Summer Transfer Window

[KillieBus]

2 minutes ago, killie1961 said:

Obscene loved the club that much could have played for less than the 50% cut reported he had agreed to.

Not sure on that, some law in Spain makes taking more than a 50% wage cut illegal, apparently.

How that works with contracts that are negotiated every few years, I'm not sure, but this is what is being widely reported.

[killie1961]

11 minutes ago, KillieBus said:

Not sure on that, some law in Spain makes taking more than a 50% wage cut illegal, apparently.

How that works with contracts that are negotiated every few years, I'm not sure, but this is what is being widely reported.

If true should start doing on the obscence wages paid to the prima donnas in the English Premiership.

[Skora11]

24 minutes ago, killie1961 said:

Obscene loved the club that much could have played for less than the 50% cut reported he had agreed to.

Aye I think they had to pay at least 50% of previous salary so hence the 50% cut. In saying that though it wasn’t really the case as they were offering him a longer term deal but he would only play the 2 out of 4 years. So in effect no wage cut at all.

[Zorro]

51 minutes ago, killie1961 said:

Obscene loved the club that much could have played for less than the 50% cut reported he had agreed to.

Messi could have offered to play for €10 a week and Barca still couldn’t have afforded to keep him. That’s the reality of the financial position. The La Liga FFP rules requires the wage bill to be around 70% of their revenue. Even with Messi off the books their wage bill sits at 95%. 

[Nobody]

1 hour ago, Skora11 said:

Messi apparently on £675k a week at PSG

Everyone in the EPL will be on that by the next transfer window then. Don’t want to get ‘left behind’

[Zorro]

1 minute ago, KenVaagen1984 said:

Everyone in the EPL will be on that by the next transfer window then. Don’t want to get ‘left behind’

Barca’s wage bill is comparable with a mid-table EPL side. 

[Guff92]

3 minutes ago, Zorro said:

Barca’s wage bill is comparable with a mid-table EPL side. 

Interestingly PSG’s is only 3x of what Lille’s is, which is surprising as Lille are a selling club.

[Killiepies]

2 hours ago, Prahakillie said:

Fairly self explanatory I think.

Is it according to the BBC it’s less than £1/2 a million up front.Still not bad for someone who could sign a pre contract in January and has only scored 10 goals in 50 games in the SPL.

[Beaker71]

4 minutes ago, Killiepies said:

Is it according to the BBC it’s less than £1/2 a million up front.Still not bad for someone who could sign a pre contract in January and has only scored 10 goals in 50 games in the SPL.

Yet some on here were wanting us to spend loney we didnt have on hom before United did.

A fair few of us did say he had had his chance in the top league before and was founf wanting. He isnt good enoigh for the top league.

[killie1961]

2 hours ago, Zorro said:

Messi could have offered to play for €10 a week and Barca still couldn’t have afforded to keep him. That’s the reality of the financial position. The La Liga FFP rules requires the wage bill to be around 70% of their revenue. Even with Messi off the books their wage bill sits at 95%. 

Yip reports saying in spain you legally cant take more than a 50% cut in your wages.

[Beaker71]

1 hour ago, killie1961 said:

Yip reports saying in spain you legally cant take more than a 50% cut in your wages.

Strictly speaking he is out of contract and no longer employed, by Barca, so he may have been able to sign on much more than 50% of his previous terms.

The issue may have been the question of him being considered as continuing enployment.

Not an expert in much, and spanish employment law isnt one of them.

[Zorro]

57 minutes ago, killie1961 said:

Yip reports saying in spain you legally cant take more than a 50% cut in your wages.

Why should he have to anyway? He didn’t f**k up the finances. Arguably Barca would be in a much worse spot if he hadn’t been around. He brought in the sponsors, he brought in the kit deals, he brought in the crowds, he kept the tills ringing in the club shops, the tv companies were paying to broadcast him - why shouldn’t he be compensated for that? 

I’ll be honest, I’m not a fan of FFP (especially La Liga’s stealth wage cap) as it stands. Clubs should be protected from rouge owners running up unsustainable debts and then leaving others to pickup the pieces, but telling a rich owner he can’t spend his own money how he likes has to be wrong. So is the idea that a bean counter somewhere can decide you’ve been paid too much in sponsorship. And if its right that clubs can be overpaid in sponsorship, how can it also be right for tv companies to overpay for broadcasting rights and that be ok? How can anyone justify £8.75 million per game to televise EPL games v  £1.94 million per La Liga game. There’s no way to justify that vast discrepancy, but it does mean Barca and Real are restricted to wage bills in line with Everton and West Ham. Same level, really? Why aren’t UEFA telling Carlsberg et al that they’ve paid far too much money to be “partners” in sponsoring the champions league? Why is it only the “smaller” clubs who’re being paid too much? Who is being protected by preventing investment ?

Money or rather who is and isn’t allowed to use it is ruining football. At one end we bring a kid through our youth teams, they don’t even play one first team game and we’re forced to sell them because, because, because…. At the other end another club brings a kid through their system, he stays and works hard on his game, becomes the GOAT and brings in huge rewards and honours for his club and recognition for the league and then he’s not allowed to finish his career with the club he’s spent the majority of his life. There should have been a way to make it happen. He should have been given the dignity of being allowed to finish his career as a one club man.
 

I can’t make sense of this decision by La Liga. On a financial level - it’s not good for Barca or the league to lose their star player. And it doesn’t make sense to the romantic side of my brain which believes there are still players who care for their club and have a special connection with the fans. I want to believe we can bring through a kid that leads us to winning trophies and we get to keep them their whole career. It’s just wrong that Messi will be wearing a PSG strip this season and that if the European super league had happened he’d still be a Barca player. How is any of this good for football, the players, the fans or the league?

 

[Bbk]

15 hours ago, Zorro said:

Why should he have to anyway? He didn’t f**k up the finances. Arguably Barca would be in a much worse spot if he hadn’t been around. He brought in the sponsors, he brought in the kit deals, he brought in the crowds, he kept the tills ringing in the club shops, the tv companies were paying to broadcast him - why shouldn’t he be compensated for that? 

I’ll be honest, I’m not a fan of FFP (especially La Liga’s stealth wage cap) as it stands. Clubs should be protected from rouge owners running up unsustainable debts and then leaving others to pickup the pieces, but telling a rich owner he can’t spend his own money how he likes has to be wrong. So is the idea that a bean counter somewhere can decide you’ve been paid too much in sponsorship. And if its right that clubs can be overpaid in sponsorship, how can it also be right for tv companies to overpay for broadcasting rights and that be ok? How can anyone justify £8.75 million per game to televise EPL games v  £1.94 million per La Liga game. There’s no way to justify that vast discrepancy, but it does mean Barca and Real are restricted to wage bills in line with Everton and West Ham. Same level, really? Why aren’t UEFA telling Carlsberg et al that they’ve paid far too much money to be “partners” in sponsoring the champions league? Why is it only the “smaller” clubs who’re being paid too much? Who is being protected by preventing investment ?

Money or rather who is and isn’t allowed to use it is ruining football. At one end we bring a kid through our youth teams, they don’t even play one first team game and we’re forced to sell them because, because, because…. At the other end another club brings a kid through their system, he stays and works hard on his game, becomes the GOAT and brings in huge rewards and honours for his club and recognition for the league and then he’s not allowed to finish his career with the club he’s spent the majority of his life. There should have been a way to make it happen. He should have been given the dignity of being allowed to finish his career as a one club man.
 

I can’t make sense of this decision by La Liga. On a financial level - it’s not good for Barca or the league to lose their star player. And it doesn’t make sense to the romantic side of my brain which believes there are still players who care for their club and have a special connection with the fans. I want to believe we can bring through a kid that leads us to winning trophies and we get to keep them their whole career. It’s just wrong that Messi will be wearing a PSG strip this season and that if the European super league had happened he’d still be a Barca player. How is any of this good for football, the players, the fans or the league?

 

Totally agree with all you say the only consolation in all of this mess is that all of us who have been privileged to have seen him play will always associate him with the Barcelona 10 strip and not the PSG 30 one.

[killie1961]

24 minutes ago, Bbk said:

Totally agree with all you say the only consolation in all of this mess is that all of us who have been privileged to have seen him play will always associate him with the Barcelona 10 strip and not the PSG 30 one.

Hopefully if there is any justice any one but the 2 state owned football clubs wont win the champions league this season.

[Thebigguy68]

20 hours ago, Beaker71 said:

Yet some on here were wanting us to spend loney we didnt have on hom before United did.

A fair few of us did say he had had his chance in the top league before and was founf wanting. He isnt good enoigh for the top league.

I think signing shankland when Utd did would have made good sense. I’m not sure what you are seeing that doesn’t support that. If they get 1 million for him as reported, I think that’s a decent return on investment based on his suggested weekly salary? And despite him not hitting the heights expected, surely he would have done better than kabamba, Whitehall and Oakley?  I’d go as far to say we’d likely still be an spl club if we had signed shankland. When that is factored in we would have had a massive ROI if we had signed him. 

[Beaker71]

57 minutes ago, Thebigguy68 said:

I think signing shankland when Utd did would have made good sense. I’m not sure what you are seeing that doesn’t support that. If they get 1 million for him as reported, I think that’s a decent return on investment based on his suggested weekly salary? And despite him not hitting the heights expected, surely he would have done better than kabamba, Whitehall and Oakley?  I’d go as far to say we’d likely still be an spl club if we had signed shankland. When that is factored in we would have had a massive ROI if we had signed him. 

Massive ROi....  alledged 250k signing on fee

Another 300k in wages (3k a week for 2 yrs)

Anotger 20% say 200k in fee for sellijg within the contract.

That leaves 250k ish as profit for someone who you said would be worth near bankrupting ourselves for.

Thats not the kind of investement return to risk the clubs future over.

[Killiepies]

1 hour ago, Beaker71 said:

Massive ROi....  alledged 250k signing on fee

Another 300k in wages (3k a week for 2 yrs)

Anotger 20% say 200k in fee for sellijg within the contract.

That leaves 250k ish as profit for someone who you said would be worth near bankrupting ourselves for.

Thats not the kind of investement return to risk the clubs future over.

Shankland goals got them promoted without them there is a good chance they would still be on the championship.For that alone the gamble was worth it.We reputably payed 3k a week to a striker who left for nothing and didn’t keep us in the league.

[Thebigguy68]

1 hour ago, Beaker71 said:

Massive ROi....  alledged 250k signing on fee

Another 300k in wages (3k a week for 2 yrs)

Anotger 20% say 200k in fee for sellijg within the contract.

That leaves 250k ish as profit for someone who you said would be worth near bankrupting ourselves for.

Thats not the kind of investement return to risk the clubs future over.

Agree to disagree. Good business and player that would have likely stalled our sharp decline. The alternative of only signing mince strikers that do little on the park and have no sell on value has not exactly taken us in the right direction. My original post re. Shankland linked to selling brophy ( within 6 months of a Scotland cap) and replacing him with shankland. That would have been excellent business.

[Zorro]

As I said at the time, Nesbit/Nisbet at Raith had a better chance of making a mark in the premier. Anyone know what happened to that lad?

[Lorielus]

4 hours ago, Thebigguy68 said:

Agree to disagree. Good business and player that would have likely stalled our sharp decline. The alternative of only signing mince strikers that do little on the park and have no sell on value has not exactly taken us in the right direction. My original post re. Shankland linked to selling brophy ( within 6 months of a Scotland cap) and replacing him with shankland. That would have been excellent business.

Your point is definitely not without merit strategically, but we do have remember the greater context of the team he would have been playing in.  He'd have been playing under Dyer, meaning he'd have spend his games 30 yards away from the nearest support, with no overlapping fullbacks to cross or cut back to him, no one to lay off to, trying to fight off two defenders and a sitting midfielder by himself.  We'd have destroyed his confidence.

[Trumpetree]

Hastie loaned to Partick from the currants

[killie billies pal]

1 hour ago, Trumpetree said:

Hastie loaned to Partick from the currants

is that the lad who played for Motherwell? if so he was very useful and this is worrying that Thistle seem to be finding the net with ease so far.

[casual observer]

Not shown anything since signing for them and did nothing on loan at Motherwell last season. Should do well in this league though, but glad we haven’t spent money on another winger when it’s not a priority position for us at present. 

[Trumpetree]

Another agent, earning his 10%

 

[piffer]

See some starting to talk about Nisbet to Celtic in a cash plus Griffiths deal.