indierich06 Posted 10 January 2013 Posted 10 January 2013 Why do football players still get paid weekly and paid amounts that are nice round numbers? They'd be too thick to work out what's going on otherwise.
Babylon Posted 10 January 2013 Posted 10 January 2013 Why on earth do posters on here find it hard to imagine us paying £20k a week, when they haven't got a clue what we are paying??? It's a Million quid a year for a player that's a 20 goal striker. Seems perfectly sensible money to me. Have you even bothered to read the thread, and especially the OP. If you want to take the report as gospel, then you also have to believe that Millwall offered 18/19k a week also (936k+ a year). Which lets face it, is not going to happen when their total spend is £8m a year for the whole clubs wages. Knowing the emphasis Pearson puts on squad togetherness etc. I find it unlikely he would pay Wood sums vastly in excess of what other young players he has recently signed for obvious reasons.
_Fatboyslow_ Posted 10 January 2013 Posted 10 January 2013 We did well for a tin pot, small fry club then
The People's Hero Posted 10 January 2013 Posted 10 January 2013 Why do football players still get paid weekly and paid amounts that are nice round numbers? I don't think they always do, its just reported that way.
MrSpaM Posted 10 January 2013 Posted 10 January 2013 Id rather be paying 20,000 a week for CW rather than Beckford lets put it that way
indierich06 Posted 10 January 2013 Posted 10 January 2013 Id rather be paying 20,000 a week for CW rather than Beckford lets put it that way Agreed. I'd rather we didn't pay either of them anywhere near that much though!
ADK Posted 10 January 2013 Posted 10 January 2013 Doubt we are paying that, they said "up to", personally i would have thought Millwall would have realised soon enough that they couldn't compete in a bidding war with us. The only thing Millwall could have done is offer a generous promotion wage rise.
Jace Posted 10 January 2013 Posted 10 January 2013 If he keeps scoring on average 1.5 goals a game his wages will double next season anyway
Babylon Posted 10 January 2013 Posted 10 January 2013 If he keeps scoring on average 1.5 goals a game his wages will double next season anyway If he keeps scoring at that rate he'll be playing for a top 5 premier club next year.
The People's Hero Posted 10 January 2013 Posted 10 January 2013 You've all mis-heard. He's on £20k per annum. Millwall were £2k or £3k from being able to match it.
Jace Posted 10 January 2013 Posted 10 January 2013 If he keeps scoring at that rate he'll be playing for a top 5 premier club next year. Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal or Leicester City?
Babylon Posted 10 January 2013 Posted 10 January 2013 Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal or Leicester City? Leicester
5waller5 Posted 10 January 2013 Posted 10 January 2013 Have you even bothered to read the thread, and especially the OP. If you want to take the report as gospel, then you also have to believe that Millwall offered 18/19k a week also (936k+ a year). Which lets face it, is not going to happen when their total spend is £8m a year for the whole clubs wages. Knowing the emphasis Pearson puts on squad togetherness etc. I find it unlikely he would pay Wood sums vastly in excess of what other young players he has recently signed for obvious reasons. Why is that so far fetched??? A guy that scores 11? 12? for them in 18/19? games .... puts the club in with a shout of promotion and he'll cost them £4.5m over a 3 year period .... Seems to me around the price that they'd have gone upto..... £8m for a squad of say 20 would be £400k a year average wage ..... there'll be lower and higher .... why would the leading goalscorer not be double the average? I think it's you that's not thought the economics through.
Dan Posted 11 January 2013 Posted 11 January 2013 Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal or Leicester City? You seriously think that would be the top five? Arsenal?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.