Gary Cahill

[Idiot 71]

I hope you are wrong about Luiz ,,,he could become MAGNIFICENT for us

right, but its a far way to go for him. and right now cahill is the better option. I'd love to see Luiz in CDM in a 4-2-3-1 but this will always be a dream

[DYC. 7,542]

You must be stressed out keeping on top of the clubs finances... oh wait, why do you care?

Stressed out, nahh. Sorry for actually caring about our club making sane financial decisions, kind of worrying we can only attract a player of the calibre of Cahill for such wages (at least, so it seems).

[nullabletype 987]

Why does he care ? Just because he cares about the club, and paying an average player this wage is bad for us in several aspects.

Maybe I'm crazy, but you would think... you would indeed think, that a business man, a multi billionaire no less, such as Mr. Roman Abramovich, owner of Chelsea F.C. would have an experienced finance department who have all the money issues under control. I dare say it's pretty much sown up. So again, why does he/you care? If the club has made the informed decision based on all the financial information they have at hand, that they can afford to pay Gary Cahill 80K a week, then I think we can trust the deal is okay.

I'll never understand why when it comes to money issues within the club, why some fans all of a sudden think they're the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sorry if myself and many other posters don't take hyperbolic financial posts seriously. It's just, you know, none of you guys have the balance books sitting in front of you. So you couldn't possibly be in a position to make accurate posts about how much we can afford to spend on/pay players.

Stressed out, nahh. Sorry for actually caring about our club making sane financial decisions, kind of worrying we can only attract a player of the calibre of Cahill for such wages (at least, so it seems).

Based on?

[Spike 12,049]

Overpaid and overpriced? So are Cole, Lampard, Terry, Cech, Drogba, Torres, Essien, and 95% of the squad. What's your point? If he comes in and plays well, I won't complain.

And I'd rephrase your post if I were you, because there are a lot of 'Poms' on here that would taken offence to that.

If you've heard some of the abuse I've coped from Englishmen for being Australian, you wouldn't think twice about the world 'Pom' being offensive.

Besides, in Australia the word 'Pom' isn't used as an offensive term, it is more endearing than anything. Hell I've heard it used on the evening news.

[DYC. 7,542]

Maybe I'm crazy, but you would think... you would indeed think, that a business man, a multi billionaire no less, such as Mr. Roman Abramovich, owner of Chelsea F.C. would have an experienced finance department who have all the money issues under control. I dare say it's pretty much sown up. So again, why does he/you care? If the club has made the informed decision based on all the financial information they have at hand, that they can afford to pay Gary Cahill 80K a week, then I think we can trust the deal is okay.

I'll never understand why when it comes to money issues within the club, why some fans all of a sudden think they're the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sorry if myself and many other posters don't take hyperbolic financial posts seriously. It's just, you know, none of you guys have the balance books sitting in front of you. So you couldn't possibly be in a position to make accurate posts about how much we can afford to spend on/pay players.

Based on?

I never said we couldn't afford it? But when you think about the fact that Drogba is on 100k a week, a contract he signed when he was still one of the best strikers around (also taking into account that attackers always get paid a lot more money), and read Cahill will receive 80k week, it doesn't seem right to me. You don't have to agree with me but that's just how I feel.

[nullabletype 987]

I never said we couldn't afford it? But when you think about the fact that Drogba is on 100k a week, a contract he signed when he was still one of the best strikers around (also taking into account that attackers always get paid a lot more money), and read Cahill will receive 80k week, it doesn't seem right to me. You don't have to agree with me but that's just how I feel.

If you're reasoning was based on the financial state of the club then I'd point to my post above. You say it's not, it's about the comparison of wages between players, which seems even weirder to me. Of what concern is that to you? In fact, lets bring it back a step. None of the players on the team are worth 50K a week, because no athlete is. So if you're disappointed with the alleged wage that Cahill is going to receive, why not take umbrage with all the players wages? More so, why don't we wait until he's actually pulled on a blue shirt and put in a few performances before we start judging whether he's worth his wages or not.

[KonohasOrangeFlash 2,607]

If you've heard some of the abuse I've coped from Englishmen for being Australian, you wouldn't think twice about the world 'Pom' being offensive.

Besides, in Australia the word 'Pom' isn't used as an offensive term, it is more endearing than anything. Hell I've heard it used on the evening news.

If any Englishman is offended by the Word Pom they have issues, Englishman always give us Aussies stick so we give it back, Simple

[Kostas 1,468]

Maybe I'm crazy, but you would think... you would indeed think, that a business man, a multi billionaire no less, such as Mr. Roman Abramovich, owner of Chelsea F.C. would have an experienced finance department who have all the money issues under control. I dare say it's pretty much sown up. So again, why does he/you care? If the club has made the informed decision based on all the financial information they have at hand, that they can afford to pay Gary Cahill 80K a week, then I think we can trust the deal is okay.

I'll never understand why when it comes to money issues within the club, why some fans all of a sudden think they're the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sorry if myself and many other posters don't take hyperbolic financial posts seriously. It's just, you know, none of you guys have the balance books sitting in front of you. So you couldn't possibly be in a position to make accurate posts about how much we can afford to spend on/pay players.

This is just bizarre.

[BlueLion. 21,491]

If you've heard some of the abuse I've coped from Englishmen for being Australian, you wouldn't think twice about the world 'Pom' being offensive.

Besides, in Australia the word 'Pom' isn't used as an offensive term, it is more endearing than anything. Hell I've heard it used on the evening news.

I know that, but a lot of English people are quite ignorant to that fact That's my point, I understand your usage of the word but some people might find it offensive, it's similar to use of the word 'Yid'; just be mindful in future

[Peace. 4,352]

Maybe I'm crazy, but you would think... you would indeed think, that a business man, a multi billionaire no less, such as Mr. Roman Abramovich, owner of Chelsea F.C. would have an experienced finance department who have all the money issues under control. I dare say it's pretty much sown up. So again, why does he/you care? If the club has made the informed decision based on all the financial information they have at hand, that they can afford to pay Gary Cahill 80K a week, then I think we can trust the deal is okay.

I'll never understand why when it comes to money issues within the club, why some fans all of a sudden think they're the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sorry if myself and many other posters don't take hyperbolic financial posts seriously. It's just, you know, none of you guys have the balance books sitting in front of you. So you couldn't possibly be in a position to make accurate posts about how much we can afford to spend/pay players.

I care because it sends a wrong message. We were already at a top level with Kalou and his £60k-a-week wage, now we have reached a whole new level. For instance, Modirc is on a £40k-a-week wage. Malouda when he was one of our very best player has signed a £80k-a-week wage. Mata who was a proven good player with a lot of potential is on a £60k-a-week wage. I can't understand how an average defender (yes, because defenders are always less paid than forwards, both in wage and transfer fees) could earn 80k per week !What's now when will try to sign a player of the caliber of Mata and offer him a £70k-per-week wage, he will laugh out loud.

And I don't need to have the club's books to know that we were trying to reduce our wage bill, and this transfer is against this.

[Spike 12,049]

I know that, but a lot of English people are quite ignorant to that fact That's my point, I understand your usage of the word but some people might find it offensive, it's similar to use of the word 'Yid'; just be mindful in future

No worries, I was ignorant of that. I didn't mean or want to offend anyone. I got defensive because I though you were being aggresive.

I'm pretty insecure about Australia and tend to be very beligerent with Englishmen and New Zealanders. I've never had a problem with any other nationality of the British Isles though .

[ulsterchelsea 3,213]

The amount the club decides to pay players is immaterial to us as fans, its what the club has decided they are willing to pay avbs NUMBER 1 choice. People can complain all they want about the money hes reportedly going to earn but its pointless because very little in the world of football finances makes any sence. People can continue to say its a lot for just a bolton player but he is the first choice for avb ..that's good enough for me ktbffh

[BlueLion. 21,491]

No worries, I was ignorant of that. I didn't mean or want to offend anyone. I got defensive because I though you were being aggresive.

I'm pretty insecure about Australia and tend to be very beligerent with Englishmen and New Zealanders. I've never had a problem with any other nationality of the British Isles though .

Nah I wasn't being aggressive, I tend to use a lot of expletives when I'm being aggressive towards someone I know you didn't mean to offend anyone, I'm just saying I know someone who went fucking ballistic because an Australian bloke called him a Pom All pretty pathetic if you ask me, it's all just semantics anyway!

The amount the club decides to pay players is immaterial to us as fans, its what the club has decided they are willing to pay avbs NUMBER 1 choice. People can complain all they want about the money hes reportedly going to earn but its pointless because very little in the world of football finances makes any sence. People can continue to say its a lot for just a bolton player but he is the first choice for avb ..that's good enough for me ktbffh

Good post mate. As I've already said, people are dismissing Cahill because he plays for Bolton, but the reality is that he is definitely a good defensive player.

[nullabletype 987]

I care because it sends a wrong message. We were already at a top level with Kalou and his £60k-a-week wage, now we have reached a whole new level. For instance, Modirc is on a £40k-a-week wage. Malouda when he was one of our very best player has signed a £80k-a-week wage. Mata who was a proven good player with a lot of potential is on a £60k-a-week wage. I can't understand how an average defender (yes, because defenders are always less paid than forwards, both in wage and transfer fees) could earn 80k per week !What's now when will try to sign a player of the caliber of Mata and offer him a £70k-per-week wage, he will laugh out loud.

And I don't need to have the club's books to know that we were trying to reduce our wage bill, and this transfer is against this.

But the wage bill is already on the decline, so if the club have decided they can afford to pay Cahill the alleged 80K a week then there is no problem here.

The thing is, you do need the books in front of you. None of us know the exact contracts the players are on, the ins and outs, bonuses etc. Without this information all we can do is speculate. Speculation is fine, but people on here act as if they know what needs done and what needs changing, which you couldn't possibly without all the relevant information.

The amount the club decides to pay players is immaterial to us as fans, its what the club has decided they are willing to pay avbs NUMBER 1 choice. People can complain all they want about the money hes reportedly going to earn but its pointless because very little in the world of football finances makes any sence. People can continue to say its a lot for just a bolton player but he is the first choice for avb ..that's good enough for me ktbffh

Good post mate. As I've already said, people are dismissing Cahill because he plays for Bolton, but the reality is that he is definitely a good defensive player.

Amen!

[TacticalBlues 2,817]

Daily Fail's titles are so decieving:

Chelsea seal £30m Cahill deal as Bolton defender finally says yes to Blues move

[Spike 12,049]

Nah I wasn't being aggressive, I tend to use a lot of expletives when I'm being aggressive towards someone I know you didn't mean to offend anyone, I'm just saying I know someone who went fucking ballistic because an Australian bloke called him a Pom All pretty pathetic if you ask me, it's all just semantics anyway!

He wouldn't survive long over here then. A lot of English people I've met complain about how much we swear in everyday conversation.

[Peace. 4,352]

After all, we might as well give to Kalou what he seeks for...

[Kostas 1,468]

I can't understand how an average defender (yes, because defenders are always less paid than forwards, both in wage and transfer fees) could earn 80k per week !What's now when will try to sign a player of the caliber of Mata and offer him a £70k-per-week wage, he will laugh out loud.

If I had to guess I'd say he managed to get the alleged contract due to his fee being relatively low because Cahill over the past few seasons declined new contracts from Bolton effectively losing potential income. A player would naturally want to make up for that lost income with his new contract.

It's similar to players who run down their contracts getting sign-on fees at their new club and higher wages than they would had they had a transfer fee.

In the end both wages' and transfer fees' effect on the account of the club is very similar due to amortization.

The most striking recent example of that fact is how Anderlecht's Milan Jovanovic was on 120k p/w at Liverpool due to signing for free.