Erling Haaland

[waspish]

I agree with you but spending, whether it's transfer fees or wages paid, has always been part of football reporting, well ever since i can remember and i'm in my 50's.

My point is that clubs always want harmony in the dressing room and a player coming in earning nearly 50% more than our best player may cause problems, especially if he hasn't been seen to earn it!

Depends on every individual how they see it.. you could do a contract that a player is on 200k but you can say every game you play every goal you score every clean sheet every game the team wins you get x y or z more! There’s ways around it!

 

[Dribble]

That would go for every other team though.

Other teams have other finance models, where players accept the megastars will be paid markedly more. If Haaland came to City on £600k per week, I'd imagine KDB, Sterling etc having something to say about it.

 

[waspish]

Other teams have other finance models, where players accept the megastars will be paid markedly more. If Haaland came to City on £600k per week, I'd imagine KDB, Sterling etc having something to say about it.

Very much doubt it we don’t sign players with that mentality we do our research unlike the scum

 

[OccupiedPalestineBlues]

I'm pretty sure dom wasn't providing a theory on how the best teams with the best players can end up with lower wage bills than inferior teams with inferior players.

Maybe I missed something?
I took it that he was espousing a theory that paying the asking price & daft wages early saves wages in the long term, and that he was using the American salary capped model that he quoted to support it.
I responded hoping for clarification because it simply didn’t map out, not in the least, but as I mentioned I may have missed something . . we all do sometimes, it’s part of the human condition and I don’t claim to be an exception :-D

 

[talkativesprout]

Other teams have other finance models, where players accept the megastars will be paid markedly more. If Haaland came to City on £600k per week, I'd imagine KDB, Sterling etc having something to say about it.

How about 400k a week rising to 600k a week if he hits 30 goals or more in a season, then stick that in KDB and Stirling's or some other realistic performance related pay bonus next contract to remain fair and proper if they get arsey.

 

[Legal Alien]

How about 400k a week rising to 600k a week if he hits 30 goals or more in a season, then stick that in KDB and Stirling's or some other realistic performance related pay bonus next contract to remain fair and proper if they get arsey.

I'm not sure that you need to put a goal figure on it, but yeah put in incentives that get triggered when he proves he can score regularly in the league.
If he does what we all hope he can, then i have no problem paying him the money and that goes for any player.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

How about 400k a week rising to 600k a week if he hits 30 goals or more in a season, then stick that in KDB and Stirling's or some other realistic performance related pay bonus next contract to remain fair and proper if they get arsey.

I would never link pay to things like individual goals. Performance is a team thing, so it should only ever be linked to team results imo. The last thing you want is players thinking about themselves in key moments, maybe arguing over penalties and free kicks, because they need just one more goal to get them to 30 and add 50% to their wages for the year. I think City already do this btw. When we do well, our wage bill goes up for every player, I think.

But this is the point of disrupting the wage structure. If one player comes in on 600k and that causes others to demand the same, then he's not really cost 600k, he's cost 600k plus the wage increases of everyone else who wants parity, as well as all future signings who come in as the next big thing. If we already had a player on those sort of wages, then this summer Jack Grealish might have rightly said "hang on, I'm the most expensive player in the league, I want the same."

 

[Blue and true]

I watched a cracking film last night called The Firm. The basic premise is this: a young, shooting star of a lawyer (Tom Cruise) is headhunted by a renowned, prestigious law firm. They want him, and before he even leaves the interview room they give him a blank cheque (ok, it probably wasn't a blank cheque, but it would've been a shit tonne more lucre than he'd have received elsewhere).

Crude analogy? Maybe, but real life isn't much different. By the same extension neither is football. Haaland will receive the most money because he's the best in the business. It's why the arguments about him unsettling our wage structure hold little weight. He's a better player than Torres, Sterling, Jesus et al so he'll recieve a higher salary. Of course this is dependant on his incredible form being maintained this season. It makes little difference that he hasn't proven it in our dressing room; he's proven it at a high level long enough now and anyone with half a brain cell, and associated with football (including our own players), can see he's the real deal.

I've beat the Haaland drum plenty enough already but one last opinion, it would be borderline gross negligence if we don't put up a fight to sign him!

Oh, and if you haven't watched The Firm, watch it. Class film.

 

[Maly]

It’s not that though is it. You don’t know what parity clauses are written into each players contract

I’d guess none. We’re a well run club, we’re not those clowns from Trafford mate

To add some weight to my thoughts, we tried to sign Messi last year, who would’ve been on astronomical wages. No way would we try to do that if any players had pay parity. Only an idiot would put that in a players contract

 

[talkativesprout]

I would never link pay to things like individual goals. Performance is a team thing, so it should only ever be linked to team results imo. The last thing you want is players thinking about themselves in key moments, maybe arguing over penalties and free kicks, because they need just one more goal to get them to 30 and add 50% to their wages for the year. I think City already do this btw. When we do well, our wage bill goes up for every player, I think.

But this is the point of disrupting the wage structure. If one player comes in on 600k and that causes others to demand the same, then he's not really cost 600k, he's cost 600k plus the wage increases of everyone else who wants parity, as well as all future signings who come in as the next big thing. If we already had a player on those sort of wages, then this summer Jack Grealish might have rightly said "hang on, I'm the most expensive player in the league, I want the same."

I agree in the main but other attacking players KPI's wouldn't necessarily have to be goals. everything is measured and analysed anyway, just use the data to award bonusses.