Selling the 'deadwood' and their 'high' wages

[TheSandman]

True. To be honest I wouldn't be too unhappy if we got him at a reasonable fee and maybe a lower wage than quoted. It's just the thought of paying something like £8-10million for him and then giving him such large wages. £6million I'd think we had got a great deal and I've been told that my fears about him based on last season are to do with a recurring injury that he's over.

I believe its not that we pay more than Spurs (Both teams pay around the same figures to top earners) it's just that we pay more to our lower earners.

[pauliewalnuts]

Couldn't disagree more.  I think Keane, again should he sign, will be a success with us.

I think he'll do well for a season but we're unlikely to sign him for just a season. The waste will come in years two, three and four. A very expensive quick fix in my book.

How come you're using the name Kelly now, Mr Nostradamus?

To be fair, though, Chris, you don't have to be Nostradamus to work out that in years 2, 3 and 4, Robbie Keane will be 31,32 and 33 and therefore well into the downward slope.

[pauliewalnuts]

But if all these rumours are true that we pay so much more than Spurs, then surely we can give him a nice little pay rise and still have him only on a par with our best earners?

We need to pay the going rate and can't diminish his earnings just because he's 29.  I'm more concerned about the fee, due to the sell on value issue you rightly raise, than I am his wages.

They're not rumours. They're true, actual facts as per the published accounts of both clubs.

He's 30 now. The going rate for wages should surely take account of the player's age?

[Rudy Can't Fail]

We need to pay the going rate and can't diminish his earnings just because he's 29.  I'm more concerned about the fee, due to the sell on value issue you rightly raise, than I am his wages.

His wages will exceed his transfer fee over a three year contract. His resale value at the end of that contract will be zero. I'm sure these numbers are not lost on MON, we can only hope he does as well in the transfer market as he did last summer. My concern is that after a season Keane joins the 'deadwood' list. He's not the player he was a couple of years ago and from watching his performances for Celtic, a club he loves and gave his all, is never likely to be again.

It's a very high risk signing where the numbers are stacked against us.

[Concrete John]

With a player like Keane you either pay the wages or you don't get him, to me that's not the issue.  And whether or not he earns that money is all down to how well he would do for us, which opinion is split on.  The only financial factor that his age effects is the transfer fee.

We wouldn't sign Didier Drogba and expect him to drop his wages as he's 30 or so, so the same is true of Keane.

[pauliewalnuts]

With a player like Keane you either pay the wages or you don't get him, to me that's not the issue.  And whether or not he earns that money is all down to how well he would do for us, which opinion is split on.  The only financial factor that his age effects is the transfer fee.

We wouldn't sign Didier Drogba and expect him to drop his wages as he's 30 or so, so the same is true of Keane.

If you signed Didier Drogba age 32, of course he gets less money than he would if he was 28.

IF you agree a four year contract with Keane at 60k a week and you sign him for 8m (these aren't the actual figures, I'm using them for illustration), your commitment there is:

8m transfer fee
13m wages (3m x 4 plus 11 percent on top for NI)

That's 21m pounds (ignoring stuff like signing on fees, performance bonuses etc etc) it will cost us, and at the end he will be worth nothing. The larger part of that is the wage cost.

You simply can not ignore things like that.

This thread is discussing the players we've already got who are not playing and costing us a fortune, surely those players are evidence of why you can't just focus on the transfer fee.

[not3bad]

My concern, and it's my only concern, is that we do have a lot of players at Villa earning a fortune who aren't contributing.  Blame MON for that if you like, but at least it's been recognised before it becomes a major problem and we seem to be trying to address it.

Addressing it by bringing in Robbie Keane* on a three or four year contract? I wonder who else would not only be willing to pay the fee but also the salary. I've yet to hear anybody else interested in him.

It's all very similar to John Gregory and the wasted millions, not to mention the football. It stinks of desperation.

* Assuming we buy him.

Spot on.

Not forgetting the fact I'm still far from convinced that he's still fully 100% in terms of fitness.

What would it be £70K per week on a 29/30 year old forward? I also doubt that MoN will be our manager beyond the end of the coming season. What if a new man comes in and is stuck with a player he doesn't want, potentially struggle to sell and who's on a small fortune in pay?

Maybe we should limit this discussion to players that are already here as opposed to players we may or may not sign.

[Concrete John]

With a player like Keane you either pay the wages or you don't get him, to me that's not the issue.  And whether or not he earns that money is all down to how well he would do for us, which opinion is split on.  The only financial factor that his age effects is the transfer fee.

We wouldn't sign Didier Drogba and expect him to drop his wages as he's 30 or so, so the same is true of Keane.

If you signed Didier Drogba age 32, of course he gets less money than he would if he was 28.

IF you agree a four year contract with Keane at 60k a week and you sign him for 8m (these aren't the actual figures, I'm using them for illustration), your commitment there is:

8m transfer fee
13m wages (3m x 4 plus 11 percent on top for NI)

That's 21m pounds (ignoring stuff like signing on fees, performance bonuses etc etc) it will cost us, and at the end he will be worth nothing. The larger part of that is the wage cost.

You simply can not ignore things like that.

This thread is discussing the players we've already got who are not playing and costing us a fortune, surely those players are evidence of why you can't just focus on the transfer fee.

I'm not ignoring it, I just don't think it's an issue in regards to age, or at least as big an issue as the fee is.  A younger player might also leave after three years for nothing.  And if we had a player already in our squad playing well who was 29 and had his contract up, would we try and negotiate his contract downwards due to age?  We'd lose the player if we did that.      

I feel keane will be worth the money while he's here - that's an 'investment' for want of a better word.  His fee is dead money due to his age.

EDIT: and I very much doubnt Drogba would accept a pay cut to go anywhere.

[pauliewalnuts]

It isnt about whether Drogba would take a pay cut to go anywhere, it is about the fact that after a certain age,  the wages offered to players go down as they get older, no matter who they are.

If Drogba were to renegotiate his contract with Chelsea now, do you think he'd get the same wages offered age 32 as he would 28?

A younger player could leave after three years for nothing, yes, but the point is, in three years Robbie Keane will - no might about it - be 33 years old and therefore is highly unlikely to be pulling up many trees in the top flight, yet we will be contractually obliged to pay him the whole contract if he so desires.

[Concrete John]

The thing is, any striker we get that is good enough would have wages at least what Keane's are.  So, if we take that as a constant the other issue is the fee, which would be smaller for Keane than say Huntelaar due to age.  Basically, if we're going to be paying the wages anyway, the difference between Keane and a younger striker is the fee, which is why that concerns me more.

[villasjf]

Can we get back on track about deadwood etc, I know Harewood has left as has Freddy and the 3rd choice goally but only Freddy has a club and has to prove his fitness first unless i missed something. Why is Osbourne and Salifou still on our books?

[Rudy Can't Fail]

The thing is, any striker we get that is good enough would have wages at least what Keane's are.

Funny how that's only a rule for us. I can't imagine why.

[cheltenhamlion]

Thing is, Davies, Shorey, etc weren't signed as reserve players. They weren't handed £40k a week to play in the reserves, they were first team players. It's just now they've fallen down the pecking order, which is why we're trying to offload them.

A very good point!

Somewhat ruined by the fact that MON never really rated Shorey and only signed him as a short term solution to the problem of Bouma's injury.

[TheSandman]

Can we get back on track about deadwood etc, I know Harewood has left as has Freddy and the 3rd choice goally but only Freddy has a club and has to prove his fitness first unless i missed something. Why is Osbourne and Salifou still on our books?

I hate to break this to you mate but they still have a year on their contracts.

[Concrete John]

The thing is, any striker we get that is good enough would have wages at least what Keane's are.

Funny how that's only a rule for us. I can't imagine why.

Are you saying other clubs would sign Keane and get away with paying him less?