Jump to content

Daniel Sturridge


the wes
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But another problem is that players will ask for high wages as we have built a reputation as a club that gives high wages out. Now we are trying to lower it while still getting players who will be some of the best in the squad (not Cahill but we will attempt to sign players that fit that description soon) and therefore ask for big wages

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day if the player is greedy enough to hold the club for ransom, then I say fuck him. I don't want people like that at our club, no matter how talented they are. The club always comes first.

We need to start sending out a message that we are not prepared to just pay 100k for any tom dick or harry that can kick a football. Unfortunately like Peace said, our last transfer does not help at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • 0 members are here!

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

talk chelse forums

We get it, advertisements are annoying!
Talk Chelsea relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online because over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this website and help us by switching your ad blocker off.

KTBFFH
Thank You