Jump to content

Paul Green


CumbrianRam

Recommended Posts

The lack of ambition though IMO is down to the fact that Clough has said that he wants to keep Green, but it can only work if its within the budget.

Therefore we are potentially losing a player, because of what the budget is dictating not what the manager wants.

We dont know what has been offered to him, and we dont even know if this is still on the table, but I believe that we are unable to move in the transfer market, or offer new contracts out until Clough has got the wages under budget, this may or may not be true, but given we have now even started talking to some of our out of contract players it would indiacte something along these lines.

But what is Green (extreme I know but a example) wants £20k-25k a week?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 492
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Its not lack of ambition, we have a structure in place for a reason, why should we deviate from it for Paul "Pele" Green? If we offer him more it will cause more harm than good, it isn't lack of ambition it is the prevailence of common sense over greed

Just because we have a "structure" this does not mean we have ambition, slick said at the start of the season we would be bringing in players with championship pedigree, is the reason that we haven't done this down to our "structure" as you so call it ?

If we are unable to compete for players in this league down to our "structure" then that in itself is a lack of ambition, an also as I said in my original post, I don't believe it is down to the wages limit, more down to the overall budget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because we have a "structure" this does not mean we have ambition, slick said at the start of the season we would be bringing in players with championship pedigree, is the reason that we haven't done this down to our "structure" as you so call it ?

If we are unable to compete for players in this league down to our "structure" then that in itself is a lack of ambition, an also as I said in my original post, I don't believe it is down to the wages limit, more down to the overall budget.

We are able to compete for players at this level- the point I am making is that Green is not worth breaking the bank over or undermining all of the other players that are within the wage structure. Look at Forest, they are spending beyond their means and they are in relegation. We are 7th (pending result of the Reading game). We don't need to buy anyone, we have bought wisely already and are reaping the benefits. There is no point undoing the good work and going back to paying higher wages for the sake of keeping Green.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are 7th because green is playing an influential part, when he goes for the 200k in this transfer windown, who are we going to bring in to replace him, I will say now as commons last year it will be a player of lesser quality.

Look at the bench today, we had nothing to bring on that would change the game, we lose green get an injury to a defender, or need to change the game in the last quarter and we have no back up, we should be looking at progressing from 7th not losing one of our key players who can cover 3 different positions.

If we can't keep our better players what message does this send out to anyone who is considering joining us, let's not forget we don't even know the details of the offer put to him in the summer, and we have not even gone back to discuss this since his return to the team.

Also would you say the same if say Jamie ward came and asked for a pay rise that is outside our "structure" ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Green is the last of the 'high earners'

It's obvious we have some sort of wage cap plus an overall top budget..

It wouldn't suprise me if the wage cap is around $9k and Green either is around that now, wants it now or an extension to a current contract which perhaps exceeds that.. He's coming into his prime, with plenty of interest from other clubs, he's going to want a payrise and a 3 year deal..

It's disappointing to lose a player of his 'calibre' (I don't think he's even that good) but we'll bring one in for cheaper and on a cheaper wage.. Once we've reached a point where everyone is below the wage cap and the wages are sustainable, then we'll be ina position to push on and be abit more flexible and bring in better players..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because we have a "structure" this does not mean we have ambition, slick said at the start of the season we would be bringing in players with championship pedigree, is the reason that we haven't done this down to our "structure" as you so call it ?

If we are unable to compete for players in this league down to our "structure" then that in itself is a lack of ambition, an also as I said in my original post, I don't believe it is down to the wages limit, more down to the overall budget.

The opposite could also be true Leeds having a structure does not necessarily mean no ambition.

Haves we really not bought championship quality players?

Shackell,

Ward,

Bryson,

Even Robinson could be argued add his goals to games is pretty good.

I am of course arguing for the sake of it a little but I think Green its being used as a convenient stick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another way to look at it is Barker is at the top end of the wage structure, as will Shackell, is Green as valuable as those 2? Personally I don't think he is, I think we could find a player as good as Green for the same wage as a Theo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The opposite could also be true Leeds having a structure does not necessarily mean no ambition.

Haves we really not bought championship quality players?

Shackell,

Ward,

Bryson,

Even Robinson could be argued add his goals to games is pretty good.

I am of course arguing for the sake of it a little but I think Green its being used as a convenient stick.

But of the players you listed, only one was proven quality championship players, yes the others have proved to be good acquisitions so far, but we have a policy that means that we have to get unproven players, they could work out or they be the maguires, or tysons of this world.

Back to green, it's not because I think he is the best midfielder at the club, or that he most likely would be the only player representing us at the euros, but NC rates him, and he cannot keep him because of the wage structure we now have in place.

This same structure stopped us bringing in eustace, and if green went, we would have no cover for right back, we would have to either bring in another right winger, or play someone who is already at the club but NC doesn't think is as good, so I still say IMO we cannot and will not replace green when he goes and the team will be worse off as the result of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

even if you only see Green as a squad player, we need at least two players to replace him - we have no proper cover at right-back and the other options on the right of midfield are Croft (crap) or Ben Davies (out of form)....people keep saying that Green's not very good, yet we look to be a better team when he's in the side - coincidence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The board and Clough have said that if an offer comes in they will look at it, however they would be happy if was here till end of the season. They are not looking at selling him but if someone came in with an offer where we could buy another player to cover RW then so be it. In respect of cover we have Naylor who can play RB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...