Brentford are a disaster waiting to happen - the next QPR or worse even Bolton. The wages they are paying along with the fees and new ground costs are just not sustainable against the revenue they generate as a club.
Brentford are a disaster waiting to happen - the next QPR or worse even Bolton. The wages they are paying along with the fees and new ground costs are just not sustainable against the revenue they generate as a club.
gonna end in tears
this the Carlisle manager said similar the other week - clubs like bury cannot afford to be running with huge debts, why shouldnt clubs that live within there means be celebrated.
the issue is that there is not enough support for 92 clubs to have a decent amount of revenue and pay massive salaries, we are not exactly tin pot yet we are faves for relegation.
forest have about 42 players and they got to the dizzy heights of 11th last season
in the championship
the big clubs are
leeds, sheff weds, derby and forest in terms i would say of supporters the rest could easily fade away.
you could offer lyle maybe 12k a week that's doubled his salary - there will be other offers around and it will be up to him to choose, we are not a cash rich club despite our owner being quite wealthy, you cannot expect him to "sell" and invest in the squad it just does not make sense.
Lyle £25k @ week on a 3 year deal, still saving money
You're not though, because that would destroy the wage structure. As much as I want to keep Lyle, we can't afford to pay him a huge amount more than we would be able to pay other players. If we pay Lyle £25k and everyone else is on somewhere around 3-8k then the next time a contract comes up a player will rightly point out that they should be entitled to the same as him. The same thing has happened at Man Utd after they signed Sanchez and they can actually afford to do it. Players were furious at the amount he was being paid and that's why Marcus Rashford is being paid £200k p/w aged 21 despite regressing in the past year. These wages will eventually eat the game whole, but we can't afford to break our structure for Lyle now.
under normal circumstances I'd agree, however strikers are a different matter I think - especially ones with his record, it will be criminal when he walks away for nowt at the end of the season
Lyle £25k @ week on a 3 year deal, still saving money
You're not though, because that would destroy the wage structure. As much as I want to keep Lyle, we can't afford to pay him a huge amount more than we would be able to pay other players. If we pay Lyle £25k and everyone else is on somewhere around 3-8k then the next time a contract comes up a player will rightly point out that they should be entitled to the same as him. The same thing has happened at Man Utd after they signed Sanchez and they can actually afford to do it. Players were furious at the amount he was being paid and that's why Marcus Rashford is being paid £200k p/w aged 21 despite regressing in the past year. These wages will eventually eat the game whole, but we can't afford to break our structure for Lyle now.
under normal circumstances I'd agree, however strikers are a different matter I think - especially ones with his record, it will be criminal when he walks away for nowt at the end of the season
that is what will gut me that we have let a talent and a striker that hasnt got me this excited ( no smut ) since yann - just go for nothing.
Imagine if we are sitting in the play off places and Brentford are stuck in mid table. Not beyond the realms of possibility. Of course it could be the other way round - but it is a possible scenario looking at our squad now.
Would he really turn his back on the Prem to go and play at Griffin Park?!
In that instance surely he would at least stay till the end of the season
Brentford have already agreed a deal for a striker from abroad who will join them in January
Cant change the club budget as there are presumably other players that will want a rise. Keep him until the end of the season and let him walk for a final pay day, as long as we stay up that kinda all that matters right now.
you could offer lyle maybe 12k a week that's doubled his salary - there will be other offers around and it will be up to him to choose, we are not a cash rich club despite our owner being quite wealthy, you cannot expect him to "sell" and invest in the squad it just does not make sense.
If he keeps his price where it is, I expect him to spend...
Lyle £25k @ week on a 3 year deal, still saving money
You're not though, because that would destroy the wage structure. As much as I want to keep Lyle, we can't afford to pay him a huge amount more than we would be able to pay other players. If we pay Lyle £25k and everyone else is on somewhere around 3-8k then the next time a contract comes up a player will rightly point out that they should be entitled to the same as him. The same thing has happened at Man Utd after they signed Sanchez and they can actually afford to do it. Players were furious at the amount he was being paid and that's why Marcus Rashford is being paid £200k p/w aged 21 despite regressing in the past year. These wages will eventually eat the game whole, but we can't afford to break our structure for Lyle now.
Regressing? Scores two against Chelsea and looked absolute mustard.
Strikers do generally command higher salaries and Rashford is a young striker that is still learning.
whilst i agree with what others have said even if we offer him say 15k a week and another club like brentford come in at 25k a week would we keep him i doubt it, unfortunately it is the way football has gone - madness foreign investment and the general turning it into a sit at home spectator sports and all about sponsorship has ruined the game.
look at the way zaha acted last week, although them cnuts deserve everything they get for the praise they were giving him its laughable.
I don’t think the game is ruined. Subjectively it’s better than it ever was.
I have no issue with players getting paid big bucks, for generations professional players got completely screwed by clubs, and provided they are fulfilling their contractual commitments - which the vast majority do - then I don’t see an issue. It’s part of the reason that I don’t have the issue with the idea of players having agents that most seem to.
so if taylor refused to train demanded to be sold to another club despite having a 4 year contract you would have no issue?
Then he wouldn’t be fulfilling his contractual commitments...
im against modern football in a big way for a 1/4 of the price of the sky and bt packages you can get a season ticket and watch 23 live games, much better value imo
You realise you’re watching modern football, right? And that the division we’re has been enormously impacted by the advent of Sky and the Premier League (did you see Derby buy a player that we wanted back on loan from Arsenal for £10M?).
im against modern football in a big way for a 1/4 of the price of the sky and bt packages you can get a season ticket and watch 23 live games, much better value imo
You realise you’re watching modern football, right? And that the division we’re has been enormously impacted by the advent of Sky and the Premier League (did you see Derby buy a player that we wanted back on loan from Arsenal for £10M?).
and the impact it has it that we have a sqaud with a value of around 5 million and fulham have a sqaud that is around the 170mill mark.
maybe im in the minority but i personally watch very little premier league or football on telly.
Lyle £25k @ week on a 3 year deal, still saving money
You're not though, because that would destroy the wage structure. As much as I want to keep Lyle, we can't afford to pay him a huge amount more than we would be able to pay other players. If we pay Lyle £25k and everyone else is on somewhere around 3-8k then the next time a contract comes up a player will rightly point out that they should be entitled to the same as him. The same thing has happened at Man Utd after they signed Sanchez and they can actually afford to do it. Players were furious at the amount he was being paid and that's why Marcus Rashford is being paid £200k p/w aged 21 despite regressing in the past year. These wages will eventually eat the game whole, but we can't afford to break our structure for Lyle now.
Regressing? Scores two against Chelsea and looked absolute mustard.
Strikers do generally command higher salaries and Rashford is a young striker that is still learning.
Aside from the fact that that was just one game, Rashford failed to progress at all like he should have between 2017/8 and 2018/9. He registered the exact same numbers of assists and goals despite playing substantially more minutes in 2018/9 and having more responsibility and being employed more as a centre forward. The point I was making is that this level of form and progress was irrelevant in his contract discussions because wages have shot up dramatically in general, and the salary being given to Sanchez has legitimised an enormous salary being paid to a player at Man Utd even though the player is very young and not playing at his best. As you say, Rashford is young and still learning, but he's already managing to get £200k a week. What the hell do they do when he's 27? And what impact does that then have on the next wave of talented players coming through? That's the danger of shattering your wage structure.
No lee the reality is we are owned by some Belgian ponce, who doesn’t want to back the manager and doesn’t want to sell all those who were loving it that Roland kept Lyle - its only to make more in January.
lyle is still being a model pro instead of sulking he’s bagged 4 goals already, would be interesting to know what we will over him compared to other clubs, really is a shame that we don’t have an owner that will back a manager.
I assume this means there's zero chance of him signing a new contract?
Also unless a side have money to burn, i'll be surprised if we get more than the 4m Brentford offered, when a side could get him for free 6 months later.
If you were Taylor's agent you'd be advising him to stay put and take a hefty cut that a club was going to pay for a transfer fee to him as a signing on fee.
Comments
gonna end in tears
the issue is that there is not enough support for 92 clubs to have a decent amount of revenue and pay massive salaries, we are not exactly tin pot yet we are faves for relegation.
forest have about 42 players and they got to the dizzy heights of 11th last season
in the championship
the big clubs are
leeds, sheff weds, derby and forest in terms i would say of supporters the rest could easily fade away.
not according to LB, but that's a different discussion
even more reason then to pay Taylor what he's clearly worth
under normal circumstances I'd agree, however strikers are a different matter I think - especially ones with his record, it will be criminal when he walks away for nowt at the end of the season
Strikers do generally command higher salaries and Rashford is a young striker that is still learning.
Come in and immediately offer Taylor his last 3 year contract on around 15k-20k and have him lead the attack for the foreseeable future.
Currently? We'll pretend we offered him something decent and he'll walk on a free with the support calling him ungrateful and a money-grabber.
maybe im in the minority but i personally watch very little premier league or football on telly.
It seems so hyped up. Just not bothered about it.
It'll be ironic as be what Piers is talking about - And I dont like that bloke either
lyle is still being a model pro instead of sulking he’s bagged 4 goals already, would be interesting to know what we will over him compared to other clubs, really is a shame that we don’t have an owner that will back a manager.
Also unless a side have money to burn, i'll be surprised if we get more than the 4m Brentford offered, when a side could get him for free 6 months later.
If you were Taylor's agent you'd be advising him to stay put and take a hefty cut that a club was going to pay for a transfer fee to him as a signing on fee.