|
Post by FullerMagic on Jan 24, 2009 12:55:32 GMT
when you consider Tonge and Oli will have cost £5 million, and for their combined wages, there will be not much change out of 40 grand a week. I'd go for the Bullard option any day...quality player as for Stokies saying Bullard plays too deep .......unbelievable after watching our midfield camped on the edge of their own penalty area for most of the season. I suppose you can look at it like that; it's similar to carrying 2 players of inferior quality on 50% of that, especially if their lack of quality means you aren't going to get your money's worth from them. Pick any 2 from Sonko, Oli, Kitson, Soares or Tonge. Add their transfer fees together. Add their wages together. And it's probably equivalent to one Bullard. The problem may come if the rest of the squad get jealous and resentful of his pay packet, especially if he fails to perform consistently. If (and it's still a big IF) he can make a telling contribution in his first couple of seasons that keeps them in the money league, you could argue that he'll pay for the last couple of years of his big contract when you wouldn't have thought he'd be so productive, when his legs may start to go.
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Jan 24, 2009 13:02:49 GMT
when you consider Tonge and Oli will have cost £5 million, and for their combined wages, there will be not much change out of 40 grand a week. I'd go for the Bullard option any day...quality player as for Stokies saying Bullard plays too deep .......unbelievable after watching our midfield camped on the edge of their own penalty area for most of the season. I suppose you can look at it like that; it's similar to carrying 2 players of inferior quality on 50% of that, especially if their lack of quality means you aren't going to get your money's worth from them. Pick any 2 from Sonko, Oli, Kitson, Soares or Tonge. Add their transfer fees together. Add their wages together. And it's probably equivalent to one Bullard. The problem may come if the rest of the squad get jealous and resentful of his pay packet, especially if he fails to perform consistently. If (and it's still a big IF) he can make a telling contribution in his first couple of seasons that keeps them in the money league, you could argue that he'll pay for the last couple of years of his big contract when you wouldn't have thought he'd be so productive, when his legs may start to go. Plus if you add the jealousy to an already apparently unhappy dressing room it may not work out all that well. Being honest, first and foremost Bullard is a top, top signing and one I would love to have seen at Stoke. There are other things to take into account though, Bullard has had a history of injuries and he is now 30, so £40-45k a week (depending on who you believe) plus his fee amounts to about £15M by the end of his contract. If Hull stay up and they get 2-3 good years out of him it's money well spent. If they do go down (they desperately need a decent striker because they haven't got one now King has left) then what happens? Will Bullard want to stay and if he doesn't would anyone else want to pay him that money (they clearly didn't this week.) One thing you can't knock though is Hull's ambition and downright balls in making the signing, it's a big risk though and could go either way.
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Jan 24, 2009 13:35:39 GMT
let's face it, he won't be on 40k a week if they do go down, there will be a clause in his contract
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Jan 24, 2009 13:39:17 GMT
let's face it, he won't be on 40k a week if they do go down, there will be a clause in his contract I'm not so sure spit mate, Bullard wanted his last big payday so they could be stuck with him or at best they would have to release him for peanuts. Either way if they did go down they'd be losing out big time.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Jan 24, 2009 13:45:00 GMT
The parachute payments are in place for relegated clubs to deal with the big contracts they've given players. I can't say I've ever heard of a player agreeing to a reduction in his wages if his club is relegated.
More often than not, the high earners are sold on anyway, though in Bullard's case you'd find it difficult to imagine anyone in the future being prepared to pay him the £45,000 a week he's reputed to have been given at Hull, and that might be a problem Hull are going to have to face if they are relegated in the next eighteen months.
|
|
|
Post by ChesterStokie on Jan 24, 2009 13:49:06 GMT
Our central midfield players are only camped on the edge of their own penalty area because thats what Pulis tells them to do. It's not their fault.
Perhaps Pulis didn't want Bullard because Bullard has more to offer going forward and that would be wasted.
|
|