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.
Stop loaning players we dont want
- Thread starter sergiokun
- Start date
Feed-The-Goat
Well-Known Member
It's not like we have pushed to sell these players.
Loaning them out cuts the wage bill slightly, not much but atleast we haven't got another Danny Mills here with a 5 year contract and paying him full whack week in week out for fuck all.
Loaning them out cuts the wage bill slightly, not much but atleast we haven't got another Danny Mills here with a 5 year contract and paying him full whack week in week out for fuck all.
Rocket-footed kolarov
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 2,839
ChicagoBlue said:The players are holding the club to their contract, just as the club holds players to their contract. Simple!
It is amusing to me to think that ANYONE ON BLUEMOON would not continue to stay at a company that had contracted them to be there for X number of years for £90,000!
City can loan him out ANY TIME THEY WANT, but have to make a deal that makes it attractive to everyone else. If not, then they swallow the contract.
BTW, this whole notion of "professional pride" is a complete joke! He can STAY at City and play football EVERY DAY with some great players for a few hours and then live his life anyway he wants. Players' careers are short at best, so when City (Hughes!!) agreed the long term £90,000 deal, they cemented his future....as long as he abides by his contractual requirements, which he has done without making a single wave.
I say "Good Luck to you, Wayne! Well done, and I hope you enjoy your impending retirement. After all, you must have EARNED IT, otherwise a highly sophisticated company like City, with lawyers out of the wazoo, would not have given it to you, would they?!"
Good Post
Bridge and the other deadwood are a result of our stategy to grow quickly, we had to buy players for more than they were worth and pay them above their ability demands. We achieved our aim in the last two seasons, unfortunately the consequences of that strategy is that we are left with players who are difficult to move on. However you have to take the rough with the smooth, If you follow football you have to accept that sometimes things don't go your way, with every game comes a possibility of an abject performance and pummelling from the opposition. We have had enough of those days in the past, and of course not one of us liked it, but we accepted and move on. With every transfer comes the possibility of great success; Kompany, Mediocrity; Adebayor or an mitigated disaster like Bridge and RSC.
Luckily we have got rid of the manager who pushed through the deals and the we are unlikely to see a repeat of them. Hopefully we will soon be rid of the rest of the deadwood but until then we have to accept the situation.
The situation is n't that uncommon in Italy; Amauri's situation at Juventus was quite similar to RSC, they bought him for 23 million euros and have to offload him for half a million, but I am sure their fans have got over it since they won Serie A last year. They even had over 20 million worth of wingers on the bench last season and they never played. Arsenal can't even get a fee for denilson, who is on 50 grand a week.
As for professional pride, Bridge is 31, he is n't going to get better, he has had some success in his career, such as 36 caps and I am sure he has enough games where he put in a good performance, to look back on. He is doing what most people would his situation honouring his contract to letter and picking up his wages; the two years of being a stubborn git gets him over 9 million before tax, money that will set him up for the rest of his life regardless of how much he already has, he would either have to be mad or idealistic to walk away for less money.
minnesota blue said:ChicagoBlue said:The players are holding the club to their contract, just as the club holds players to their contract. Simple!
It is amusing to me to think that ANYONE ON BLUEMOON would not continue to stay at a company that had contracted them to be there for X number of years for £90,000!
City can loan him out ANY TIME THEY WANT, but have to make a deal that makes it attractive to everyone else. If not, then they swallow the contract.
BTW, this whole notion of "professional pride" is a complete joke! He can STAY at City and play football EVERY DAY with some great players for a few hours and then live his life anyway he wants. Players' careers are short at best, so when City (Hughes!!) agreed the long term £90,000 deal, they cemented his future....as long as he abides by his contractual requirements, which he has done without making a single wave.
I say "Good Luck to you, Wayne! Well done, and I hope you enjoy your impending retirement. After all, you must have EARNED IT, otherwise a highly sophisticated company like City, with lawyers out of the wazoo, would not have given it to you, would they?!"
Great post and nice to see there is still some sense around here.
Not comparable to a normal job in the slightest - yes, a football career is short and that is why you should want to be remembered for being a player and not some **** who was happy to rot in the reserves. We're not talking about dropping onto the minimum wage either - he could still get 10-15 grand a week
Rocket-footed kolarov
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 2,839
bored at work said:minnesota blue said:ChicagoBlue said:The players are holding the club to their contract, just as the club holds players to their contract. Simple!
It is amusing to me to think that ANYONE ON BLUEMOON would not continue to stay at a company that had contracted them to be there for X number of years for £90,000!
City can loan him out ANY TIME THEY WANT, but have to make a deal that makes it attractive to everyone else. If not, then they swallow the contract.
BTW, this whole notion of "professional pride" is a complete joke! He can STAY at City and play football EVERY DAY with some great players for a few hours and then live his life anyway he wants. Players' careers are short at best, so when City (Hughes!!) agreed the long term £90,000 deal, they cemented his future....as long as he abides by his contractual requirements, which he has done without making a single wave.
I say "Good Luck to you, Wayne! Well done, and I hope you enjoy your impending retirement. After all, you must have EARNED IT, otherwise a highly sophisticated company like City, with lawyers out of the wazoo, would not have given it to you, would they?!"
Great post and nice to see there is still some sense around here.
Not comparable to a normal job in the slightest - yes, a football career is short and that is why you should want to be remembered for being a player and not some **** who was happy to rot in the reserves. We're not talking about dropping onto the minimum wage either - he could still get 10-15 grand a week
Yes, but believing that somebody is going to get lost for a sixth of their wages is just silly. I do believe that up until midway through the 09-10 season Bridge honestly believed he had a role to play in the squad and when told to get lost he simply decided to just behave like Winston Bogarde, you take a risk when you give any player a lucrative contract; Hull signed Jimmy Bullard and payed him 45K a week, they said they could n't understand it when he refused to take a paycut and play on loan for Celtic. Why uproot your family for less money, for an old and injury prone player a 10 grand a week wage cut is just a silly decision to agree to. They eventually got rid of him when he got pissed and breached his contract, and unless Bridge does something similar then we are stuck with him until the end of his contract, if you sign a player you have to honour the deal you give them until they leave the club or breach a clause in the contract.
It is our own fault for signing him, and it was Hull's fault when they signed Bullard; If you give a player wages that sets him up for life then you have to accept that he may just choose to honour his deal even if the football club no longer has any desire for him to do. Fans often give players abuse for sitting on big contracts when they are no longer wanted but do they give out the same when clubs refuse to pay bonuses (Charlie Adam at Blackpool) or fail to pay players wages.
Unfortunately we have to accept that Players hanging around on big contracts when they are told to fuck off is something that will always happen in football, the only thing we can do is hope it does n't happen at our club, hell even clubs like Sunderland and Stoke have problems trying to get rid of players like Christian Riveros and Dave Kitson.
bluemoondays said:I hate what he's doing but completely understand it. He'll probably get a free transfer and end up at Fulham, West Brom, QPR!! for his last 2 seasons on £25k/week.
Seriously, if you had a maximum of 3 years working life left and you could earn £7.3m (90k/week x 52)+(25k/week x 104) OR earn £3.9m (25k/week x 156) which would you choose?
Because of the idiotic contract he was given we are hoping he will just turn around and say "Nah, I'll give up on almost £3.5m because I really want to play football"?
You'd have to be certifiably insane to turn down £3.5m in the last 3 years of your career to turn out for a low-middle PL team just to be playing regular football (which he has a chance of anyway for his last 2 years if he goes on a free).
Sadly, this is the reality of the situation and I bet a lot of those suggesting he should just forgo all that money would do exactly what he's doing if they found themselves in his situation.
talkativesprout
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Mar 2009
- Messages
- 10,302
I'm sure he could fuck off to the good old US of A earn a decent wedge and enjoy the good weather. I am sure that's what money grabbing cunts have done for years.
keemcfc
Well-Known Member
This.bluemoondays said:I hate what he's doing but completely understand it. He'll probably get a free transfer and end up at Fulham, West Brom, QPR!! for his last 2 seasons on £25k/week.
Seriously, if you had a maximum of 3 years working life left and you could earn £7.3m (90k/week x 52)+(25k/week x 104) OR earn £3.9m (25k/week x 156) which would you choose?
Because of the idiotic contract he was given we are hoping he will just turn around and say "Nah, I'll give up on almost £3.5m because I really want to play football"?
You'd have to be certifiably insane to turn down £3.5m in the last 3 years of your career to turn out for a low-middle PL team just to be playing regular football (which he has a chance of anyway for his last 2 years if he goes on a free).
People should stop slagging him, we'd all do the same...
ManCitizens.
Well-Known Member
Personally i want Bridge out but the options given to him (if earning 90k per week) are;
1. 4.8m wage per year and play for a Championship club.
2. 1-1.5m per year and play for a championship club or at best a Prem club that will fight for 17th.
Easy choice for me, hypocritical to say otherwise.
1. 4.8m wage per year and play for a Championship club.
2. 1-1.5m per year and play for a championship club or at best a Prem club that will fight for 17th.
Easy choice for me, hypocritical to say otherwise.
sergiokun said:Sorry but i would tell bridge to go train with the kids and let everyone no 90k a week is more important than playing the game. Let him walk for free like bellamy! I dont blame him i blame hughes but its embarrassing him still on our books. Ade will can sell no problem and also santa cruz just let him go for nothing. Dead wood what we loan out doesn't help at all. Bridge has got his way playing for other clubs well we pay him i would of let him rot
Sort it out city
We as fans want it both ways - when our best players want out they are treacherous scum bags when they are considered surplus to requirements and wont move then they get slagged off
The real problem is the daft fooking managers and clubs whom buy these players - not the players fault