AVFC-Prideofbrum Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 Yes, that's right. Do it now because we will in a couple years, obviously say in 2 years. He's on say 10k a week at the moment? So say giving him 50k now instead of 2 years, would be costing us ove £4 Million over the next two years. It's as if you think this football club is some sort of money machine that can just give huge wages out to anyone, we have to run this club like a business or we won't be able to survive. Get a grip. I love Football Manager but you are geniunally thinking like on Football Manager, just splashing out high wages on anyone to attract them with no real care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picicata Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 might aswell give it to him now because we will have to in a year or 2 when the vultures start circling I'm glad you are no where near controlling our finances, we would be doing a 'Portsmouth' very soon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir_gary_cahill Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 That makes ZERO sense. That's like saying "I may as well start paying my mortgage now but I don't move in for 2 years" If we have to pay the fonz 50k in 2 years to keep him then we will. No point in pouring £5million down the train between now and then. Edit: was referring to SGC's last post ok then so you'd rather risk losing the best young striker in the country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted May 17, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted May 17, 2010 That makes ZERO sense. That's like saying "I may as well start paying my mortgage now but I don't move in for 2 years" If we have to pay the fonz 50k in 2 years to keep him then we will. No point in pouring £5million down the train between now and then. Edit: was referring to SGC's last post ok then so you'd rather risk losing the best young striker in the country? What we pay him now makes no difference to whether he stays or goes. If he's attracting attention in 2 years we'll offer him the money then. Paying it him now when no-one's particularly interested is madness. if he leaves in 2 years and his reason is "Villa didn't pay me £50k a week for the past 2 years" then he can **** off anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 I'd hazard a guess that the majority of our 1st XI is on circa 50 k I'd argue against that. A.Young Agbonlahor Carew Outside of that I can't think of anyone else that would be on circa 50K, unless when you say circa you mean anything within 25k.... no I meant around 45k-60k , I'd put my life on Dunne, Petrov and Heskey being on those wages Shall agree to disagree as we'll never know........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir_gary_cahill Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 That makes ZERO sense. That's like saying "I may as well start paying my mortgage now but I don't move in for 2 years" If we have to pay the fonz 50k in 2 years to keep him then we will. No point in pouring £5million down the train between now and then. Edit: was referring to SGC's last post ok then so you'd rather risk losing the best young striker in the country? What we pay him now makes no difference to whether he stays or goes. If he's attracting attention in 2 years we'll offer him the money then. Paying it him now when no-one's particularly interested is madness. if he leaves in 2 years and his reason is "Villa didn't pay me £50k a week for the past 2 years" then he can **** off anyway. Well I've seen reports recently saying that Everton will offer Jack Rodwell 50k per week and he's the same age as Delfouneso and a lot less potential imo, it's called looking after your best assets or risk losing them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picicata Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 That makes ZERO sense. That's like saying "I may as well start paying my mortgage now but I don't move in for 2 years" If we have to pay the fonz 50k in 2 years to keep him then we will. No point in pouring £5million down the train between now and then. Edit: was referring to SGC's last post ok then so you'd rather risk losing the best young striker in the country? I thought that was Sturridge :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir_gary_cahill Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 That makes ZERO sense. That's like saying "I may as well start paying my mortgage now but I don't move in for 2 years" If we have to pay the fonz 50k in 2 years to keep him then we will. No point in pouring £5million down the train between now and then. Edit: was referring to SGC's last post ok then so you'd rather risk losing the best young striker in the country? I thought that was Sturridge :winkold: Delfouneso is slightly better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFC-Prideofbrum Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 That makes ZERO sense. That's like saying "I may as well start paying my mortgage now but I don't move in for 2 years" If we have to pay the fonz 50k in 2 years to keep him then we will. No point in pouring £5million down the train between now and then. Edit: was referring to SGC's last post ok then so you'd rather risk losing the best young striker in the country? What we pay him now makes no difference to whether he stays or goes. If he's attracting attention in 2 years we'll offer him the money then. Paying it him now when no-one's particularly interested is madness. if he leaves in 2 years and his reason is "Villa didn't pay me £50k a week for the past 2 years" then he can **** off anyway. Well I've seen reports recently saying that Everton will offer Jack Rodwell 50k per week and he's the same age as Delfouneso and a lot less potential imo, it's called looking after your best assets or risk losing them It's actually reported in the mirror (best actual link, so hardly concrete) that it's £25,000 a week, and he also has played 47 games for Everton and 11 for England under 21's, so Delfouneso is less experienced than Rodwell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFC-Prideofbrum Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 That makes ZERO sense. That's like saying "I may as well start paying my mortgage now but I don't move in for 2 years" If we have to pay the fonz 50k in 2 years to keep him then we will. No point in pouring £5million down the train between now and then. Edit: was referring to SGC's last post ok then so you'd rather risk losing the best young striker in the country? I thought that was Sturridge :winkold: Delfouneso is slightly better So let me get this right: You think the club should pay out £5.2 Million a year in wages on Delfouneso and Sturridge at their ages and also the risk the fact senior players will want more than them and higher wages, therefore spiralling our club out of control and into debt. Please run our club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir_gary_cahill Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 That makes ZERO sense. That's like saying "I may as well start paying my mortgage now but I don't move in for 2 years" If we have to pay the fonz 50k in 2 years to keep him then we will. No point in pouring £5million down the train between now and then. Edit: was referring to SGC's last post ok then so you'd rather risk losing the best young striker in the country? What we pay him now makes no difference to whether he stays or goes. If he's attracting attention in 2 years we'll offer him the money then. Paying it him now when no-one's particularly interested is madness. if he leaves in 2 years and his reason is "Villa didn't pay me £50k a week for the past 2 years" then he can **** off anyway. Well I've seen reports recently saying that Everton will offer Jack Rodwell 50k per week and he's the same age as Delfouneso and a lot less potential imo, it's called looking after your best assets or risk losing them It's actually reported in the mirror (best actual link, so hardly concrete) that it's £25,000 a week, and he also has played 47 games for Everton and 11 for England under 21's, so Delfouneso is less experienced than Rodwell. apologies, I thought it was 50k, I never said he didn't have more experience, I said Delfouneso has more potential which he does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 I would say that Jack Rodwell (whether rightly or wrongly) is rated higher across the board than Fonz. It would certainly be in Everton's interests to give him a new contract if they want to keep him. There has been rumours of a £20m fee for Rodwell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir_gary_cahill Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 I would say that Jack Rodwell (whether rightly or wrongly) is rated higher across the board than Fonz. It would certainly be in Everton's interests to give him a new contract if they want to keep him. There has been rumours of a £20m fee for Rodwell. rated higher because he's had more exposure and been thrown in at the deep end at Everton because their manager knows how to handle young talent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 That makes ZERO sense. That's like saying "I may as well start paying my mortgage now but I don't move in for 2 years" If we have to pay the fonz 50k in 2 years to keep him then we will. No point in pouring £5million down the train between now and then. Edit: was referring to SGC's last post ok then so you'd rather risk losing the best young striker in the country? What we pay him now makes no difference to whether he stays or goes. If he's attracting attention in 2 years we'll offer him the money then. Paying it him now when no-one's particularly interested is madness. if he leaves in 2 years and his reason is "Villa didn't pay me £50k a week for the past 2 years" then he can **** off anyway. Well I've seen reports recently saying that Everton will offer Jack Rodwell 50k per week and he's the same age as Delfouneso and a lot less potential imo, it's called looking after your best assets or risk losing them It's actually reported in the mirror (best actual link, so hardly concrete) that it's £25,000 a week, and he also has played 47 games for Everton and 11 for England under 21's, so Delfouneso is less experienced than Rodwell. apologies, I thought it was 50k, I never said he didn't have more experience, I said Delfouneso has more potential which he does No, he really doesn't. Jack Rodwell can play in central defence, at full back, in a holiding role, in central midfield, in the hole and probably up top too, he can tackle, pass, score goals, win the ball in the air and hasn't looked out of place once since making his name. He's also scored big goals in big games. Jack Rodwell has all the attributes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted May 17, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted May 17, 2010 That makes ZERO sense. That's like saying "I may as well start paying my mortgage now but I don't move in for 2 years" If we have to pay the fonz 50k in 2 years to keep him then we will. No point in pouring £5million down the train between now and then. Edit: was referring to SGC's last post ok then so you'd rather risk losing the best young striker in the country? What we pay him now makes no difference to whether he stays or goes. If he's attracting attention in 2 years we'll offer him the money then. Paying it him now when no-one's particularly interested is madness. if he leaves in 2 years and his reason is "Villa didn't pay me £50k a week for the past 2 years" then he can **** off anyway. Well I've seen reports recently saying that Everton will offer Jack Rodwell 50k per week and he's the same age as Delfouneso and a lot less potential imo, it's called looking after your best assets or risk losing them It's actually reported in the mirror (best actual link, so hardly concrete) that it's £25,000 a week, and he also has played 47 games for Everton and 11 for England under 21's, so Delfouneso is less experienced than Rodwell. apologies, I thought it was 50k, I never said he didn't have more experience, I said Delfouneso has more potential which he does Potential or not, Rodwell is rated higher now, has bags more experience than the fonz and is wanted by quite a few teams. That's why Everton are offering him big bucks. Fonz has little experience, no-one wants him (right now anyway) and your opinion aside, he isn't rated as highly as Rodwell. Everton didn't offer Rodwell big bucks 2 years ago did they? You've pretty much proved my point for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante_Lockhart Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 That makes ZERO sense. That's like saying "I may as well start paying my mortgage now but I don't move in for 2 years" If we have to pay the fonz 50k in 2 years to keep him then we will. No point in pouring £5million down the train between now and then. Edit: was referring to SGC's last post ok then so you'd rather risk losing the best young striker in the country? What we pay him now makes no difference to whether he stays or goes. If he's attracting attention in 2 years we'll offer him the money then. Paying it him now when no-one's particularly interested is madness. if he leaves in 2 years and his reason is "Villa didn't pay me £50k a week for the past 2 years" then he can **** off anyway. Well I've seen reports recently saying that Everton will offer Jack Rodwell 50k per week and he's the same age as Delfouneso and a lot less potential imo, it's called looking after your best assets or risk losing them I swear you just argue for the hell of it. What has Delfouneso done to warrant 50k a week? Nothing. He MIGHT end up on that wage somewhere along the line, but he needs to earn it. We can't afford to pay a rarely used substitute 50k a week. Saying we'll miss out on him is absurd. If we don't think he is worth 50k a week (and in my opinion, no football player on this earth is worth that much) then i wouldn't expect us to pay it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir_gary_cahill Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 That makes ZERO sense. That's like saying "I may as well start paying my mortgage now but I don't move in for 2 years" If we have to pay the fonz 50k in 2 years to keep him then we will. No point in pouring £5million down the train between now and then. Edit: was referring to SGC's last post ok then so you'd rather risk losing the best young striker in the country? What we pay him now makes no difference to whether he stays or goes. If he's attracting attention in 2 years we'll offer him the money then. Paying it him now when no-one's particularly interested is madness. if he leaves in 2 years and his reason is "Villa didn't pay me £50k a week for the past 2 years" then he can **** off anyway. Well I've seen reports recently saying that Everton will offer Jack Rodwell 50k per week and he's the same age as Delfouneso and a lot less potential imo, it's called looking after your best assets or risk losing them It's actually reported in the mirror (best actual link, so hardly concrete) that it's £25,000 a week, and he also has played 47 games for Everton and 11 for England under 21's, so Delfouneso is less experienced than Rodwell. apologies, I thought it was 50k, I never said he didn't have more experience, I said Delfouneso has more potential which he does No, he really doesn't. Jack Rodwell can play in central defence, at full back, in a holiding role, in central midfield, in the hole and probably up top too, he can tackle, pass, score goals, win the ball in the air and hasn't looked out of place once since making his name. He's also scored big goals in big games. Jack Rodwell has all the attributes. please enlighten me when has he played full back?? never played in the hole either and certainly not up front imo Delfouneso could play up front for Barcelona in a few years, does Rodwell have the potential to play for them? not in my opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFC-Prideofbrum Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 First Bent better than Rooney now Delfouneso best striker in the world in 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir_gary_cahill Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 First Bent better than Rooney now Delfouneso best striker in the world in 2 years. why can't he be? you've said on many occasions that Agbonlahor is 1 of the best strikers in the league, Delfouneso is streets ahead of Agbonlahor at the same age Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante_Lockhart Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 First Bent better than Rooney now Delfouneso best striker in the world in 2 years. why can't he be? you've said on many occasions that Agbonlahor is 1 of the best strikers in the league, Delfouneso is streets ahead of Agbonlahor at the same age IN YOUR OPINION Blimey, if Delf is so much better than Gabby then why is Gabby our first choice striker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts