|
Gayle
Sept 28, 2022 17:03:18 GMT
via mobile
ibby likes this
Post by barrythe on Sept 28, 2022 17:03:18 GMT
So is he on loan or signed by us very confused
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Sept 28, 2022 17:21:14 GMT
Why is this a big deal? Gayle could have sat on his arse raking in £60k a week but he wants to play. Stoke can only afford £20k so Newcastle have agreed to pay £40k to his wages which they can easily afford and have reduced their outgoings by £20k. Newcastle have to all intent and purpose honoured their contract with Gayle and allowed a good servant to play somewhere else rather than put him in an impossible situation and try to force him out or just leave him to rot in the reserves. It's only hard to understand if you can't believe anyone can behave honourably.
|
|
|
Gayle
Sept 28, 2022 17:29:01 GMT
Post by onepara on Sept 28, 2022 17:29:01 GMT
So is he on loan or signed by us very confused Not confusing at all. Read the post. It says permanently.
|
|
|
Gayle
Sept 28, 2022 18:37:55 GMT
Post by somersetstokie on Sept 28, 2022 18:37:55 GMT
Why is this a big deal? Gayle could have sat on his arse raking in £60k a week but he wants to play. Stoke can only afford £20k so Newcastle have agreed to pay £40k to his wages which they can easily afford and have reduced their outgoings by £20k. Newcastle have to all intent and purpose honoured their contract with Gayle and allowed a good servant to play somewhere else rather than put him in an impossible situation and try to force him out or just leave him to rot in the reserves. It's only hard to understand if you can't believe anyone can behave honourably. So why couldn't Stoke apply the same ethics and good intent in trying to move expensive wasters such as N'Diaye, Imbula and Etebo away from the club. Instead of paying their wages to go out on loan, and then have them bounce back to us as unsuccessful "surplus to requirements" rejects from their loan club, we could have paid a portion of their wages for two years as long as they agreed a permanent move. Thus using this Newcastle model. Everyone contributes a little flexibility to the deal, and all end up happy.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Sept 28, 2022 18:39:05 GMT
Telegraph say we're paying him about 20k-a-week. Would think that'll still be huge money for the 2022 Championship uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/newcastle-paying-more-100-000-112152987.htmlPerhaps the strangest arrangement is the one that allowed Stoke City to sign striker Dwight Gayle on a permanent basis in July. The 32-year-old, who is yet to score a goal for his new employers, is still being paid £60,000-a-week, but the Championship club are only responsible for around £20,000 of that figure. Stoke received the favour as they were also struggling to meet FFP regulations in the Championship and could not have signed Gayle and covered his wages without a cut-price deal. It also thought that Newcastle had to come up with a similar arrangement to facilitate Federico Fernández’s move to Spanish club Elche. Didn’t we do the same with Doobs on a permanent years back with Leeds picking up a huge percentage of his wage?
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Sept 28, 2022 18:39:59 GMT
Why is this a big deal? Gayle could have sat on his arse raking in £60k a week but he wants to play. Stoke can only afford £20k so Newcastle have agreed to pay £40k to his wages which they can easily afford and have reduced their outgoings by £20k. Newcastle have to all intent and purpose honoured their contract with Gayle and allowed a good servant to play somewhere else rather than put him in an impossible situation and try to force him out or just leave him to rot in the reserves. It's only hard to understand if you can't believe anyone can behave honourably. So why couldn't Stoke apply the same ethics and good intent in trying to move expensive wasters such as N'Diaye, Imbula and Etebo away from the club. Instead of paying their wages to go out on loan, and then have them bounce back to us as unsuccessful "surplus to requirements" rejects from their loan club, we could have paid a portion of their wages for two years as long as they agreed a permanent move. Thus using this Newcastle model. Everyone contributes a little flexibility to the deal, and all end up happy. FFP.
|
|
|
Gayle
Sept 28, 2022 18:45:33 GMT
Post by luke2u on Sept 28, 2022 18:45:33 GMT
Telegraph say we're paying him about 20k-a-week. Would think that'll still be huge money for the 2022 Championship uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/newcastle-paying-more-100-000-112152987.htmlPerhaps the strangest arrangement is the one that allowed Stoke City to sign striker Dwight Gayle on a permanent basis in July. The 32-year-old, who is yet to score a goal for his new employers, is still being paid £60,000-a-week, but the Championship club are only responsible for around £20,000 of that figure. Stoke received the favour as they were also struggling to meet FFP regulations in the Championship and could not have signed Gayle and covered his wages without a cut-price deal. It also thought that Newcastle had to come up with a similar arrangement to facilitate Federico Fernández’s move to Spanish club Elche. Didn’t we do the same with Doobs on a permanent years back with Leeds picking up a huge percentage of his wage? Yes, we did.
|
|
|
Gayle
Sept 28, 2022 18:47:41 GMT
via mobile
nott1 likes this
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2022 18:47:41 GMT
Why is this a big deal? Gayle could have sat on his arse raking in £60k a week but he wants to play. Stoke can only afford £20k so Newcastle have agreed to pay £40k to his wages which they can easily afford and have reduced their outgoings by £20k. Newcastle have to all intent and purpose honoured their contract with Gayle and allowed a good servant to play somewhere else rather than put him in an impossible situation and try to force him out or just leave him to rot in the reserves. It's only hard to understand if you can't believe anyone can behave honourably. So why couldn't Stoke apply the same ethics and good intent in trying to move expensive wasters such as N'Diaye, Imbula and Etebo away from the club. Instead of paying their wages to go out on loan, and then have them bounce back to us as unsuccessful "surplus to requirements" rejects from their loan club, we could have paid a portion of their wages for two years as long as they agreed a permanent move. Thus using this Newcastle model. Everyone contributes a little flexibility to the deal, and all end up happy. Which of the loan clubs they went to were prepared to take them permanently?
|
|
|
Gayle
Sept 28, 2022 18:53:22 GMT
Post by somersetstokie on Sept 28, 2022 18:53:22 GMT
None did, but with a bit of imagination, an incentivised permanent deal might have been possible. Newcastle just show that it can be done.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Sept 28, 2022 19:21:09 GMT
So why couldn't Stoke apply the same ethics and good intent in trying to move expensive wasters such as N'Diaye, Imbula and Etebo away from the club. Instead of paying their wages to go out on loan, and then have them bounce back to us as unsuccessful "surplus to requirements" rejects from their loan club, we could have paid a portion of their wages for two years as long as they agreed a permanent move. Thus using this Newcastle model. Everyone contributes a little flexibility to the deal, and all end up happy. FFP. How are people not getting this?
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Sept 28, 2022 19:22:02 GMT
None did, but with a bit of imagination, an incentivised permanent deal might have been possible. Newcastle just show that it can be done. Without falling foul of FFP? How? Specifically If they could they would have
|
|
|
Post by gingerninja on Sept 28, 2022 19:31:30 GMT
Even though he's not scored yet, I have been impressed with Gayle so far. He works hard and is very much a team player..
|
|
|
Gayle
Sept 28, 2022 21:10:38 GMT
via mobile
Post by Laughing Gravy on Sept 28, 2022 21:10:38 GMT
None did, but with a bit of imagination, an incentivised permanent deal might have been possible. Newcastle just show that it can be done. Without falling foul of FFP? How? Specifically If they could they would have Exactly mate. Newcastle as a mega rich Prem team aren’t really affected by FFP and can afford to write off both Gayle’s amortised transfer value and a large chunk of his wages. We as a FFP cash strapped Championship club couldn’t afford to do that until the players were at least into the last year of their contracts.
|
|
|
Gayle
Sept 28, 2022 21:48:14 GMT
via mobile
Post by kjpt140v on Sept 28, 2022 21:48:14 GMT
Why is this a big deal? Gayle could have sat on his arse raking in £60k a week but he wants to play. Stoke can only afford £20k so Newcastle have agreed to pay £40k to his wages which they can easily afford and have reduced their outgoings by £20k. Newcastle have to all intent and purpose honoured their contract with Gayle and allowed a good servant to play somewhere else rather than put him in an impossible situation and try to force him out or just leave him to rot in the reserves. It's only hard to understand if you can't believe anyone can behave honourably. So why couldn't Stoke apply the same ethics and good intent in trying to move expensive wasters such as N'Diaye, Imbula and Etebo away from the club. Instead of paying their wages to go out on loan, and then have them bounce back to us as unsuccessful "surplus to requirements" rejects from their loan club, we could have paid a portion of their wages for two years as long as they agreed a permanent move. Thus using this Newcastle model. Everyone contributes a little flexibility to the deal, and all end up happy. I don't see N'Diaye or Etebo as wasters, they were simply victims of circumstances. Did wepay their wages whilst they were on loan? Remember they were on loan, they were not transferred.
|
|
|
Gayle
Sept 28, 2022 22:08:05 GMT
Post by ibby on Sept 28, 2022 22:08:05 GMT
|
|
|
Gayle
Sept 28, 2022 22:09:23 GMT
via mobile
ibby likes this
Post by bertiestan on Sept 28, 2022 22:09:23 GMT
No mate not really a loan.... they've just subsidised his wages
|
|
|
Gayle
Sept 28, 2022 22:16:16 GMT
Post by ibby on Sept 28, 2022 22:16:16 GMT
No mate not really a loan.... they've just subsidised his wages So why cant Daily mail get the story right.
|
|
|
Post by y_oh_y_delilah on Sept 28, 2022 22:56:58 GMT
No mate not really a loan.... they've just subsidised his wages So why cant Daily mail get the story right. You’ve answered your own question. It’s the Daily Mail!!
|
|
|
Post by callas12 on Sept 28, 2022 23:44:49 GMT
No mate not really a loan.... they've just subsidised his wages So why cant Daily mail get the story right. Commonly known as the Daily Fail!
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Sept 29, 2022 6:27:24 GMT
Why is this a big deal? Gayle could have sat on his arse raking in £60k a week but he wants to play. Stoke can only afford £20k so Newcastle have agreed to pay £40k to his wages which they can easily afford and have reduced their outgoings by £20k. Newcastle have to all intent and purpose honoured their contract with Gayle and allowed a good servant to play somewhere else rather than put him in an impossible situation and try to force him out or just leave him to rot in the reserves. It's only hard to understand if you can't believe anyone can behave honourably. So why couldn't Stoke apply the same ethics and good intent in trying to move expensive wasters such as N'Diaye, Imbula and Etebo away from the club. Instead of paying their wages to go out on loan, and then have them bounce back to us as unsuccessful "surplus to requirements" rejects from their loan club, we could have paid a portion of their wages for two years as long as they agreed a permanent move. Thus using this Newcastle model. Everyone contributes a little flexibility to the deal, and all end up happy. From an ethnical point of view Stoke owe those wastrels nothing - the ethical aspect only applies to Gayle because to my knowledge he hasn't been an arsehole and Newcastle have done the right thing by a good pro. We will not have paid those players their full salary while out on loan and while they remain on our books the would have shown as an asset on our balance sheet. If we had sold them with the same share of the wages as the loan deals we would actually have been worse off because we would have the same outgoings without those players contributing the balance sheet as an asset. What Newcastle have done is far more generous than anything we could afford and they have done right by a loyal player. We had neither the financial incentive nor the ethical obligation to do the same deal - even if there was any one mad enough to take on players who would angle for a move at the first opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by J-Roar on Sept 29, 2022 6:41:14 GMT
How are people not getting this? Because their first reaction is to bash the club. And a lot of people are thick as pig shit.
|
|
|
Gayle
Sept 29, 2022 11:29:15 GMT
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Sept 29, 2022 11:29:15 GMT
So why couldn't Stoke apply the same ethics and good intent in trying to move expensive wasters such as N'Diaye, Imbula and Etebo away from the club. Instead of paying their wages to go out on loan, and then have them bounce back to us as unsuccessful "surplus to requirements" rejects from their loan club, we could have paid a portion of their wages for two years as long as they agreed a permanent move. Thus using this Newcastle model. Everyone contributes a little flexibility to the deal, and all end up happy. I don't see N'Diaye or Etebo as wasters, they were simply victims of circumstances. Did wepay their wages whilst they were on loan? Remember they were on loan, they were not transferred. N'Diaye joined when we were in the Premiership so you could argue he was sold a pup. We signed Etebo when we were in the Championship so that excuse doesn't hold. I get that football is a short career and players have to look after themselves but the first thing Etebo and N'Diaye said to O'Neill when he arrived was that they wanted out. Fair enough - but if they have no interest in the club why should the club have any interest in them - my point being why should the club go out of the way to finance a deal that helps the player in the same way that Newcastle have done with Gayle? N'Diaye and Etebo may not have been in the same league as Imbula but as far as the club is concerned when they made it clear they wanted out they were in effect a complete waste of space. We honoured their contracts in a way that maximised their value to the club but that's as much as they deserve.
|
|
|
Gayle
Sept 29, 2022 12:26:39 GMT
via mobile
Post by kjpt140v on Sept 29, 2022 12:26:39 GMT
I don't see N'Diaye or Etebo as wasters, they were simply victims of circumstances. Did wepay their wages whilst they were on loan? Remember they were on loan, they were not transferred. N'Diaye joined when we were in the Premiership so you could argue he was sold a pup. We signed Etebo when we were in the Championship so that excuse doesn't hold. I get that football is a short career and players have to look after themselves but the first thing Etebo and N'Diaye said to O'Neill when he arrived was that they wanted out. Fair enough - but if they have no interest in the club why should the club have any interest in them - my point being why should the club go out of the way to finance a deal that helps the player in the same way that Newcastle have done with Gayle? N'Diaye and Etebo may not have been in the same league as Imbula but as far as the club is concerned when they made it clear they wanted out they were in effect a complete waste of space. We honoured their contracts in a way that maximised their value to the club but that's as much as they deserve. Very sad.
|
|
|
Gayle
Sept 29, 2022 12:43:46 GMT
Post by Squeekster on Sept 29, 2022 12:43:46 GMT
I don't see N'Diaye or Etebo as wasters, they were simply victims of circumstances. Did wepay their wages whilst they were on loan? Remember they were on loan, they were not transferred. N'Diaye joined when we were in the Premiership so you could argue he was sold a pup. We signed Etebo when we were in the Championship so that excuse doesn't hold. I get that football is a short career and players have to look after themselves but the first thing Etebo and N'Diaye said to O'Neill when he arrived was that they wanted out. Fair enough - but if they have no interest in the club why should the club have any interest in them - my point being why should the club go out of the way to finance a deal that helps the player in the same way that Newcastle have done with Gayle? N'Diaye and Etebo may not have been in the same league as Imbula but as far as the club is concerned when they made it clear they wanted out they were in effect a complete waste of space. We honoured their contracts in a way that maximised their value to the club but that's as much as they deserve. I would imagine all players we loan out with the exception of youth/young players we'd get a loan fee and at least some of the wages paid by the club who loaned the player, so even if they paid 5k a week to some like N'Diaye that could be a big saving over 12 months, figure was plucked out of thin air and is subject to change but you get the idea.
|
|
|
Gayle
Sept 29, 2022 12:49:21 GMT
via mobile
Post by mattythestokie on Sept 29, 2022 12:49:21 GMT
Telegraph say we're paying him about 20k-a-week. Would think that'll still be huge money for the 2022 Championship uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/newcastle-paying-more-100-000-112152987.htmlPerhaps the strangest arrangement is the one that allowed Stoke City to sign striker Dwight Gayle on a permanent basis in July. The 32-year-old, who is yet to score a goal for his new employers, is still being paid £60,000-a-week, but the Championship club are only responsible for around £20,000 of that figure. Stoke received the favour as they were also struggling to meet FFP regulations in the Championship and could not have signed Gayle and covered his wages without a cut-price deal. It also thought that Newcastle had to come up with a similar arrangement to facilitate Federico Fernández’s move to Spanish club Elche. Didn’t we do the same with Doobs on a permanent years back with Leeds picking up a huge percentage of his wage? We did the same with Kenwyne Jones as well. "The wages he was earning at Sunderland we could not afford. He was on quite a bit of money, but he is not on that at Stoke,'" Pulis said. "So they have looked after that as well to enable him to come down to the structure we have at this club, which is very important for us’’ It happens all the time.
|
|
|
Post by hardcastle on Sept 29, 2022 14:00:30 GMT
Telegraph say we're paying him about 20k-a-week. Would think that'll still be huge money for the 2022 Championship uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/newcastle-paying-more-100-000-112152987.htmlPerhaps the strangest arrangement is the one that allowed Stoke City to sign striker Dwight Gayle on a permanent basis in July. The 32-year-old, who is yet to score a goal for his new employers, is still being paid £60,000-a-week, but the Championship club are only responsible for around £20,000 of that figure. Stoke received the favour as they were also struggling to meet FFP regulations in the Championship and could not have signed Gayle and covered his wages without a cut-price deal. It also thought that Newcastle had to come up with a similar arrangement to facilitate Federico Fernández’s move to Spanish club Elche. Didn’t we do the same with Doobs on a permanent years back with Leeds picking up a huge percentage of his wage? Yes we did. Salary-wise the numbers were much smaller back then but l seem to remember we were paying about £3000 a week (about our top salary at the time) of the (barely believable) £17,000 per week that Leeds were paying. Seems madness, doesn't it, but Leeds were desperate to get him out of the dressing room due to his involvement in some racist (?) incident involving Jonathon Woodgate and others. Others may remember better,it's a while back now.
|
|
|
Post by bertiestan on Sept 29, 2022 14:54:06 GMT
Didn’t we do the same with Doobs on a permanent years back with Leeds picking up a huge percentage of his wage? We did the same with Kenwyne Jones as well. "The wages he was earning at Sunderland we could not afford. He was on quite a bit of money, but he is not on that at Stoke,'" Pulis said. "So they have looked after that as well to enable him to come down to the structure we have at this club, which is very important for us’’ It happens all the time. We gave him a whopping signing on fee to cover the drop in wages didn't we?
|
|
|
Gayle
Sept 30, 2022 7:40:03 GMT
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Sept 30, 2022 7:40:03 GMT
N'Diaye joined when we were in the Premiership so you could argue he was sold a pup. We signed Etebo when we were in the Championship so that excuse doesn't hold. I get that football is a short career and players have to look after themselves but the first thing Etebo and N'Diaye said to O'Neill when he arrived was that they wanted out. Fair enough - but if they have no interest in the club why should the club have any interest in them - my point being why should the club go out of the way to finance a deal that helps the player in the same way that Newcastle have done with Gayle? N'Diaye and Etebo may not have been in the same league as Imbula but as far as the club is concerned when they made it clear they wanted out they were in effect a complete waste of space. We honoured their contracts in a way that maximised their value to the club but that's as much as they deserve. I would imagine all players we loan out with the exception of youth/young players we'd get a loan fee and at least some of the wages paid by the club who loaned the player, so even if they paid 5k a week to some like N'Diaye that could be a big saving over 12 months, figure was plucked out of thin air and is subject to change but you get the idea. Yes that's right - you'd expect the club the player is loaned to to contribute to their wages. However the difference with the Gayle deal is that he is an asset on our balance sheet which helps in terms of FFP - if he'd been loaned he would be on Newcastle's balance sheet and helping their FFP. I'm not a fan of Newcastle or their owners but credit where it's due - this is a very generous deal for Gayle and Stoke.
|
|
|
Gayle
Sept 30, 2022 8:09:42 GMT
Post by nott1 on Sept 30, 2022 8:09:42 GMT
No mate not really a loan.... they've just subsidised his wages So why cant Daily mail get the story right. Same reason they keep lording the Tories!
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Sept 30, 2022 8:23:52 GMT
I would imagine all players we loan out with the exception of youth/young players we'd get a loan fee and at least some of the wages paid by the club who loaned the player, so even if they paid 5k a week to some like N'Diaye that could be a big saving over 12 months, figure was plucked out of thin air and is subject to change but you get the idea. Yes that's right - you'd expect the club the player is loaned to to contribute to their wages. However the difference with the Gayle deal is that he is an asset on our balance sheet which helps in terms of FFP - if he'd been loaned he would be on Newcastle's balance sheet and helping their FFP. I'm not a fan of Newcastle or their owners but credit where it's due - this is a very generous deal for Gayle and Stoke. Absolutely!
|
|