previously.

[Punk77]

I couldn't give a f*** what money he's on. He's one of our best players and we should be paying him what is necessary to keep him.

 

'He's not worth more' than £x ffs. As long as he's doing the business, who gives a s***? Honestly, some people seem more interested in the balance sheet than the team sheet.

 

He should be on a par with Ben Arfa, Tiote, Barton (if he signs a new contract), Jonas, etc. Anymore than that and you get a situation where the rest want more which completely goes against any wage structure we've set up.

 

Also, I'm sure he was more than happy with £40k or whatever it was when he was playing the likes of Doncaster, Preston & Scunthorpe.

 

Agreed! if he's not satisfied with such an offer, then so be it. Making an exception for Enrique, could lead to a never ending spiral where players under contract negotiations will use Enrique's new salary as a justification for their demands. That will put the club in a weak position where it either must accept the blackmail (and risk the club's economical viability) or is forced to sell those players in question. Breaking the salary structure could also unsettle players just signed, such  as Tiote or HBA, which is something we absolutely do not want.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

It would be silly to pay him more than the players O Nut mentions. But equally silly to let him go if he's being paid less.

 

At the end of the day I doubt money will be the deciding factor, he might just want to play for a more successful club.