We've offered Steele reduced terms

Also any players coming in to the club.

Also agree Football isn't like most other businesses.

 

To be fair to Hemsie, he claimed that players are on less now than they were under Davey...

 

I agree completely. I'm not defending the new site editor. Just saying that it didn't used to be like that.
I quit because I didn't want to go for "sensationalism" over integrity and facts.
Seems to be ignoring the golden rule as well, quoting a source. Shame.

 

If we can get Steele to agree to the new terms then great, but if we offer so little he walks away then it's a right ********, because first and foremost we want Luke Steele keeping goal for Barnsley next season, and many seasons beyond that. Great player, let's not lose him.

 

According to reports at the time he was first on loan West Brom were paying 60% of his wages, then when his loan was up, after we had beaten Chelsea, West Brom had us over a barrel and paper talk was that we had to shell out 5k a week to the end of the season. He then signed on the following season possibly on that 5k a week, since then he has renewed his contract in 2010 under Robins so would think he got better terms.

Personally think the way Flicker sees it that the seasoned players are all in it together and deserve equal pay, with the youngsters on a lower level. Offering Steele a little less and the others a bit more will close that gap slightly. I would think Steele will accept it unless we are taking the piss percentage wise, he seems to be a club man like Fossie/Hassell.

 

Yep I'd agree with that. I think we might get away a ~15% wage cut.

 

Not privy to bonuses etc, but quite sure nobody tops 5k a week basic. But I could be wrong.
Key reason for the type of player we have been recruiting the last 2 years. And I'm all for it.
More Golbourne's and Dawson's, less Anderson's and Shackell's.

 

Clean sheets are kerching.

 

There are several pivotal moments that saved our season and I think we would all agree Luke was on the end of more than one of those. I wouldn't know what Luke earns, he came as an emergency loan, then signed and took over from Muller as number one. There would have been a bit more money flying about then, so if Luke is on 5k+ it wouldn't surprise me.

If he is asked to take a pay cut it could well be a very false economy. It would cost a million quid to replace Luke so what is 50k a year compared to that? We would also be looking at a 5-6m loss without him, which will no doubt be on Luke's mind so I would be very nervous about pushing him too far.

 

so a bit like this site then....FACT

 

You said there wasn't anyone one on that kind of money above. Make your mind up.
He's got to take a pay cut.

 

I think we can confidently say no current player is on no more than 5k basic.
That is what I said Hemsiewort. I think the highest basic salary will be around 5k, plus appearance, win, goal and clean sheet bonuses (which can be substantial) There, I said it three times now in the same thread. I could well be wrong, but I have not stated any other figure.

So for the record 5k+!! Anything else I can help you with?

 

Gally thought 7k which is what i thought.

 

I think Luke will earn that and more including bonuses. I was talking about basic contracted salary, before anyone even kicks a ball. And that is an educated guess based on what had gone before. Thing is none of us know for sure and are not likely to.

 

A lot's guessable though.
Also the accounts say the wages in the accounts gone down from 8/9 plus million to 6.5
Steele's got to look at that,

 

Luke Steele has proven over the last five years or so that he is one of the better goalkeepers at championship level, and as such he deserves fair remuneration.

If another club, championship or maybe premier league (presumably as backup), offers a lot more than we can offer, I'd expect him to take it, and I wouldn't blame him either.

He does appear to be a club man, and has intimated he'll take a pay cut. Good on him. But if we offer him, say, two years on 5k a week, and another club approaches his agent offering three years on 10k, what would you do?

These guys aren't earning the kind of money where they're set for life from one contract. Even on what they're earning at our level I bet some of them are pretty skint savings wise, and I bet they all mostly have mortgages. I know most of us would love to be on 250k a year but in their world that's not that much, I bet they spend what they earn. Rightly or wrongly. Yes if I was on that I could probably save a lot but 5k a week, 3k after tax, realistically I bet it's very easy to spend.

And as for peak earnings, Steele is 28. His best years as a goalkeeper are likely in front of him, we've all seen keepers hitting their best form at 30+ even 35+. There's no reason for him to accept that he won't earn more in the future than he has in the past.

I hope he stays, I think he's a big asset. He's not infallible, but that's why he plays for us and not man utd or Chelsea. But if we can't afford him, or more likely he can get more elsewhere than we can offer, then we have to accept that he will most likely go. That doesn't make him greedy, it's just common sense.

Hassell is different. I very nearly agree with hemsie, he's not likely to be first choice so much so should perhaps have a cut. Not 60% though - that's hemsie's vendetta speaking. Hassell has value not only as a first team player but also as the mentor to younger squad members, an example setter and representative of the club. Plus maybe a junior coaching role. And I can't imagine hassell leaving tbh.

The club has made it clear they won't break the bank, Steele has said he's flexible, hopefully there'll be a middle ground. If not, all the best Luke, you've been a good servant to the club.

 

Good post, that.

But it's my opinion both Steele and Hassell should get new deals on the same money. They're not on the silly figures suggested. Certain folk will believe owt if they read it enough.