Lovebitesandeveryfing
Well-Known Member
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.
Well, thanks for your interpretation, AHT, but I confess I'm still a bit puzzled. I'd expect these footballers to want to play. Especially if you're unquestionably a highly skilled footballer (and an England international, incidentally). In fact, I'd have some difficulty respecting them if they were prepared to vegetate on a bench, just because of money (as I've said, they've already got more money banked than I'd know how to spend in several lifetimes). What must it do for your self-respect if you see James McAtee (a good academy player, but still with everything to confirm) being brought on, while you sit there glumly? Just puzzled. Kalvin Phillips was prepared to do it, perhaps, but let's have it right, he's no Jack Grealish.