The Fawaz Circus 2015

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

 

 

I'd say £23,000 a week would compare favourably to what you are paying Weimann, Bent, Shackell and a few others.  Not to mention that we'd still be in profit in our transfer dealings even if we paid £4 million.

Yes but its against Mr Dyche's principles isn't it?

[Cam the Ram]

 

 

I'd say £23,000 a week would compare favourably to what you are paying Weimann, Bent, Shackell and a few others.  Not to mention that we'd still be in profit in our transfer dealings even if we paid £4 million.

And how much are we paying Weimann, Bent, Shackell and these others?

[ClaretMatt]

And how much are we paying Weimann, Bent, Shackell and these others?

Well, seen as we couldn't match the figures you were offering Shackell but we're reported to be able to offer £23k+ to Lansbury I'd say it's safe to say Shackell will be on £25k at least.  

Bent, no doubt, will have taken a pay cut but would have been on £50-60k at Villa so assuming he takes a 50% pay cut (being generous) then you're looking at £25-30k there.

Weimann was on a reported £15k in 2013 prior to signing a new deal which you would imagine would include an extra £10k given his age and first team status.  You're looking at not much, if any, pay cut for him at his age and time remaining on his deal so could assume £23k+ there.

Bryson was set to sign for us on approaching £25k a week in the Prem but, if reports at our end are to be believed, stayed because you matched the offer and offered extra years.  So £20-25k there.

Am I wrong? (Honest question, those would be my read of those players contracts but I'd be interested to hear otherwise)

 

[ClaretMatt]

Yes but its against Mr Dyche's principles isn't it?

What is?  Spending less than we've made/saved?

[TheDeadlySaul]

Well, seen as we couldn't match the figures you were offering Shackell but we're reported to be able to offer £23k+ to Lansbury I'd say it's safe to say Shackell will be on £25k at least.  

Bent, no doubt, will have taken a pay cut but would have been on £50-60k at Villa so assuming he takes a 50% pay cut (being generous) then you're looking at £25-30k there.

Weimann was on a reported £15k in 2013 prior to signing a new deal which you would imagine would include an extra £10k given his age and first team status.  You're looking at not much, if any, pay cut for him at his age and time remaining on his deal so could assume £23k+ there.

Bryson was set to sign for us on approaching £25k a week in the Prem but, if reports at our end are to be believed, stayed because you matched the offer and offered extra years.  So £20-25k there.

Am I wrong? (Honest question, those would be my read of those players contracts but I'd be interested to hear otherwise)

 

We have money and we spend it.

You have money and you don't spend and then complain when other clubs do. 

[SaintRam]

Well, seen as we couldn't match the figures you were offering Shackell but we're reported to be able to offer £23k+ to Lansbury I'd say it's safe to say Shackell will be on £25k at least.  

Bent, no doubt, will have taken a pay cut but would have been on £50-60k at Villa so assuming he takes a 50% pay cut (being generous) then you're looking at £25-30k there.

Weimann was on a reported £15k in 2013 prior to signing a new deal which you would imagine would include an extra £10k given his age and first team status.  You're looking at not much, if any, pay cut for him at his age and time remaining on his deal so could assume £23k+ there.

Bryson was set to sign for us on approaching £25k a week in the Prem but, if reports at our end are to be believed, stayed because you matched the offer and offered extra years.  So £20-25k there.

Am I wrong? (Honest question, those would be my read of those players contracts but I'd be interested to hear otherwise)

 

First point is based on trusting the word of Dyche, which I won't.

Second point, I think he's taken more of a paycut than 50%. He's on a short contract with an option of a further year which suggests he's on a decent amount but I'd say max 25k.

Weimann's hard to call.

Bryson maybe, again don't really know. I can't imagine he's on more than others but after that year maybe the management got over-excited.

[Cam the Ram]

Well, seen as we couldn't match the figures you were offering Shackell but we're reported to be able to offer £23k+ to Lansbury I'd say it's safe to say Shackell will be on £25k at least.  

Bent, no doubt, will have taken a pay cut but would have been on £50-60k at Villa so assuming he takes a 50% pay cut (being generous) then you're looking at £25-30k there.

Weimann was on a reported £15k in 2013 prior to signing a new deal which you would imagine would include an extra £10k given his age and first team status.  You're looking at not much, if any, pay cut for him at his age and time remaining on his deal so could assume £23k+ there.

Bryson was set to sign for us on approaching £25k a week in the Prem but, if reports at our end are to be believed, stayed because you matched the offer and offered extra years.  So £20-25k there.

Am I wrong? (Honest question, those would be my read of those players contracts but I'd be interested to hear otherwise)

 

I'd imagine you're very close to being correct. Was just curious as to how much you thought we were paying players because I've seen other fans suggest we're giving Bent and Weimann figures in the region of 40k a week.

Reports today say 23k for Lansbury isn't enough so you'll probably end up paying him between 25k and 30k a week if he is to sign. How can Dyche complain about us giving that sort of money to Shackell when he's doing the exact same thing a few weeks later? 

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

What is?  Spending less than we've made/saved?

No, spending excessively on high wages.

[ClaretMatt]

First point is based on trusting the word of Dyche, which I won't.

Second point, I think he's taken more of a paycut than 50%. He's on a short contract with an option of a further year which suggests he's on a decent amount but I'd say max 25k.

Weimann's hard to call.

Bryson maybe, again don't really know. I can't imagine he's on more than others but after that year maybe the management got over-excited.

So pretty much you agree with my suggestions or can't suggest any solid reason why they're wrong?

How can Dyche complain about us giving that sort of money to Shackell when he's doing the exact same thing a few weeks later? 

RE: Trusting Dyche, well what reason is there to lie there?  If we could match or exceed the wages you were offering I'm sure we would have, especially for our captain.  So that would suggest we'd have to break our wage structure to match/exceed what you are paying him.  

I don't think we'd do that for a new player so if Lansbury wants in excess of £25k a week I don't think the deal will happen.  Odds are we'll agree a deal around £23k with big promotion bonuses and release clauses for if we don't go up within a couple of seasons.

No, spending excessively on high wages.

We have a wage structure that we won't break, if someone signs it will be because they fit the structure.  Funny that you'd use excessive to describe £23k a week when you're spending more.

[rynny]

So pretty much you agree with my suggestions or can't suggest any solid reason why they're wrong?

RE: Trusting Dyche, well what reason is there to lie there?  If we could match or exceed the wages you were offering I'm sure we would have, especially for our captain.  So that would suggest we'd have to break our wage structure to match/exceed what you are paying him.  

I don't think we'd do that for a new player so if Lansbury wants in excess of £25k a week I don't think the deal will happen.  Odds are we'll agree a deal around £23k with big promotion bonuses and release clauses for if we don't go up within a couple of seasons.

We have a wage structure that we won't break, if someone signs it will be because they fit the structure.  Funny that you'd use excessive to describe £23k a week when you're spending more.

Maybe another option is that Shackell said he didn't want to stay and it didn't matter what was offered by who and Dyche is trying to save face that his captain didn't want to stay?

[ClaretMatt]

Maybe another option is that Shackell said he didn't want to stay and it didn't matter what was offered by who and Dyche is trying to save face that his captain didn't want to stay?

So you honestly think a player would look at one deal from his current club at £30k per week for 3 years and one at another club for £23k per week for 3 years and go "You know what?  An extra £1 million over the last three years of my career, no thanks"

Those figures are obviously hypothetical but if you think we can offer £30k to a new player why wouldn't we make the same offer to our captain?  And if we did then you think his agent wouldn't take that figure to the club trying to sign him and get it matched in negotiations?

[Animal is a Ram]

Off topic, not enough laughing at Forest.

[Animal is a Ram]

I know why Forest did a u-turn.

They realised the deal didn't include Lansbury's taxi fare. Y'know, coz he's banned from driving.

[RadioactiveWaste]

Stick in a bit for Antonio while your at it. The less players want to be there the better for forest. Imagine the effect of a proper club wanting you can have on the mind of a foreForest plaplayplayer.

[ClaretMatt]

Off topic, not enough laughing at Forest.

Haha.

[Cam the Ram]

So you honestly think a player would look at one deal from his current club at £30k per week for 3 years and one at another club for £23k per week for 3 years and go "You know what?  An extra £1 million over the last three years of my career, no thanks"

Those figures are obviously hypothetical but if you think we can offer £30k to a new player why wouldn't we make the same offer to our captain?  And if we did then you think his agent wouldn't take that figure to the club trying to sign him and get it matched in negotiations?

But all these arguments you pose involve you guessing what we're paying players. No reports have been released about what we're supposedly paying Shackell, you're just making assumptions. Is it not possible that Dyche had a moan to the media in an attempt to put pressure on the board to stump up more money for players? And now the board are allowing Dyche to offer higher wages like you're doing with Lansbury? 

[Animal is a Ram]

Haha.

And the balance is restored. Thank you, ClaretMatt.

[robglosta]

Haha.

The Claret giving it to F*rest 

Welcome to stay 

[ClaretMatt]

But all these arguments you pose involve you guessing what we're paying players. No reports have been released about what we're supposedly paying Shackell, you're just making assumptions. Is it not possible that Dyche had a moan to the media in an attempt to put pressure on the board to stump up more money for players? And now the board are allowing Dyche to offer higher wages like you're doing with Lansbury? 

They involve me working from what we can offer players.  We've been chasing Lansbury since this time last year, through the January window and into this preseason - we'll have known what wages he's expecting and wouldn't have chased otherwise.  Working from there it's not much of a leap to make assumptions about what you would be paying Shackell because, as I've said, it would have to be at the very least the same we can offer.

Anyway, off topic and we're retreading tired ground.  Hopefully we'll give you further reason to laugh at Forest by stealing their captain.  The bitter tweets would be, I'm sure, an absolute gold-mine.

[North_Stand_Ram]

I just find it odd that Dyche always rambles on about wage caps, surely it can't be that low is you're willing to give Lansbury a reported 23k a week. Shackell can't be on a vastly higher wage than that, surely?