jim Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Ireland is on 81k, we pay him 61k. Darren Bent is also on 81k they are the 2 highest earners. I really don't think that's the case at all. Previous clubs do not carry on paying players a wage after they have tranfered away. When they are on loan, yes. I'm not even sure it would be allowed to pay the wages of a player you didn't own - I strongly suspect it would contrevene fair play rules. What can happen is that a bulk sum is paid when a player leaves for lower wages, so Ireland could have been paid enough to cover an additional £20k a week for the remainder of his contract. But unless someone has any decent evidence to the contrary, I'm pretty sure that they can't be still paying any of his wages directly. He still gets 20k from man city.he didn't want to come to villa and demanded money to move. man city really wanted milner and agreed to the deal. man city will pay him the extra 20k until the date his man city contract would have run out had he not left them. its basically a compensation agreement for being forced out of the door and it is perfectly legal. Bent is on the same money overall as he has a clause in his contract to say that he has to ne on a par with the highest earner which was Ireland even though part of his money comes from man city. I think you're wrong. It wouldn't be allowed, as to be paid weekly like that he'd have to be an employee. If they were paying him every week there would be a conflict of interest whenever we played Man City. I think you've misunderstood the situation. The compensation for agreeing to come here is correct, but it would have been paid in a lump sum to him on leaving Man City. This. He would have received a lump sum from city to compensate for the lost wages for the remainder of his city contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHV Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Ireland is on 81k, we pay him 61k. Darren Bent is also on 81k they are the 2 highest earners. I really don't think that's the case at all. Previous clubs do not carry on paying players a wage after they have tranfered away. When they are on loan, yes. I'm not even sure it would be allowed to pay the wages of a player you didn't own - I strongly suspect it would contrevene fair play rules. What can happen is that a bulk sum is paid when a player leaves for lower wages, so Ireland could have been paid enough to cover an additional £20k a week for the remainder of his contract. But unless someone has any decent evidence to the contrary, I'm pretty sure that they can't be still paying any of his wages directly. He still gets 20k from man city.he didn't want to come to villa and demanded money to move. man city really wanted milner and agreed to the deal. man city will pay him the extra 20k until the date his man city contract would have run out had he not left them. its basically a compensation agreement for being forced out of the door and it is perfectly legal. Bent is on the same money overall as he has a clause in his contract to say that he has to ne on a par with the highest earner which was Ireland even though part of his money comes from man city. I think you're wrong. It wouldn't be allowed, as to be paid weekly like that he'd have to be an employee. If they were paying him every week there would be a conflict of interest whenever we played Man City. I think you've misunderstood the situation. The compensation for agreeing to come here is correct, but it would have been paid in a lump sum to him on leaving Man City. This. He would have received a lump sum from city to compensate for the lost wages for the remainder of his city contract. No he didn't have it as a lump sum payment. it comes as normal wages would come. these types of arrangements happen more often than you realize Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy_0'Neill Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 You state this as fact, please provide your evidence. As stated by others it's extremely unlikely he's being paid a wage by City, for the reasons already mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyp102 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Whilst I don't know any "facts" on the matter. I have read in the past that clubs have paid wages for players who have left. Think there was a big story about the reason that Leeds got into so much debt when they dropped down the leagues was because they were paying part of wages for some players who had left and joined another club for less wages. Can't see how it would illegal if legitimate contracts were in place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choffer Posted March 21, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted March 21, 2012 I think people might be getting hung up on the word "wage". From what little I know, I think it's entirely feasible that as part of an exit arrangement, the selling club would agree to pay the purchasing club 20k a week for the purchasing club to add to the players wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelle Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 You state this as fact, please provide your evidence. As stated by others it's extremely unlikely he's being paid a wage by City, for the reasons already mentioned. Simply put, this. Highly unlikely, IMO. A bulk sum, yes, still paying wages, doubtfull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barry'sboots Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 He is not a lone sriker so why waste the money This, IMO, is exactly what Bent is. He had great success at Charlton as a lone striker. Struggled at Spurs because he couldn't play with either Defoe or Keane. Looked good again at Sunderland in the middle of an attacking trio with the other two coming from wide. And he will look good for us again if we get rid of McTool if we can get him decent service from the two wide players and SI playing off him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaztonVilla Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 No he didn't have it as a lump sum payment. it comes as normal wages would come. these types of arrangements happen more often than you realize Yes he did. Hence the legal battle between Man City and SI following where Man City tried to reclaim the payment when SI allegedly breached the terms of the agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaglint Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Was wondering when this thread would perk your interest Gazton - Obvious question I suppose -- Do you know anything of this supposed "done deal" to play in the Soccer Leagues ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHV Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 He is not a lone sriker so why waste the money This, IMO, is exactly what Bent is. He had great success at Charlton as a lone striker. Struggled at Spurs because he couldn't play with either Defoe or Keane. Looked good again at Sunderland in the middle of an attacking trio with the other two coming from wide. And he will look good for us again if we get rid of McLeish if we can get him decent service from the two wide players and SI playing off him. Unfortunately i can't see mcleish going anywhere. i get your point but as Charles nzogbia said in his interview the players are asked to defend first. Ireland and our wide players don't support bent due to the style of play. sadly i can see Ireland, nzogbia and bent all leaving before mcleish. its a shame because i think we could be a really attacking team but mcleish seems intent on stiffling our attacking players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaztonVilla Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Was wondering when this thread would perk your interest Gazton - Obvious question I suppose -- Do you know anything of this supposed "done deal" to play in the Soccer Leagues ? It's bollocks as far as I'm aware. Remains committed to making this work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houlston Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I thought he was our best player today, his attitude was top draw its a shame most of the others didnt follow suit. On that showing I think its a myth that he cant play as a midfielder in a 442, he was everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laivasse Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I still think he doesn't work in a 442. His good defensive work is almost all from tracking back and sneaking up on players, rather than defensive positioning, anticipation and closing down from the front which would be required with only one central midfield buddy. He was the best of a bad bunch today. However any of his good work was always going to go to waste. He could pass forward to a sluggish Heskey or wide to Alby and Gabby, each struggling either too wide, too deep, or too crap. He made good runs of his own once or twice but the timing was off. Never seen a clearer cut example of a skilled individual being wasted in a team, than his performance today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Ireland is there to be a creative spark but doesn't really do that enough, and didn't again today. He was probably one of the better players out there and the tackle at the end was terrific, but not MOTM. Albrighton was our biggest threat and thus my MOTM, though his final ball let him down badly, he was the problem to their defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dchitz Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Ireland is there to be a creative spark but doesn't really do that enough, and didn't again today. He was probably one of the better players out there and the tackle at the end was terrific, but not MOTM. Albrighton was our biggest threat and thus my MOTM, though his final ball let him down badly, he was the problem to their defence. Oh wow watched a different game to me.... How can he be creative with the options around him? Create for who exactly, heskey wasn't even in game, gabby no interest and albrighton was horrendous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Was he or wasn't he creative then? What are you saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houlston Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Albrighton was our biggest threat and thus my MOTM, though his final ball let him down badly, he was the problem to their defence. Mad how opinions can differ in football so much, I thought Albrighton was awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laivasse Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Was he or wasn't he creative then? What are you saying?Well, actually he was. I remember some good, dangerous passes. Examples are one through the middle to Heskey which he didn't have the pace to challenge for and one lovely turn and pass to set Albrighton running on the counter-attack. But the key words are Heskey and Albrighton. It's like you're telling a one-armed man he's not clapping loud enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dchitz Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Apologies was on about albrighton being man of match Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 thought Ireland played decent, showed he cared and had no problem tracking back. Made a wonderful tackle on Walcott as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts