She isn’t moving unless it’s a massive increase 25% more minimum in London is like if she is on 1m a year now in London if it’s 1.25m will make no difference to her! It has to be a 50% increase minimum in wages!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
9 | Khadija Shaw
- Thread starter citizen_maine
- Start date
She isn’t moving unless it’s a massive increase 25% more minimum in London is like if she is on 1m a year now in London if it’s 1.25m will make no difference to her! It has to be a 50% increase minimum in wages!
citizen_maine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 May 2011
- Messages
- 19,981
The rumours are that she is moving because it IS a massive increase (£100k > £1000k pa)She isn’t moving unless it’s a massive increase 25% more minimum in London is like if she is on 1m a year now in London if it’s 1.25m will make no difference to her! It has to be a 50% increase minimum in wages!
dickie davies
Well-Known Member
We don't know if it's 100,000 gross or net, but what we do know is that it's not 100,000 every year for life£100,000 is about $21.5 million Jamaican dollars. I don't know what things cost there but I'm guessing you can live like a king/queen on that money in Jamaica. Your family would be well cared for too.
You don't need me to tell you that £1m x 3 years is the equivalent of £100k for thirty years
And do we know she wants to live in Jamaica!
The rumours are that she is moving because it IS a massive increase (£100k > £1000k pa)
We don’t what’s she is on here or what’s she has been offered!? Is she getting 50% more a week so say she is on 10k a week here! Chelsea need to offer her 20k minimum to maybe just increase in her bank account when you take into contention the increase in living in London which can be between 25% to 50% more to live there! Net after all expenditure if I was her I’d want at least 2/3k more in actually clear money! Especially it’s a big upheaval..
Sounds like a farewell to me.
Sounds more like she's still bargaining to me.
Don't know if City are still seeing if they can increase the offer still, but if Shaw wanted to go in sure she'd already have an agreement with Chelsea signed by now.
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader
Well-Known Member
Is she goes, she goes. I'd be disappointed but it would only last until we acquired a replacement, and after the replacement scores we move on apace.
Ellen White was Ellen White until she wasn't. At the age of twenty nine her skills could diminish quickly. Or perhaps not. I don't know the contract details, obviously, but at her age I personally wouldn't offer her a long term contract (over three years)on huge wages.
Yep
We can not judge the women's game on the same level as the men's. The transfers and wages structure are miles apart, also the age and peak of a player are very much on different levels.
I think City have tried everything in offering her a new and better contract, but if it's true about the £1million deal somebody else has offered, then City have no other choice. Let's be honest here, we would all take the offer right
jamielowndes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 3,455
Extra years seems to be the main sticking point going off what's reported. The security of an extra year has to be a big sell.Maybe Chelsea are offering her an extra year on more money then you can see why
Extra years seems to be the main sticking point going off what's reported. The security of an extra year has to be a big sell.
Maybe City could say we will have a clause in the season before her final year that if she doesn't meet the games and goals ratio, we can terminate her final season
jamielowndes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 3,455
That doesn't really help at all.Maybe City could say we will have a clause in the season before her final year that if she doesn't meet the games and goals ratio, we can terminate her final season
If Chelsea give her 3 years guaranteed and we give her 2 with 1 as a team option, she's going to Chelsea. Players want security.
cleavers
Moderator
If she's going to chelsea as is suspected, she shouldn't have any more games at City for me.But asked about her future, Shaw kept her cards close to her chest, telling Metro: ‘For me, I have two more games at least. And then obviously, it depends on what happens with the game on the weekend [City’s FA Cup semi-final with Chelsea].
‘But for me, I just want to finish the season strong with Man City, and then we hope for the best and see what happens.’
GX Blue
Well-Known Member
Beth Mead is a likely replacement.
She is crap now.
It’s a terrible deal to let Bunny leave and sign this type of player instead.
Mead is also Miedama GF I hear which shouldn’t be part of the equation but I bet it is.
She is crap now.
It’s a terrible deal to let Bunny leave and sign this type of player instead.
Mead is also Miedama GF I hear which shouldn’t be part of the equation but I bet it is.
Why? She loves City and will want to win everything can with us. Is she wants to play, her teammates want her to play and the manager wants her to play then why shouldnt she play?If she's going to chelsea as is suspected, she shouldn't have any more games at City for me.
Beth Mead is a likely replacement.
She is crap now.
It’s a terrible deal to let Bunny leave and sign this type of player instead.
Mead is also Miedama GF I hear which shouldn’t be part of the equation but I bet it is.
Just because we're linked with signing Mead doesnt mean she's Shaw's replacement. They're nothing like eachother. Also as if our transfer policy would hinge on their relationship. Sure i can imagine them wanting to live closer together and Mead favouring a club up north but City arent going to offer a contract to a player just to appease their partner.
Also, whilst she wouldnt be my first choice of signing, she's actually had a really good season for Arsenal. Im gonna reserve judgement on this one til i see what other business we have cooking.
BlueMerlin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 24 Dec 2025
- Messages
- 483
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Bunny is an exceptional player and she’s definitely a difference maker in City’s title winning team. It would be like letting Haaland go to a rival. I hope she stays. I’m not familiar enough with Women’s football to suggest a replacement. In the matches I’ve watched I’ve seen no one who compares.
Bridgejunky
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 203
In our case (Chelsea's) there are other areas of concern in the squad. We've tried a very novel approach to solving our injury issues, namely, selling some of the players involved. Meanwhile; Ramirez, who hasn't played for over a year, Kerr who has only been trusted to start regularly in the back end of the season, and Charles who only returned at the end of March, are all expected to be leaving. On top of that Bright has already gone of course.If she goes to Chelsea or Arsenal, it's game over for winning more silverware in England. Simple
Look, I don't know the ins and outs of the women's game and players' wages, but I heard it is nowhere near £1million a year ? I also think there may be a player wages cap set up by the Women's Super League ? I think the most was way under £100.000 a week and around £50.000. So if somebody is handing out £1million a year then there is a problem
I was in the Manchester City we must keep camp, but if this is true about the offer and City are never going to match or get close to it, I truly understand City in this ? Like somebody else who pointed out, how can you give silly money to one player and keep the other players happy and not downing tools
In total, seven players who were considered key members of the squad, plus Mia Fishel, who I thought was pretty much useless, have left over the course of the current season or will be leaving when it ends. Natalie Bjorn, is the only key player still on the long term injured list but Naomi Girma is also out and can't seem to stay fit for more than a few weeks at a time.
We have a major rebuild to do. On its own, adding one striker won't bring us back to challenging for the title.
cleavers
Moderator
It's clearly a conflict of interest if she's agreed to play for our rival next season, who we play in a cup semi final at the weekend, and we've won the league, so we should be looking to the future.Why? She loves City and will want to win everything can with us. Is she wants to play, her teammates want her to play and the manager wants her to play then why shouldnt she play?
I agree with your comments about Mead, I doubt she will be seen as the replacement, just experience for the team.
It's clearly a conflict of interest if she's agreed to play for our rival next season, who we play in a cup semi final at the weekend, and we've won the league, so we should be looking to the future.
I agree with your comments about Mead, I doubt she will be seen as the replacement, just experience for the team.
I just dont see a conflict of interest at all tbh. The idea that she wouldnt try her best because she's joining Chelsea seems a bit ludicrous to me. For her to go out on a double with City would be huge for her and tbh the idea of rocking up at a chelsea side with just the subway cup to show from this season would set her up with a great project of restoring them to winning ways. Shes an absolute pro with a monster mentality and we will be more likely to win the FA Cup with her in the side than without her. Also given Viv isnt with the squad at the mo we're already weakened without deliberately weakening ourselves further.
That doesn't really help at all.
If Chelsea give her 3 years guaranteed and we give her 2 with 1 as a team option, she's going to Chelsea. Players want security.
I think it's all down to the money sadly. Nobody turns down triple the wages if that is what Chelsea are offering