Christan Eriksen

[shen]

1 hour ago, Foxy_Bear said:

So let's say that you're Jamie Vardy, one of our greatest ever players. Our main man and someone waltzes into your team on double your wages..... You really don't think that has an impact? Especially if he doesn't do well.

 

Or someone like say Thauvin or Maddison, coming into negotiate a free tansfer or new contract and the club offer you £90k a week when they were just paying someone 3x that....

 

What each member is being paid is relevant to the rest of the squad or future members of the squad as, if you think your playing better or more valuable to the team, you immediately use that wage as a benchmark for what they should be paying you. 

 

None of the examples you used came into the squad immediately on twice as much as everyone else so its bot a relative argument.

I genuinely think you're way off. By your logic, every member of the first team squad* would now be asking for Silva or Slimani-level wages as they contributed close to the square root of F all during their stay here - and they both came on big money initially (as have Perez, Iheanacho and Tielemans, although the latter has maybe justified the outlay). The way football wages are negotiated just doesn't work in such a simplistic way.

 

Once again, I will reiterate that if we ended up eg. paying 0% of his wages but paid a £5m loan fee, then we wouldn't have this discussion. Eriksen's contract with Inter is their business, not ours. If we're not in the market for a permanent transfer then this is very much a moot point and I think it would have the opposite effect that you're fearing.

 

*with inferior wages but more contribution

Edited 22 January 2021 by shen

[sacreblueits442]

6 hours ago, LC/FC said:

TBH I'd rather have had Drinkwater back for half of 300k...

...I must admit, I love a Drinky now and again!!!

[NewEnglandFox]

Imagine posting that the not even best footballer from Denmark is too good for us when the best footballer from Denmark plays for us.

[Collymore]

I've never rated Eriksen as a top top player. Always found him a bit too lightweight at times and could disappear completely from games.

 

I would be bothered if nothing came from this. 

[shen]

52 minutes ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

Everyone who's quoted me about it potentially upsetting the apple cart have basically said the same thing and missed the salient point imo. None of you have looked at it from a players point of view, they don't care how the. Moneys trousered if it's trousered, and more than the players, the agents of the players will use it as a wedge for the future for certain. How much it costs the club in terms of finances over 6 months is a very, very blinkered way of looking at what it will cost the club. 

Unless you speak for the players, then your guess is as good as anyone else's surely? I don't agree that it's irrelevant whether it's a loan or permanent. 

By your logic, we will either see massive wage increase at Spurs or a mass exodus of players thinking they should get Bale-level wage. That will not happen though because no-one will pay them anything close to that - with the possible exception of Kane.

 

Our players are handsomely paid. Our young players who are performing well will be demanding wage increases which reflect their value regardless of whether Eriksen comes or not.

[shen]

8 minutes ago, Collymore said:

I've never rated Eriksen as a top top player. Always found him a bit too lightweight at times and could disappear completely from games.

 

I would be bothered if nothing came from this. 

Fair comment. He will not carry a team like Messi, Grealish, Hazard etc. Without a solid team he will not shine and he's not got individual qualities like Barnes or Maddison to create something out of nothing - except from free kicks I suppose.

[Scotch]

33 minutes ago, shen said:

I genuinely think you're way off. By your logic, every member of the first team squad* would now be asking for Silva or Slimani-level wages as they contributed close to the square root of F all during their stay here - and they both came on big money initially (as have Perez, Iheanacho and Tielemans, although the latter has maybe justified the outlay). The way football wages are negotiated just doesn't work in such a simplistic way.

 

Once again, I will reiterate that if we ended up eg. paying 0% of his wages but paid a £5m loan fee, then we wouldn't have this discussion. Eriksen's contract with Inter is their business, not ours. If we're not in the market for a permanent transfer then this is very much a moot point and I think it would have the opposite effect that you're fearing.

 

*with inferior wages but more contribution

I respectfully disagree. 

 

I think it is very simplistic in that regard. If your work hired someone who done the exact job you did for twice or three times the pay you got, I doubt you would be very happy. I wouldn't. Footballers are no different. 

 

As for your examples of Slim and Silva, it's really no coincidence that the major players in our squad then renegotiated their contracts around that time for massive wage rises in keeping with their role in the squad I.e, Morgan, Vardy, Mahrez and Kasp, our most influential players got the lions share but if you look at someone like Morgans wages in comparison to the rest of the squad now, it's not as high as he is not as influential whereas Vardy is still our main man so he is still our highest earner and Kasp is captain so he is one of them. 

 

To bring anyone in for twice Vardy' wages is to indirectly say he is twice as important to our team. 

 

As for the structure of the deal, your right. Inters business is their own and it really makes bo differance to how the deal is structured if the money remains the same. No difference EXCEPT a reflection on how we view him within our squad. I would feel happier paying £150k a week with a £3m fee as it would bring him in as ONE OF the most important players here as opposed to THE most important that the £300k with no fee would suggest. 

[peach0000]

31 minutes ago, shen said:

Fair comment. He will not carry a team like Messi, Grealish, Hazard etc. Without a solid team he will not shine and he's not got individual qualities like Barnes or Maddison to create something out of nothing - except from free kicks I suppose.

Messi, Grealish and Hazard should never be compared to each other 

[Lambert09]

39 minutes ago, shen said:

Fair comment. He will not carry a team like Messi, Grealish, Hazard etc. Without a solid team he will not shine and he's not got individual qualities like Barnes or Maddison to create something out of nothing - except from free kicks I suppose.

Feel free to disagree but It is actually how he performed for Denmark that would have me excited about him, not spurs (which was largely with average players around him)

 

He was in sensational form in the build up to the world cup and I think he built up a bit of delusions of grandeur after being linked with Real Madrid. He lost his motivation to play for spurs and he started coasting, which has set back his development hugely. 

 

There is an outstanding playmaker in there and id be confident Brendan could bring him out 

[sacreblueits442]

1 hour ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

Everyone who's quoted me about it potentially upsetting the apple cart have basically said the same thing and missed the salient point imo. None of you have looked at it from a players point of view, they don't care how the. Moneys trousered if it's trousered, and more than the players, the agents of the players will use it as a wedge for the future for certain. How much it costs the club in terms of finances over 6 months is a very, very blinkered way of looking at what it will cost the club. 

...the potential of a deal like this deal regarding what he could bring to the table, is amazing!!!

As irrational as it is, I would hate to have him or any player from Spurs come to the club. Can't see why we should be lining his pockets, a player who would not have given us a moments thought previously. We need the cover in the midfield, I would rather we looked at someone else.

[hackneyfox]

30 minutes ago, Foxy_Bear said:

I respectfully disagree. 

 

I think it is very simplistic in that regard. If your work hired someone who done the exact job you did for twice or three times the pay you got, I doubt you would be very happy. I wouldn't. Footballers are no different. 

 

 

 

To bring anyone in for twice Vardy' wages is to indirectly say he is twice as important to our team. 

 

 

You've clearly never work with contract workers before then.

I work alongside contract draughtsman who are earning double my salary and get better tax breaks expenses. Same with nurses and many other jobs.

If he's only coming in on a short term loan and that helps us win games and qualify for Europe then te players will also be better off financially.

Edited 22 January 2021 by hackneyfox

[Wymsey]

Surprised that he didn't do well in Serie A, where the pace of the game is slower.

[hackneyfox]

Just now, sacreblueits442 said:

...the potential of a deal like this deal regarding what he could bring to the table, is amazing!!!

As irrational as it is, I would hate to have him or any player from Spurs come to the club. Can't see why we should be lining his pockets, a player who would not have given us a moments thought previously. We need the cover in the midfield, I would rather we looked at someone else.

It certainly is.

 

Do you seriously believe that Castagne or Fofana gave us a moments thought before we approached them? Dislike Spurs as much as anyone but I'm not going to let that get in the way of signing someone who no longer plays for them.

[shen]

19 minutes ago, peach0000 said:

Messi, Grealish and Hazard should never be compared to each other 

I'm not comparing them to eachother - I'm comparing their roles in their respective teams, i.e. they have carried teams based on their individual qualities.

[peach0000]

Just now, shen said:

I'm not comparing them to eachother - I'm comparing their roles in their respective teams, i.e. they have carried teams based on their individual qualities.

It’s just the three of them in a list like that. It looks wrong!

[shen]

1 minute ago, Wymsey said:

Surprised that he didn't do well in Serie A, where the pace of the game is slower.

He's not been given many chances at all. The few times he's been deployed as an attacking midfielder behind Lukaku, it hasn't worked. Conte's system doesn't make use of a 10.

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

As if we'd want him 'as cover - an option'. You don't pay someone 300k a week to sit on the bench, at least we wouldn't. 

[shen]

34 minutes ago, Foxy_Bear said:

I respectfully disagree. 

 

I think it is very simplistic in that regard. If your work hired someone who done the exact job you did for twice or three times the pay you got, I doubt you would be very happy. I wouldn't. Footballers are no different. 

 

As for your examples of Slim and Silva, it's really no coincidence that the major players in our squad then renegotiated their contracts around that time for massive wage rises in keeping with their role in the squad I.e, Morgan, Vardy, Mahrez and Kasp, our most influential players got the lions share but if you look at someone like Morgans wages in comparison to the rest of the squad now, it's not as high as he is not as influential whereas Vardy is still our main man so he is still our highest earner and Kasp is captain so he is one of them. 

 

To bring anyone in for twice Vardy' wages is to indirectly say he is twice as important to our team. 

 

As for the structure of the deal, your right. Inters business is their own and it really makes bo differance to how the deal is structured if the money remains the same. No difference EXCEPT a reflection on how we view him within our squad. I would feel happier paying £150k a week with a £3m fee as it would bring him in as ONE OF the most important players here as opposed to THE most important that the £300k with no fee would suggest. 

I respect that. 

 

I would argue that the wage rise to those players are far more likely attributed to the title win, CL quali, and their respective importance to the team. We were trying to protect our squad from being plucked clean.

 

I think you're overestimating any potential detrimental signals here. When Vardy et al have been negotiating new deals, they weren't comparing their wages to existing Leicester players - we had no precedent to follow. So their agents will necessarily have looked at other clubs and their players' wages to put forward their demands.

As I alluded to, the agents will already know about Eriksen's wages whether or not he comes here. 

 

If he would arrive on a permanent on 300k THEN I would give your arguments credence. But because it would be a short term deal, I believe the players would know it's an ambitious commitment from the club management to boost our hopes for this season - and not that the club can afford astronomical long-term wages.

 

It would show again to Rodgers that we can match his own ambitions as well as those of our budding stars 

[shen]

19 minutes ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

As if we'd want him 'as cover - an option'. You don't pay someone 300k a week to sit on the bench, at least we wouldn't. 

He would not swap one bench for another obviously. But he's no primadonna. He will know he has to prove himself and wait for an opportunity. With Praet and now Vardy out, he would be getting chances. 

 

Listen, to people objecting to this idea, I don't recall the same apprehension at the Silva deal - and look how well that permanent transfer turned out. 

[MGLCFC]

1 minute ago, shen said:

He would not swap one bench for another obviously. But he's no primadonna. He will know he has to prove himself and wait for an opportunity. With Praet and now Vardy out, he would be getting chances. 

 

Listen, to people objecting to this idea, I don't recall the same apprehension at the Silva deal - and look how well that permanent transfer turned out. 

But Silva wasn't on £300K a week. 

I would run with this if Inter were prepared to pay half his wages or he accepted half the amount.

[shen]

12 minutes ago, MGLCFC said:

But Silva wasn't on £300K a week. 

I would run with this if Inter were prepared to pay half his wages or he accepted half the amount.

So he cost us maybe, what, £80k a week and £22m in transfer fees (not mentioning sign-on and agent fees)? His contract was terminated, i.e. we paid up even more AND got no fee.

 

You could pay Eriksen's wages between two and three years for that amount, just to give that some perspective.

[sacreblueits442]

8 minutes ago, shen said:

He would not swap one bench for another obviously. But he's no primadonna. He will know he has to prove himself and wait for an opportunity. With Praet and now Vardy out, he would be getting chances. 

 

Listen, to people objecting to this idea, I don't recall the same apprehension at the Silva deal - and look how well that permanent transfer turned out. 

....not many would have expected the Silva deal to have gone the way it did, doomed from the start!!!

From everything we had seen and heard about him, he was going to take this team to another level. Our negligence lost him 4 months of his career, hard to come back from that.

 Eriksen would not be the first name on the team sheet, but just knowing someone is earning what he is earning and his subsequent performances will be judged by fans and players alike, he will need to hit the ground running.

[MGLCFC]

2 minutes ago, shen said:

So he cost us maybe, what, £80k a week and £22m in transfer fees (not mentioning sign-on and agent fees)? His contract was terminated, i.e. we paid up even more AND got no fee.

 

You could pay Eriksen's wages between two and three years for that amount, just to give that some perspective.

Fair comment. I just don't think paying him £300K will sit well with other players - particularly if he under performs. 

I'm more than happy for him to fill in for 6 months and see where we are then.

I can just see a queue at the managers door from players like Barnes, Ricardo, Justin, Fofana, Castagne etc. asking why are they so underpaid when they are delivering the goods on a regular basis,

[shen]

9 minutes ago, MGLCFC said:

Fair comment. I just don't think paying him £300K will sit well with other players - particularly if he under performs. 

I'm more than happy for him to fill in for 6 months and see where we are then.

I can just see a queue at the managers door from players like Barnes, Ricardo, Justin, Fofana, Castagne etc. asking why are they so underpaid when they are delivering the goods on a regular basis,

See my previous comments. I think your worries are unfounded. Spurs players for example were not up in arms when Bale joined (quite the opposite), nor are they queuing up at Mourinho's door as far as we know.

This would be a loan - the whole point of it being a loan is that it's temporary as we obviously couldn't afford Eriksen on those terms otherwise. 

[shen]

21 minutes ago, sacreblueits442 said:

....not many would have expected the Silva deal to have gone the way it did, doomed from the start!!!

From everything we had seen and heard about him, he was going to take this team to another level. Our negligence lost him 4 months of his career, hard to come back from that.

 Eriksen would not be the first name on the team sheet, but just knowing someone is earning what he is earning and his subsequent performances will be judged by fans and players alike, he will need to hit the ground running.

Injury has cost Ricardo 10 months of his career. What's your point? 

Silva was able to get settled, slowly integrate with the team with the view of being ready after four months. He bombed, massively.

 

Of course there'd be massive expectation if Eriksen arrived - as with any big name signing. But he would be gone again by summer. At worst he'd be a moderate gamble that didn't pay off; at best he'd play a significant part in achieving our short term goals and regain some of his fading reputation and increasing ours in the process.