Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Diego Poyet's contract situation **DieGONE - Signs for West Ham)**

1…1415171920…98

Comments

  • Beckboy
    Beckboy Posts: 1,682
    400,000 ? I feel sick ,if he doesn't sign another young player goes for next to nothing.
  • Kap10
    Kap10 Posts: 15,567
    Curb_It said:

    Addickted2TheReds said:

    So Diego is the boyfriend of my girlfriends best mate. I'm going to a party with them all next Thursday and I plan to find out all there is to know haha.

    I reckon your girlfriend's best mate will get her to dump you if you start tittle tattling his business on here... haha.


    Come on Curb It, tell him that after he's spilt the beans

  • Athletico Charlton
    Athletico Charlton Posts: 14,274
    Redman39, interesting first post but I think it is littered with inaccuracies - I think you should tell your source to hop it.
  • Chunes
    Chunes Posts: 17,349
    Redman39 said:

    Just a bit of a update on Diego the club offer is way short of what he wants. Diego wants to stay for at least one to two years and was hoping Riga was staying.the boy agent thinks the club are looking for a quick million or two through a tribunal. but he's agent wants charlton to come back with a more serious offer. I got this from good sources but I hope it not all true.diego is going for 10k and the club offer is 3k

    Diego is the son of a premiership footballer and manager. I doubt he is wanting for money.
  • All_Thaid_Up
    All_Thaid_Up Posts: 2,293
    If I am Poyet, I would wait for the new manager to be appointed, sit down with him and discuss how he wants to play me - if happy sign a contract, if not, well there will be plenty of offers
  • nth_london_addick
    nth_london_addick Posts: 35,919
    Diego is on way above the 3k already that's why he never played earlier as dumb and dumbass couldn't afford it
  • ShootersHillGuru
    ShootersHillGuru Posts: 50,619
    Well regardless, he doesn't seem in any rush to sign it.
  • razil
    razil Posts: 15,041
    Why would he be on a 6k contract?
  • WSS
    WSS Posts: 25,070
    razil said:

    Why would he be on a 6k contract?

    Good agent?
  • ShootersHillGuru
    ShootersHillGuru Posts: 50,619
    In pure economic terms it makes good sense to offer Diego 10k a week. That contract over two years costs us a million pounds. Does anybody actually think that we wouldn't recoup that sum plus a very tidy profit in two years time ? Any development fee would be a huge financial hit on his ability and potential (400k ?)

    I doubt we are that stupid not to maximise the gain. My feeling is that he hasn't signed for reasons not purely associated with our offer but more likely seeing what he can get elsewhere and possibly waiting to see what sort of Charlton team we have to start next season.
  • Sponsored links:



  • MrOneLung
    MrOneLung Posts: 26,853
    nth london addick said:

    Diego is on way above the 3k already that's why he never played earlier as dumb and dumbass couldn't afford it

    He only got his wages if played? Surely if he was on that money under the chuckle brothers he would get it if played or not?
  • ShootersHillGuru
    ShootersHillGuru Posts: 50,619
    Think his money went up once he made a first team appearance. No idea what sums we are talking about here.
  • se9addick
    se9addick Posts: 32,035
    MrOneLung said:

    nth london addick said:

    Diego is on way above the 3k already that's why he never played earlier as dumb and dumbass couldn't afford it

    He only got his wages if played? Surely if he was on that money under the chuckle brothers he would get it if played or not?
    There was something about playing triggering a big pay rise which is why he was left out. Doesn't sound logical (why would a youth team player have that clause in their contract?) nor does the figure of £6k a week, but who knows.
  • kentaddick
    kentaddick Posts: 18,729
    You HAVE to offer a player under 24 equal or greater terms to his current contract or you waive any development fee you would get.
  • Weegie Addick
    Weegie Addick Posts: 16,521
    Can completely understand why a youth player has that clause - Solly didn't and was seriously underpaid compared to team-mates for a couple of seasons, I believe.
  • seriously_red
    seriously_red Posts: 5,741
    ShootersHillGuru said:

    In pure economic terms it makes good sense to offer Diego 10k a week. That contract over two years costs us a million pounds. Does anybody actually think that we wouldn't recoup that sum plus a very tidy profit in two years time ? Any development fee would be a huge financial hit on his ability and potential (400k ?)

    I doubt we are that stupid not to maximise the gain. My feeling is that he hasn't signed for reasons not purely associated with our offer but more likely seeing what he can get elsewhere and possibly waiting to see what sort of Charlton team we have to start next season.

    This!
    In football and economic terms he's worth more than Kermorgant - sign him up and Gomez too while we're at it.
  • kings hill addick
    kings hill addick Posts: 5,781
    ShootersHillGuru said:

    In pure economic terms it makes good sense to offer Diego 10k a week. That contract over two years costs us a million pounds. Does anybody actually think that we wouldn't recoup that sum plus a very tidy profit in two years time ? Any development fee would be a huge financial hit on his ability and potential (400k ?)

    I doubt we are that stupid not to maximise the gain. My feeling is that he hasn't signed for reasons not purely associated with our offer but more likely seeing what he can get elsewhere and possibly waiting to see what sort of Charlton team we have to start next season.

    I think the problem with that is that if he signs a two year contact then in two years he'll be out of contract and the development fee is probably already set out. We, basically, need to sell him before the end of his contract. Thus in a year if he signs a two year deal. I can't see him agreeing to sign a three or four deal so we would be best advised to sell him in January. What is the point in him signing for us for six months if he then leaves and we get all the transfer fee - he'd be better to sign a one year deal and leave next summer - when he can choose the club and they will pay him moire as there won't be a massive transfer fee.

    The question is what is his value to the first team now if we accept that we will not get a fee (or nothing more than we can get now) if he signs for a season or two. In other words can we get a better player (free agent) on a two year contract now that is, say 28, who will leave in two years, than Poyet is now at nineteen, for the same wages?

    Signing a 28 year old on a three year contract who we could sell in two years for a profit would, actually, be better business - especially if he is a better player than Poyet is now.

    I would love him to stay, but I suspect that the clib are only, really, interested in the potential transfer fee and if the only contract he will sign prevents us from getting one is it not better to cash in now?
  • J BLOCK
    J BLOCK Posts: 8,310
    kings hill addick said:

    ShootersHillGuru said:

    In pure economic terms it makes good sense to offer Diego 10k a week. That contract over two years costs us a million pounds. Does anybody actually think that we wouldn't recoup that sum plus a very tidy profit in two years time ? Any development fee would be a huge financial hit on his ability and potential (400k ?)

    I doubt we are that stupid not to maximise the gain. My feeling is that he hasn't signed for reasons not purely associated with our offer but more likely seeing what he can get elsewhere and possibly waiting to see what sort of Charlton team we have to start next season.

    I think the problem with that is that if he signs a two year contact then in two years he'll be out of contract and the development fee is probably already set out. We, basically, need to sell him before the end of his contract. Thus in a year if he signs a two year deal. I can't see him agreeing to sign a three or four deal so we would be best advised to sell him in January. What is the point in him signing for us for six months if he then leaves and we get all the transfer fee - he'd be better to sign a one year deal and leave next summer - when he can choose the club and they will pay him moire as there won't be a massive transfer fee.

    The question is what is his value to the first team now if we accept that we will not get a fee (or nothing more than we can get now) if he signs for a season or two. In other words can we get a better player (free agent) on a two year contract now that is, say 28, who will leave in two years, than Poyet is now at nineteen, for the same wages?

    Signing a 28 year old on a three year contract who we could sell in two years for a profit would, actually, be better business - especially if he is a better player than Poyet is now.

    I would love him to stay, but I suspect that the clib are only, really, interested in the potential transfer fee and if the only contract he will sign prevents us from getting one is it not better to cash in now?
    or we could just sell him in a year
  • lancashire lad
    lancashire lad Posts: 15,626
    or a longer contract with a buy out clause ?
  • kings hill addick
    kings hill addick Posts: 5,781
    Yes we could, but the plan, as set out by SHG, was to get him to sign for two years and them generate money in two years time.

    I'm more than happy to keep him, and I would think that breaking the bank for a three or four deal would be very sensible, I just think that two years or less and we have to try to establish what he is worth to the team now, opposed to gambling that we can get him sold in twelve months time. I'm basing this on the fact that there were rumors that the club were desperate to sell a star last summer and we couldn't find a buyer for any of them - or the players didn't want to move.
  • Sponsored links:



  • ross1
    ross1 Posts: 50,974
    According to Airman, it has nothing to do with money
  • ShootersHillGuru
    ShootersHillGuru Posts: 50,619
    kings hill addick said:

    Yes we could, but the plan, as set out by SHG, was to get him to sign for two years and them generate money in two years time.

    I'm more than happy to keep him, and I would think that breaking the bank for a three or four deal would be very sensible, I just think that two years or less and we have to try to establish what he is worth to the team now, opposed to gambling that we can get him sold in twelve months time. I'm basing this on the fact that there were rumors that the club were desperate to sell a star last summer and we couldn't find a buyer for any of them - or the players didn't want to move.

    I used two years as a contract length as an example of how signing him up would be very cost effective. A one year deal is pointless. Three is unlikely but the longer the better. Whatever happens I'm sure any contract would need to have many clauses benefitting the player in order to get him to sign.

    My real point is that under contract we will definitely make money when he is sold pretty much regardless of how much per week (within reason) 10 - 12 k we offer him.

  • kings hill addick
    kings hill addick Posts: 5,781
    ShootersHillGuru said:

    kings hill addick said:

    Yes we could, but the plan, as set out by SHG, was to get him to sign for two years and them generate money in two years time.

    I'm more than happy to keep him, and I would think that breaking the bank for a three or four deal would be very sensible, I just think that two years or less and we have to try to establish what he is worth to the team now, opposed to gambling that we can get him sold in twelve months time. I'm basing this on the fact that there were rumors that the club were desperate to sell a star last summer and we couldn't find a buyer for any of them - or the players didn't want to move.

    I used two years as a contract length as an example of how signing him up would be very cost effective. A one year deal is pointless. Three is unlikely but the longer the better. Whatever happens I'm sure any contract would need to have many clauses benefitting the player in order to get him to sign.

    My real point is that under contract we will definitely make money when he is sold pretty much regardless of how much per week (within reason) 10 - 12 k we offer him.

    Agreed, but if he doesn't leave while he is under contract then he will probably leave for the same money as we will get this summer. Thus the contract needs to hedge against him leaving for a development fee by ensuring that he is worth what we pay him on a weekly basis if he doesn't provide us with a windfall to offset the wages.

    I wasn't digging you out SHG, I want him to stay and think he is as likely to be our best player next season as anyone else, but there's always the risk that the club are tempted to pay him too much because they are obsessed with a transfer fee that they might never get.
  • Kap10
    Kap10 Posts: 15,567
    ross1 said:

    According to Airman, it has nothing to do with money

    Money a small part of it, I would have thought. Who the manager is, who is resigned and who is brought into the club and how will he be further developed ... primary considerations. I don't think that a 3-4 year question would be out of the question, if he has confidence in his ability he will believe regardless of the length of contract clubs will come sniffing or we want to cash in, this will give him security and if the worst came to the worst and he was injured he would have security of a long term contract, plus he could build in clauses for his release.

  • ShootersHillGuru
    ShootersHillGuru Posts: 50,619
    kings hill addick said:

    ShootersHillGuru said:

    kings hill addick said:

    Yes we could, but the plan, as set out by SHG, was to get him to sign for two years and them generate money in two years time.

    I'm more than happy to keep him, and I would think that breaking the bank for a three or four deal would be very sensible, I just think that two years or less and we have to try to establish what he is worth to the team now, opposed to gambling that we can get him sold in twelve months time. I'm basing this on the fact that there were rumors that the club were desperate to sell a star last summer and we couldn't find a buyer for any of them - or the players didn't want to move.

    I used two years as a contract length as an example of how signing him up would be very cost effective. A one year deal is pointless. Three is unlikely but the longer the better. Whatever happens I'm sure any contract would need to have many clauses benefitting the player in order to get him to sign.

    My real point is that under contract we will definitely make money when he is sold pretty much regardless of how much per week (within reason) 10 - 12 k we offer him.

    Agreed, but if he doesn't leave while he is under contract then he will probably leave for the same money as we will get this summer. Thus the contract needs to hedge against him leaving for a development fee by ensuring that he is worth what we pay him on a weekly basis if he doesn't provide us with a windfall to offset the wages.

    I wasn't digging you out SHG, I want him to stay and think he is as likely to be our best player next season as anyone else, but there's always the risk that the club are tempted to pay him too much because they are obsessed with a transfer fee that they might never get.
    Didn't think you were and I agree that there is always a risk. I just think that even a two year deal would allow us to get a season out of Diego and sell next summer for far more than the wages paid over that period providing we don't go above reasonable amounts. I would go as far as saying that we could pay him 15k per week and still make a very hefty profit.

  • nth_london_addick
    nth_london_addick Posts: 35,919
    Diego signing will be because Diego wants to no other reason the offers on the table are damn good and I doubt we could offer much more tbh

    Down to Diego this one
  • ShootersHillGuru
    ShootersHillGuru Posts: 50,619
    nth london addick said:

    Diego signing will be because Diego wants to no other reason the offers on the table are damn good and I doubt we could offer much more tbh

    Down to Diego this one

    Fingers crossed then.

  • CrayAddick
    CrayAddick Posts: 3,913
    Anyone have any credible updates?
  • Karim_myBagheri
    Karim_myBagheri Posts: 12,716
    edited May 2014
    He's staying

    It's just I feel so calm about this situation it's as if I already know
  • Redman39
    Redman39 Posts: 3
    The offer to diego was shit and all this diego is on 6k a week is not true.he is on thirteen to sixteen hundred a week. Does anybody really think that the old owners was going to give a boy that big of a wage if he got into the first team when he sign pro we were in league1 even chris solly was not on 6k a week at the time.the new offer is 3k and the source I got it from is a football agent a top one at that. I thought he was joking when he told me but he did say the kid 100% wants to stay. So fingers crossed

Categories

“Marketplace”