League attendances & £8,000 a week goalie.

Exactly

And the club doent have that kind of dosh for a stand in goalkeeper with less than 10 games to go this season.

 

RE: all this crap about players being upset if we pay him more than them

No there not retarded thats why they would want more money.

 

Who is he going to be the stand in for? nt

 

Now you're just being silly

Let me explain;</p>

He's third choice goalkeeper at West Brom, reportedly on 8,000 a week</p>

He is standing in for our own injured Heinz Muller, otherwise there would not be a problem.</p>

Just under half a million per year for a stand in goalie, who may or may not br required in a few weeks is a big committment.</p>

I can't make it any clearer than that. Sorry.</p>

 

How would you feel

If we'd bought him for £400,000 and he was on £4k per week? Like, say, Mostto.

 

Ode has paid his transfer fee with interest

With THAT goal

 

his status at west brom isn't relevent, we aren't west brom, we're barnsley

I very much doubt that simon davey is wanting to sign him to be west broms 3rd choice keeper, he wants him to be our first choice keeper for the rest of the season.

and he's better than heinz 'i cant catch' muller anyway.

 

RE: How would you feel

I'm not really sure where this is going.</p>

If we'd bought him at the start of the season with a leader fee and those wages, then fine. He would perhaps have been worth it. If that's parity with what wepaid for other players. Perhaps 4k a week even now would be acceptable. It's probably because we have invested so much in other players that makes it not a viable option to invest cash now.</p>

How much do our other players get and what kind of a knock-on would a deal like this cause among them?</p>

If we have 6k ST holders at an average of 300 a time, the club would have about 1.8m up front to start the season. An averageof 4k more on a fortnightly basis is about another 80k per game.</p>

Without chucking money in (forget the cup run) you surely cannot sustain a wage bill like that when a GK comes in towards the end of the season on nearly half of one million (pro rata). That is all I was trying to point out.</p>

 

Who do you think the players want in goal??

Do you think they only want someone who is on less money than them?</p>

You are bonkers!</p>

 

RE: his status at west brom isn't relevent, we aren't west brom, we're barnsley

And the first half of next as Muller wont be seen much before Xmas.

 

I thought that it was nothing to do with his wages for this season?

If so. WHY are people talking ****** about it upsetting the other players?
Its a fact of life that some will earm more than others, I mean we are not communists are we, with everyone being equal etc.
The money WBA are wanting us to pay is his wages up to the end of the season, we cant do anything about how much his contract till then is, after he becomes a free agent, then we can come to some more reasonable arangement with Luke Steele.
He has already paid for his wages till the end of the season by getting us so far in the cup(not by himself, I know)

 

RE: So We Should.........

I'll agree that he doesn't have a long term future with us as his hearts probably not in it and if I were him I'd be pretty narked at Davey for making himplay on injured ( lets not do the, "it caused no further damage" debate). But he will play for us again, as what team is gonna take a punt on him, unproven after a major potentially career changing injury.
And, how much is he on, reckon he'd be even more narked at his understudy getting atleast double what he's on (OK, I'm guessin)

 

RE: So We Should.........

Each situation is different, but here's a wrestling situation where the guy wrestled on when already in the need of surgery and is now out 6-9 months, when before they said it would be six weeks...........

http://www.wrestling101.com/101/newsitem/5233/

 

Apparently we have been paying 40%

So says Setanta

 

Who says he is even on 8 grand a week? Maybe half that at the very most nt

 

FA rules are that the loaning club have to pay at least half of the players wages

I believe. Probably wrong though as always

 

RE: FA rules are that the loaning club have to pay at least half of the players wages

I don't think we were paying half of McPhail's wages and we had him on a permanent contract!