The Shay Given thread

[TrentVilla]

His Villa contract would see him earn the same as his Man City contract. That isn't a pay cut.

 

And yes he had a good season for us however, considering what it has cost us for that season it was in my view a terrible signing.

[Stevo985]

His Villa contract would see him earn the same as his Man City contract. That isn't a pay cut.

If he sees it out. Which he won't imo.

I've already said if he stays here for the duration of his contract then it will be a poor signing (assuming he doesn't suddenly become amazing and play for the next 3 seasons)

But I don't think he will. He'll be bought this summer.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Stevo985

[Richard]

let's hope he is sold or goes and doesn't burden us with further cost

[TrentVilla]

If he see's it out or we end up having to contribute to his salary when he goes or have to give him a pay off. One of these two things are likely.

 

He didn't take a pay cut to come here and I don't see him taking one to go somewhere else or do you think someone is going to give him a contract until he is 50 to balance it out?

[BOF]

The likes of him, Dunne & Bent are surely exactly what promoted clubs and/or the relegated lot will be looking towards. All looking to invest new money or parachute payments on stabilising or a quick return.

[Rob182]

He did take a paycut, of course he did. Irrespective of how long the contract was, he dropped his weekly wage by, I assume, a good 20-30k. That most definitely is a paycut. The length of the contract is just security on his part. We know a contract means nothing these days, so I don't see why it should be taken as a reason to state he hasn't taken a paycut.

[packoman]

 

 

Couldn't see Given going to Celtic for 2 reasons. They have Fraser Foster who's far better then Shay and, even if he were to leave, Celtic pay peanuts, could Shay really take such massive drop in wages? especially with any impending alimony payments he may have to pony up.

 

yeah but as Rev said I dont see Forster staying there very long. especially as a lot of teams in Premier League might want a new keeper.

also being a DOnegal man he might be a Celtic fan so might take a cut to join or Desmond could fund it like he did for Keane

 

 

Going off what a Celtic fan I know says, Desmond is all about steadying the ship these days. Apparently they're paying low money on salaries, allegedly no more then £10 - 20k a week max, and that's only to "marquee" players like Wanyama and Hooper who have sell on value. I just couldn't see Given accepting that kind of drop of wages.

 

Also wasn't he released by Celtic as a youngster? would he really have such an affinity to them? More likely I reckon he'll pitch up at a championship team David James style.

 

 

I thinks he's a Celtic fan.

 

[Stevo985]

He didn't take a pay cut to come here and I don't see him taking one to go somewhere else or do you think someone is going to give him a contract until he is 50 to balance it out?

Nope. I think someone will offer him a decent 2 year contract or something similar and he'll take it.

You can say it isn't a pay cut all you like, but in my eyes it is. If my employer doubled the length of my contract but halved my wages I'd very much consider that a paycut. He's paying me the same but for twice as much work.

We're paying Given less wages over more time. Yes he gets the same amount of money, but we get more "work" out of him. If he'd seen out his Man City contract he'd have the same amount of money, but he could then have gone and got a contract somehwere else and have more money at the end of the 5 years than he would after his 5 years here.

Yes if that "work" is sitting on the bench it looks bad. But it's still a pay cut

[TrentVilla]

He did take a paycut, of course he did. Irrespective of how long the contract was, he dropped his weekly wage by, I assume, a good 20-30k. That most definitely is a paycut. The length of the contract is just security on his part. We know a contract means nothing these days, so I don't see why it should be taken as a reason to state he hasn't taken a paycut.

 

Perhaps because he didn't.

 

It isn't a pay cut.

[TrentVilla]

Nope. I think someone will offer him a decent 2 year contract or something similar and he'll take it.

 

 

Well we will see I guess what the summer brings but I have my doubts.

[NurembergVillan]

He did take a paycut, of course he did.

 

 

 

I assume

[Raymond]

He didn't take a pay cut to come here and I don't see him taking one to go somewhere else or do you think someone is going to give him a contract until he is 50 to balance it out?

There are two ways to look at the pay cut argument, and in both ways you are wrong.

The first and simplest way is just per year income. We all obviously agree he made less per year with Villa that City.

The second way is over the course of the contract. Yes Given made the same amount of money overall, but when you factor in the extended time of the payout, it is clear he made less money. To prove it, here is a simple example.

I make 30,000 dollars a year over 3 years. That means I make 90,000 dollars.

You make 15,000 dollars a year over 6 years. That means you make 90,000 dollars.

Equal? Of course not because I do not have to stop working after three years. Even if I find a lower paying job the second three year period, I am better off than the person making 15k a year.

So, for Given, making 50k a week here for 5 years or making 85k a week for 3 years at City are not equal. Sure the value of the contract is the same, but the value of the two extra years' wages forgone equals the paycut.

[TrentVilla]

 

He didn't take a pay cut to come here and I don't see him taking one to go somewhere else or do you think someone is going to give him a contract until he is 50 to balance it out?

There are two ways to look at the pay cut argument, and in both ways you are wrong.

 

 

No I'm not, you just don't agree with me.

[Stevo985]

Actually, Trent, I think you are.

[TrentVilla]

Actually, Trent, I think you are.

 

Obviously you do because you don't agree with me either. I thought we established that already?

[Raymond]

He didn't take a pay cut to come here and I don't see him taking one to go somewhere else or do you think someone is going to give him a contract until he is 50 to balance it out?

There are two ways to look at the pay cut argument, and in both ways you are wrong.

No I'm not, you just don't agree with me.

There are correct and incorrect opinions. For instance, I could say hitler was a stand up gentlemen.

Either way, this is not an opinion. This is a fact. One you are clearly incorrect about.

[Stevo985]

Actually, Trent, I think you are.

 

Obviously you do because you don't agree with me either. I thought we established that already?

But it's been laid out for you above.

The only way you can say it ISN'T a paycut, is if you assume after his Man City contract ran out, he would have retired and not earned another penny through football.

[Folski]

 

 

He didn't take a pay cut to come here and I don't see him taking one to go somewhere else or do you think someone is going to give him a contract until he is 50 to balance it out?

There are two ways to look at the pay cut argument, and in both ways you are wrong.

 

 

No I'm not, you just don't agree with me.

 

 

So Trent you telling me if your boss called you in and said you're going to earn the your salary over the next 3 years now instead over 5 years that that is not a pay cut?

Edited May 28, 2013 by Folski

[TrentVilla]

That is a completely flawed comparison as I suspect you know.

When he signed he did so on a longer deal than he had at City to ensure his earnings were the same.

I'm not posting any further on this as I've nothing further to add.

[BOF]

I think the point being made by Stevo is that in the extra 2 years it would take him to earn that same amount of money at Villa, he would have had the opportunity to earn another 2 year or 2x1 year contract(s) elsewhere after Man City. So not only was his monthly take home pay down in comparison, his potential earnings over the duration of the new longer Villa contract was also down in comparison too.

But in essence all we're really doing here is disagreeing with each other over just how poor the deal was for Villa overall. We got a good season out of him under McLeish and I'm grateful for that. If we can save a few mil by paying him the bulk of his contract to go elsewhere this summer then I've no problem remembering his time here fondly!