Charlie Austin - joined QPR on loan

[S8TY]

34 minutes ago, Jourdan said:

No, we are not accountants.

But at the same time, with our recent FFP case and the fine line we have been treading, it’s perfectly natural for people to be concerned about our financial situation and a signing that seems to go against the objectives we are trying to achieve from a financial standpoint.

The reaction to potential signings like Dursun and Junker will obviously be different. People will be more positive because they are interesting signings from abroad and these signings clearly aren’t going to break or jeopardise our wage structure.

With Austin, I think it’s normal to be a little wary. He is a good player and particularly at this level, but WBA had parachute payments to fall back on. 

I just hope we are not falling into the same trap of rolling the dice with our financial future.

Its not our call its the clubs ....let them deal with it how do you know what Junker and Dursun want ?

[Jourdan]

1 hour ago, S8TY said:

Its not our call its the clubs ....let them deal with it how do you know what Junker and Dursun want ?

I don’t know.

But coming from playing in Norway and playing in the second tier of German football, neither player will be currently on anything close or demanding anything close to Austin’s salary - a player with 10 years of experience in the top two divisions of English football.

Why is it negative to worry about the finances on the deal?

Have I said Austin is a bad player? Not at all.

If anything, how the club’s financial position has deteriorated over recent years and our continued battle with the EFL and FFP shows it’s perfectly reasonable to raise an eyebrow.

 

[BramcoteRam84]

If we were gambling with finances then we would’ve signed a striker by now as we’d have paid a slight premium just to get players in as early as possible. The Dursun things seems to have stalled because we’re playing hardball in the negotiations.

If we sign Austin, we will have the financial headroom to do so. 

[Olton Ram]

9 hours ago, Jourdan said:

Nothing has been reported.

I am just struggling to get my head around how we can afford this move.

Austin is reported to be on anywhere from £50-70,000.

Unless we are paying 25% or less of his wages, how is it viable and why would WBA accept that?

WBA would have to accept that because the alternative would be paying him £70k a week not to play for them. That's their problem for agreeing to the contract. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that they would still be paying a large chunk of his wages (but much less than what they would have had to be paying him) and we'd be paying him what we think is affordable on top. He might even accept a lower wage in order to get some games away from West Brom. As others have said, it seems unlikely that we'd stick to our guns when negotiating with Martin, shop around Europe for lower cost players, but then give Charlie Austin a massive salary right at the end of the transfer window. The Sam Rush days are over.

[archram]

Perhaps a car manufacturer could sponsor him and that would pay his wages? I’m sure I’ve heard of that happening somewhere? Don’t know what number he’d be though. 

[Rampage]

1 minute ago, archram said:

Perhaps a car manufacturer could sponsor him and that would pay his wages? I’m sure I’ve heard of that happening somewhere? Don’t know what number he’d be though. 

Austin 7

[nogbad van 50]

8 hours ago, Jourdan said:

I don’t know.

But coming from playing in Norway and playing in the second tier of German football, neither player will be currently on anything close or demanding anything close to Austin’s salary - a player with 10 years of experience in the top two divisions of English football.

Why is it negative to worry about the finances on the deal?

Have I said Austin is a bad player? Not at all.

If anything, how the club’s financial position has deteriorated over recent years and our continued battle with the EFL and FFP shows it’s perfectly reasonable to raise an 

[Steve How Hard?]

It would be Austintatious of him to try and replace the Wardrobe but if the numbers add then we may have no other option but to let him try. 

[SSD]

[Coneheadjohn]

If he comes on a 70k a week his wages will be less than Wardrobes anyway.

[GangwayD]

I’d like us to try two up top.

I don’t think Marriott enjoys or suits our system but play him alongside a powerful striker who he can work in and around and feed off then I think he’d come good. 
 

I wasn’t too upset (dare I mention him) that the Wardrobe left but he’s having a renaissance playing alongside Wells at Bristol. 

A few years ago for Austin then definitely but not sure now especially for the probably cost (I know, don’t worry about that !). 

regards
Gangway D from the terrace
 

 

 

[IslandExile]

Not in the squad for the game today.

[Jimbo Ram]

20 minutes ago, GangwayD said:

I’d like us to try two up top.

I don’t think Marriott enjoys or suits our system but play him alongside a powerful striker who he can work in and around and feed off then I think he’d come good. 
 

I wasn’t too upset (dare I mention him) that the Wardrobe left but he’s having a renaissance playing alongside Wells at Bristol. 

A few years ago for Austin then definitely but not sure now especially for the probably cost (I know, don’t worry about that !). 

regards
Gangway D from the terrace
 

 

 

Agree in that Jack can’t play as the loan striker ?

[LazloW]

1 hour ago, nogbad van 50 said:

Absolutely!! Some fans be like....

[Macintosh]

The continued Martin saga on here, has anyone ever considered the reason he was only offered a one-year deal on reduced terms and was free to leave is because he was not the player Cocu wanted each week to lead the attack? That if he had stayed it was more likely to be bench material and that did not suit either party?

Due to lack of transfer activity and the loans we brought in at that time, the attackers we had to choose from the squad Cocu inherited so late was Martin, not really in the picture then (probably third choice, maybe fourth), Waghorn, never really suited to the role but always does his best, and Marriott, not really suited to Championship football we've learnt. Plus academy players Whittaker and Hector-Ingram. Then in the New Year we also had Rooney.

We now know he's happy with the full-backs and keeper, probably learnt a lot about central defence this weekend and knows where Knight is best suited. Has the two wingers he always wanted that Jozefzoon never was. Maybe a striker (or two) is the last piece of the jigsaw? Plus Bielik, plus Lawrence, plus Duncan.

Write out your best Derby side you think we have, then fill in the bench, you'll now notice there is not room for everyone, that we no longer have to make it up with academy players. Soon, the academy players will have to force themselves back into our side instead of making up half the side. 

 

[Wolfie20]

8 minutes ago, Macintosh said:

The continued Martin saga on here, has anyone ever considered the reason he was only offered a one-year deal on reduced terms and was free to leave is because he was not the player Cocu wanted each week to lead the attack? That if he had stayed it was more likely to be bench material and that did not suit either party?

Due to lack of transfer activity and the loans we brought in at that time, the attackers we had to choose from the squad Cocu inherited so late was Martin, not really in the picture then (probably third choice, maybe fourth), Waghorn, never really suited to the role but always does his best, and Marriott, not really suited to Championship football we've learnt. Plus academy players Whittaker and Hector-Ingram. Then in the New Year we also had Rooney.

We now know he's happy with the full-backs and keeper, probably learnt a lot about central defence this weekend and knows where Knight is best suited. Has the two wingers he always wanted that Jozefzoon never was. Maybe a striker (or two) is the last piece of the jigsaw? Plus Bielik, plus Lawrence, plus Duncan.

Write out your best Derby side you think we have, then fill in the bench, you'll now notice there is not room for everyone, that we no longer have to make it up with academy players. Soon, the academy players will have to force themselves back into our side instead of making up half the side. 

 

Do you have confirmation he was only offered a one year deal and on reduced terms or is it an assumption?

[Rab a dab doo]

Can we re-build Austin, and make him the 'six million dollar man' we have been lacking for us ? 

[Wolfie20]

1 minute ago, Rab a dab doo said:

Can we re-build Austin, and make him the 'six million dollar man' we have been lacking for us ? 

Can't afford 6 million dollars.

Next!

[Rab a dab doo]

He's a lot cheaper now, that what it cost then in the 1980's, with deflation its probably about £2:50p now if we still get the parts. 

 

[Will Hughes Hair]

Trampie says medical at Moor Farm in the morning.  Of course he's fictional, lives in my head and isn't ITK.  But at least he isn't a virgin like Barry Walsh. ?