Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
HankMarvin

Everton plan Kasper Schmeichel transfer

Recommended Posts

Posted

Since when did £100k become the stock wage for all of our players? Think the Vardy debacle has led to these rumoured standoffs and to a lesser extent these mad release clauses. I have to question Whelan and Rudkins negotiation skills in all this. 

Posted

100k isn't that uncommon in the premier league anymore

 

Obviously all the top clubs have multiple players on this figure, and also clubs like West Ham and Stoke have multiple players on 80k to a 100k plus.

 

It's the way the game is going to compete. Vardy was offered 120k a week by Arsenal, if we didn't stump up at least 100k there is no way he would be with us right now

Posted
9 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

There's a limit. Of course there is.

And so there should be, and for me £100k is past what we should be spending on a keeper. He was no more important and no better than the likes of Morgan, Huth, Fuchs for me. There were 3 stand out performers you could argue that money for, he wasn't one. If you really like him then that's your opinion and we'll just go round in circles as it's all just opinion.

 

9 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Currently De Gea is on 140, Courtois is rumoured to be offered 120 and Lloris is currently on 80 but rumoured to have been offered a 20k rise.

Two of them are at huge clubs with ridiculous budgets and even Spurs dwarf us in terms of income and spending. Whilst it's a lovely dream to suddenly be a big club because we won the league, we just aren't. It has nothing to do with ambition, I'm sure we all want to be like that one day. It takes either an obscene amount of money being pumped in by owners to do that, or continued success over many years before we're ever at those levels. Whilst it's a kick in the balls to admit we aren't, it's financial suicide to try and match what they spend.

 

9 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

That's three keepers in this league at similar levels to Kasper's 15/16 performances. With the new TV deal, it's just how this league is.

Again, I thought he was decent but nothing special. In fact in terms of what he had to do this season, I thought he had it very easy compared to other years as we had an incredible defence in front of him, stopping him from having to even be that involved.

 

9 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Overspending doesn't make you better. Good scouting and signing good players  makes you better.

 

But we've already done that. We've got good players so lets pay them the right amount to keep them here.

You're going to have to admit that sometimes players outgrow you. It will always happen, even Man U can't keep players from wanting to go to Madrid and Barca. If a player becomes so good he can demand silly amounts, then sometimes you just have to say good luck on your 200k elsewhere. 

 

I don't think Kasper has outgrown us, but if he thinks he has and he wants too much then you have to say goodbye. We've just signed a German international for a couple of million who is probably on less than half what this report says he's going to get.

Posted

What other club is going to give him £70k? Let alone 100k, seems mad.

 

I want to keep as many players as possible but it seems very steep for a player of Schmeichel's ability. Surely Drinkwater will be after £100k+ now and rightly so

Posted

We're definitely among the highest payers in the league right now. Spurs are only paying Eriksen and lamala around 40K Kanes new Contract reported to be 70k.

So we're right up there. Personally I'm not in favour of big salaries, I much prefer incentive's for performances on top of a decent basic salary. With top ups for. Wins, league position, Goals scored, Clean sheets.

That way players put a real shift in and slackers will be pulled up by the others as they'll be costing them money.  

Posted
6 minutes ago, Babylon said:

People happy to be spending all this money on wages won't be happy when there is no money left to buy new players.

I think Mahrez, Vardy and Kante are worth the 100k they've been offered but that's where i would draw the line.

 

Players like Drinkwater and Kasper can probably justify 70k or so.

 

Any idea what King and Morgan's new deals are worth?

Posted
1 hour ago, Babylon said:

People happy to be spending all this money on wages won't be happy when there is no money left to buy new players.

...this....

Posted
20 minutes ago, norwichfox said:

...this....

Say we upped all of our current contracts in Mahrez, Morgan, Vardy, Schmeichel and Drinky, that would probably only add another 5-10m to the wage budget. 

Keeping the core squad together and our best players at the club is well worth it. Bare in mind how well the club is doing financially right now 

Posted
2 minutes ago, TJB-fox said:

Say we upped all of our current contracts in Mahrez, Morgan, Vardy, Schmeichel and Drinky, that would probably only add another 5-10m to the wage budget. 

Keeping the core squad together and our best players at the club is well worth it. Bare in mind how well the club is doing financially right now 

If they are all on say 40k a week, then banging them all on 100k a week is nearly another 16 million. Let alone all the other players wanting another 20/30k a week, plus new players coming in wanting more money. Finances will be great this year, but what will they be like in three years? They will all still be under contract and we're unlikely to be getting the extra cash winning the league and champs league gives us this season.

Posted
12 minutes ago, Babylon said:

If they are all on say 40k a week, then banging them all on 100k a week is nearly another 16 million. Let alone all the other players wanting another 20/30k a week, plus new players coming in wanting more money. Finances will be great this year, but what will they be like in three years? They will all still be under contract and we're unlikely to be getting the extra cash winning the league and champs league gives us this season.

I think we age right to be wary of these massive contracts. We all remember Portsmouth and know that one bad season would carry severe implications. But I think the club is probably making the right call. Whatever the extra outlay in wages, it would probably cost us more in a single transfer fee to replace any one of them, let alone all

of them - with no guarantee of the incomer performing as well. Plus, they would also presumably want a similar whack if they are at that level. CR has gone public saying he won't keep unhappy players - a mistake in my humble opinion - which means if the club doesn't pay, the player states "unhappiness" and goes elsewhere to secure that contract. I guess the only option is we write last season off as a one-off and start again with players we buy cheaply and pay cheaply and hope the formula works again. Without SW that may or may not be so simple. I feel

our owners are more ambitious than that and are hoping to build. A calculated gamble that we all hope doesn't backfire. 

Posted
36 minutes ago, Babylon said:

If they are all on say 40k a week, then banging them all on 100k a week is nearly another 16 million. Let alone all the other players wanting another 20/30k a week, plus new players coming in wanting more money. Finances will be great this year, but what will they be like in three years? They will all still be under contract and we're unlikely to be getting the extra cash winning the league and champs league gives us this season.

Isn't Mahrez already on 70k though for example? And we aren't going put them all on 100k deals are we.

Yes we shouldn't be stupid with money but in the position we are in right now we have to splash a bit more than usual if we want to maintain levels of success

Posted
8 hours ago, Babylon said:

And so there should be, and for me £100k is past what we should be spending on a keeper. He was no more important and no better than the likes of Morgan, Huth, Fuchs for me. There were 3 stand out performers you could argue that money for, he wasn't one. If you really like him then that's your opinion and we'll just go round in circles as it's all just opinion.

 

Two of them are at huge clubs with ridiculous budgets and even Spurs dwarf us in terms of income and spending. Whilst it's a lovely dream to suddenly be a big club because we won the league, we just aren't. It has nothing to do with ambition, I'm sure we all want to be like that one day. It takes either an obscene amount of money being pumped in by owners to do that, or continued success over many years before we're ever at those levels. Whilst it's a kick in the balls to admit we aren't, it's financial suicide to try and match what they spend.

 

Again, I thought he was decent but nothing special. In fact in terms of what he had to do this season, I thought he had it very easy compared to other years as we had an incredible defence in front of him, stopping him from having to even be that involved.

 

You're going to have to admit that sometimes players outgrow you. It will always happen, even Man U can't keep players from wanting to go to Madrid and Barca. If a player becomes so good he can demand silly amounts, then sometimes you just have to say good luck on your 200k elsewhere. 

 

I don't think Kasper has outgrown us, but if he thinks he has and he wants too much then you have to say goodbye. We've just signed a German international for a couple of million who is probably on less than half what this report says he's going to get.

As I said earlier in the topic.....Zieler is not a patch on Kasper.

 

Top top keepers are rare and we have one....maybe not perfect but young and learning plus under rated by a number of City fans,..... Worth the investment and we may still need another keeper imo as back up!

Posted
21 hours ago, NeilLCFC said:

Wasn't part of the Walsh agreement that Everton aren't allowed to sign our players?

According to John Percy I think it was yes. Usually agreements like this though only last a certain amount of time usually a year or two.

Posted
39 minutes ago, Bluearmyfox28 said:

According to John Percy I think it was yes. Usually agreements like this though only last a certain amount of time usually a year or two.

Didn't we have a similar thing with Hull once we pinched Pearson?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...