True but that's not our problem, we just need to get rid.
10 | Jack Grealish - 2024/25
- Thread starter Keeper!
- Start date
- Status
Those wages will be something which won’t be able to get rid sadly
I'd like to see this too.
Having KdB as a more progressive passer in the midfield 3 is better against Brugge who will likely sit back.
Grealish probably can't play the role Marmoush did for us, and I hope this is how we use our wingers from now on, alot more forward and progressive and runs behind, and that isn't really Grealish.
But just holding the ball, and not losing it, but in a deeper position, this is the best use of him right now.
GaudinoMotors
Well-Known Member
Jack's control in with those two (M & H) playing off him.
Mehhhh? About a player of clear technical ability and achievement. OK.
Tend to agree his link up other Doku was very good against Forest and Salford. Just can’t see it ever happening in terms of him getting any kind of run of games in there. Then there’s probably 3 ahead of him for the left side once Doku is fit again.
Txiki Txiki Bang Bang
Well-Known Member
Fake news
GaudinoMotors
Well-Known Member
I certainly wouldn't have doku in preference to a technical player that is positionally aware, who doesn't give the ball away nor shirks defensive responsibilities.
With how we're defending, we don't have the luxury of playing Doku who doesn't have the same work rate as Grealish/Savinho and is much more risky in possession.
What i’m saying is when fit he’s been fairly consistently being picked over Grealish lately. When McAtee came on ahead of him with a lead to protect at Brenttge writing looked like it’s on the wall for Grealish. The reason being if we’d been behind it’s almost certain Doku would have come on not Grealish.
His time looks up here.
GaudinoMotors
Well-Known Member
It does. But what I'm saying is it shouldn't be. Unfathomable and one of our few"ish" poor decisions over recent years.
Yeah, i wasn’t saying it should be.
mancityscot
Well-Known Member
Highly doubt any club will come in for him, not at the fee and wages he’s on. He’s done absolutely fuck all the past year to showcase he’d be an asset to a top club and I can’t see them taking the expensive risk. We’re stuck with him imo
St Helens Blue (Exiled)
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 May 2011
- Messages
- 14,594
Its a sell for me
Betterdeedthan red
Well-Known Member
Good player .
And seems like a really nice guy with what he does with disabled kids etc.
But what he brings to the table for 100m .
Not much.
If he goes i wouldn't really bother.
Don't dislike the lad.
But don't love him either .
When he was at villa he was the main man and really good.
Here it's get the ball and try to win a foul.
Doesn't assist enough or score enough
And seems like a really nice guy with what he does with disabled kids etc.
But what he brings to the table for 100m .
Not much.
If he goes i wouldn't really bother.
Don't dislike the lad.
But don't love him either .
When he was at villa he was the main man and really good.
Here it's get the ball and try to win a foul.
Doesn't assist enough or score enough
Lovebitesandeveryfing
Well-Known Member
I want someone to explain this business about wages to me. Is it graven in stone that if a player moves on to another club, he must move on on the basis of earning the same money? I mean, is it actually a statutory requirement? I just don't get it. I don't know when that crept in. Is it something that's imposed by the agent, just as a matter of principle?
I'd think that if you knew you were a good player, and you felt you weren't getting enough time, you'd accept something of a wage reduction in order to ply your trade as a footballer. These guys are like racehorses, they want to play, as the horse wants to race. And hell, I don't know what anyone on here earns, but when you're talking about the difference between, say, £200,000 per week and £150,000 per week, well, we're looking at astronomical sums well beyond the comprehension of any man in the street, unless that man happens to be Bill Gates or Elon Musk.
I'd think that if you knew you were a good player, and you felt you weren't getting enough time, you'd accept something of a wage reduction in order to ply your trade as a footballer. These guys are like racehorses, they want to play, as the horse wants to race. And hell, I don't know what anyone on here earns, but when you're talking about the difference between, say, £200,000 per week and £150,000 per week, well, we're looking at astronomical sums well beyond the comprehension of any man in the street, unless that man happens to be Bill Gates or Elon Musk.
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 69,533
No, but it’s probably the simple premise of whether the player wants to take a pay cut to play more or not.
Obviously, to laypeople, the difference between £150k and £200k seems negligible, but it’s still £50k a week.
When you’ve won everything you wanted to win, what’s the point of going somewhere else for a pay cut? Especially when you’ve got a baby and a settled life.
It’s up to each player to make their own decision. They’ve got to be really driven to want to go elsewhere for less.
- Status