Emile's injury

[pauliewalnuts]

I never saw the fee as a problem with Heskey.  Taking away opinions of the player for a minute, it was quite moderate for an expereinced PL player and England international.  However, we did put him on too much money.

.. and for too long.

[Concrete John]

When you think he's not much different now, going into the last year of his contract, from the player we signed in January 2009, then the length doesn't seem to be the problem.

As I said, his wages are the biggest issue of the financial package.

[not3bad]

And Heskey was put on too long a contract, as someone pointed out a few replies up.

[Concrete John]

To me a contract being too long is all about the players powers deserting him as he gets older to the point where you have a high paid non-player on your hands.  It may be because he wasn't all that good to begin with, but with Heskey his level of contribution hasn't deteriorated since Jan 2009.  So whatever he was worth then he's worth now, but at neither point has his 'worth' been £60k a week. 

[Merv]

I'd agree with the point about Heskey's wages being too high - if we know that he's on 60k a week, I'm always a wee bit sceptical about these figures getting bandied about - but then that applies to 90% of PL footballers today. What I will say about Heskey is that, since his time at Villa, he's at least earned his money by being a regular pick under the various managers when fit. We can't say the same about everyone else.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

When you think he's not much different now, going into the last year of his contract, from the player we signed in January 2009, then the length doesn't seem to be the problem.

You mean he's still as crap as when we first bought him? Yes, he does a bit, had a couple of good games under Houllier but with hindsight he should have been a six month loan. Both the length and value of his contract were criminal, not that I blame him for accepting it. Who wouldn't?

[pauliewalnuts]

When you think he's not much different now, going into the last year of his contract, from the player we signed in January 2009, then the length doesn't seem to be the problem.

As I said, his wages are the biggest issue of the financial package.

A club paying a 35 year old 65k a week is a club with a wages problem, so the length of contract has everything to do with it - at some point, someone thought giving a 3.5 year contract to a 31 year old on 65k a week was a good idea.

That's an indication of why we are where we are now.

[Concrete John]

A club paying a 35 year old 65k a week is a club with a wages problem, so the length of contract has everything to do with it - at some point, someone thought giving a 3.5 year contract to a 31 year old on 65k a week was a good idea.

That's an indication of why we are where we are now.

Lets imagine for a minute that he was a top striker and worth his wages in Jan 2009, then 3.5 years later he isn't as his powers fade due to age.  That's giving someone too long a contract.  Putting a player on £60k a week and finding out they aren't worth it is the problem - the fact they still aren't worth it in 3.5 years later is secondary. 

[not3bad]

Putting a player on £60k a week and finding out they aren't worth it is the problem - the fact they still aren't worth it in 3.5 years later is secondary. 

But if he had been put on a 1 year contract the problem would have been resolved in January 2010.

[TheSandman]

I have to agree with John M on this. Over his contract Heskey hasn't got worse. Indeed, I'd say he has been better for us in the last year or so than the previous year and half he was with us.

The problem is not his age, the length of his contract or the wages but the fact we signed him in the first place.

[Concrete John]

Realistically, when do players sign 1 year contracts?

My general point being that he has aged (comparatively!) well, so had he been worth the money then he would be now and the length of the contract wouldn't be an issue.   

[Rudy Can't Fail]

My general point being that he has aged (comparatively!) well, so had he been worth the money then he would be now and the length of the contract wouldn't be an issue.   

He's aged well partly because he hasn't really played that much since we signed him. I'm sure Beye is in pretty tip-top condition too considering his age but I wouldn't say he was "worth the money".

Just to add, I don't want to compare Beye and Heskey based on anything but age and stupid contracts. Heskey has always tried his best, even for the most part his best has never been good enough. I still respect him as a professional and wish him a speedy recovery.

Beye can do one.

[SoccerHQ]

I never saw the fee as a problem with Heskey.  Taking away opinions of the player for a minute, it was quite moderate for an expereinced PL player and England international.  However, we did put him on too much money.

Big problem was giving him a 3 and a alf year deal when he signed at 31, just like giving Habib Beye a 3 year deal at 32! If both had been given deals with a year less, we could've unloaded both and another 100k a week off the wage bill this summer.

[Louzie0]

I wish we'd had him on the park today.