Daniel Sturridge

[LDN Blue 7,903]

That cannot be true.

Why? Because he's scoring too many goals for it to be so. André said it was agreed he would play wide for Chelsea and be that player, he was fine with it then so I don't see how that will have changed now.

[Blue Armour 4,275]

I wouldn't read too much into it, it's wrong of you BL to jump into conclusions so fast, taking into consideration the source you mentioned is far from reliable and has a habit of twisting words. Whenever he talks he sounds grateful and reasonable to me... at one point he said he's glad he can play, let it be RW or whatever position.

Yeah, do remember him saying that...its no secret that CF is his preferred position, but he did say that playing in the wing has its advantages

[francozola 2,040]

Think media have been taking advantage of the fact that he's been injured and hence hasn't featured in a few weeks. So they're probably trying to use this absence as an "example" of his unhappiness.

[zolayes 14,489]

compare his salary with Welbeck ,,Danny should be delighted.

[lecter 84]

I really think we should tie him down (offer him a long-term contract) this season. We should not wait for the next, it being his last year in contract. His head can be turned, considering hes still a youngster and a great prospect for all the top clubs of Europe. I would hate a Nasri-esque situation at Chelsea.

[ja1 1,166]

Welbeck wants to be on the same wages as Sturridge

[zolayes 14,489]

Welbeck wants to be on the same wages as Sturridge

figures I saw said Welbeck on 15K wants 60K ,,,Danny on 80 wants 100 .. its a fucking joke , I would sell him

[Tomo 21,733]

I thought Sturridge was on 60k?

If so we should offer him a (relitevely low, term used loosely) deal of 70k a week, he will probally make a counter offer of 90-100k then we work it out somewhere inbetween.

[Peace. 4,352]

He is on £70k or £75k.

[zolayes 14,489]

we seriously need to bring our total wage bill down.

lower basics and more performance related

[Tomo 21,733]

we seriously need to bring our total wage bill down.

lower basics and more performance related

Letting go the 30+ on over 100k a week will be a start, and i include Lamps in that.

Agree about the performance related bonus's aswell, will be a fanastic incentive to win things, not that they should need it.

[Peace. 4,352]

we seriously need to bring our total wage bill down.

lower basics and more performance related

Definitely ! But the last deal we've made suggests that we aren't on the way to do so.

[Fernando 6,441]

Definitely ! But the last deal we've made suggests that we aren't on the way to do so.

If you are talking about Cahill, Kostas in the Cahill thread explained this nicely.

When you buy a player for free or with little time left in his contract you usally end up paying more in wages.

[Peace. 4,352]

If you are talking about Cahill, Kostas in the Cahill thread explained this nicely.

When you buy a player for free or with little time left in his contract you usally end up paying more in wages.

He could be on free or on a £100m fees, the fact is still the same. So if we really wanted to lower our wage bill, we wouldn't have answered to his demand. Since we had, it shows that we are not really looking for having a lesser wage bill.

[Fernando 6,441]

He could be on free or on a £100m fees, the fact is still the same. So if we really wanted to lower our wage bill, we wouldn't answer his demand. Since we had, it shows that we are not really looking for having a lesser wage bill.

They are lowering the wages. Mata is on less, because of the fee we payed for him.

Torres was the mistake as we payed a lot and gave him big wages, cause before that and after that Chelsea has been trying to lower the wages down.

Cahill let his contract run down so the premium that was lost, would be gain on wages.

[Henrique 9,133]

It was on Times, and it wont surprise me if its true.

One thing I dont like Sturridge is his attitude, he is really selfish, usually If you are selfish on the pitch, you are also selfish in your life.

[Peace. 4,352]

They are lowering the wages. Mata is on less, because of the fee we payed for him.

Torres was the mistake as we payed a lot and gave him big wages, cause before that and after that Chelsea has been trying to lower the wages down.

Cahill let his contract run down so the premium that was lost, would be gain on wages.

Yes. But Cahill is neither the next big thing, nor the kind of player which will win us the Champions League. If he was one of these two options, the fact we have given him a big wage would have been understandable, on both marketing and sportive level. Thus, in my opion, it proves that if we can lower the wage bill, we do it, but if we can't, it doesn't bother us that much. I mean, if it was truly one of our utmost aims, we would have passed to the B plan.

It was on Times, and it wont surprise me if its true.

Yep, that's because it's coming from The Times I've asked if someone could get the article, since it does look much more reliable than the Daily Mail.

[ja1 1,166]

Sturridge is on 65k a week and how do you know he wants 80-100k? Welbeck wants the same as Sturridge is on. Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill if Sturridge gets higher wages he is on. It would not be on the level Terry or Lampard are on and more likely where Cahill is, and he is more entitled to that than Cahill

We have done well in lowering the wage bill in some places. Our best players are all on lower wages than usual. Romeu is on 20k, Ramires, Ivanovic and Luiz all on 40-60k, Sturridge and Mata on 65k. What we've done wrong is giving long term high pay contracts to 31 and 32 year old Drogbas and Lampards and just one word - Torres.