Hawkeye the Gnu Posted January 7, 2018 Report Share Posted January 7, 2018 (edited) Dont normally do 'exclusives' but......Info received from a member of his family that he has signed on loan and BB is funding half his wage. Let the good times role and thanks BB. Edited January 7, 2018 by Hawkeye the Gnu 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Posted January 7, 2018 Report Share Posted January 7, 2018 2 minutes ago, Hawkeye the Gnu said: Dont normally do 'exclusives' but......Info received from a member of his family that he has signed on loan and BB is funding half his wage. Let the good times role and thanks BB. Hope it’s true, but let’s hope we’re not getting him fit until those f**kers up the road sell their season tickets in the summer and come in for him! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrangodog Posted January 7, 2018 Report Share Posted January 7, 2018 BB - Brigitte Bardot ? Must be funding Naisy's dug. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killiecal Posted January 7, 2018 Report Share Posted January 7, 2018 Surprised it’s a loan, thought Norwich would just want him off the wage bill. But delighted if true. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C4mmy31 Posted January 7, 2018 Report Share Posted January 7, 2018 3 minutes ago, Wrangodog said: BB - Brigitte Bardot ? Must be funding Naisy's dug. ^^^SECRETLY SEETHIN^^^ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doonhamer Posted January 7, 2018 Report Share Posted January 7, 2018 8 minutes ago, Hawkeye the Gnu said: Dont normally do 'exclusives' but......Info received from a member of his family that he has signed on loan and BB is funding half his wage. Let the good times role and thanks BB. So BB is paying £20k plus per week until the end of the season for a player at a club where the average players wage is circa £50k a year. Personally I can’t see this happening. Purely from a business sense, it doesn’t stack up. As a supporter I don’t want my club going down this route. It will all end in tears. The only way it stacks up is if there is an increase in gate receipts due to his signing which wouldn’t have been included in the financial year’s budget. Let’s wait and see what happens next week 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevM Posted January 7, 2018 Report Share Posted January 7, 2018 No, I’m sure BB will be paying half of what the agreed portion of his weekly wage that we have negotiated with Norwich to pay! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kilMARKnock Posted January 7, 2018 Report Share Posted January 7, 2018 6 minutes ago, Doonhamer said: So BB is paying £20k plus per week until the end of the season for a player at a club where the average players wage is circa £50k a year. Personally I can’t see this happening. Purely from a business sense, it doesn’t stack up. As a supporter I don’t want my club going down this route. It will all end in tears. The only way it stacks up is if there is an increase in gate receipts due to his signing which wouldn’t have been included in the financial year’s budget. Let’s wait and see what happens next week No I think you'll find BB will be paying half of our token percentage of his Norwich wage 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorielus Posted January 7, 2018 Report Share Posted January 7, 2018 5 minutes ago, Doonhamer said: So BB is paying £20k plus per week until the end of the season for a player at a club where the average players wage is circa £50k a year. Personally I can’t see this happening. Purely from a business sense, it doesn’t stack up. As a supporter I don’t want my club going down this route. It will all end in tears. The only way it stacks up is if there is an increase in gate receipts due to his signing which wouldn’t have been included in the financial year’s budget. Let’s wait and see what happens next week That's not how it would work at all. Naismith and Norwich would come to an agreement to terminate the contract early, say at 50% of the value of the remaining contract for the sake of argument. We would then sign him with whatever wage we can afford and that he'll agree to, which won't be £50k a week. No one knows what Naismith will accept, Norwich will accept or Kilmarnock will fund as yet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piffer Posted January 7, 2018 Report Share Posted January 7, 2018 If it’s a loan Norwich can ask us to pay a certain percentage of his wage. They may have asked us to pay £5k for example so the club may be able to pay £2.5k and B.B. match it, Eremenko was on something like £45k a week when he joined on loan but all we payed was£2k plus provided car and accommodation. His club were happy with that because it got him in the shop window and they made money in the summer window 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doonhamer Posted January 7, 2018 Report Share Posted January 7, 2018 1 minute ago, KevM said: No, I’m sure BB will be paying half of what the agreed portion of his weekly wage that we have negotiated with Norwich to pay! I don’t understand your statement. If SN is still under contract with Norwich, then surely it would be half of his contractual earnings which we would be expected to pay? Why would it be anything else? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevM Posted January 7, 2018 Report Share Posted January 7, 2018 (edited) Because in most loan cases the percentage of wages paid by the club getting the player is completely negotiable! You think Cowdenbeath pay guys they get on loan from hearts or hibs the same wage they get there? Most clubs are happy to reduce anything off wage bill, sometimes as little as 10%. Edited January 7, 2018 by KevM Piffer explains it better above! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trojan76 Posted January 7, 2018 Report Share Posted January 7, 2018 3 minutes ago, Doonhamer said: I don’t understand your statement. If SN is still under contract with Norwich, then surely it would be half of his contractual earnings which we would be expected to pay? Why would it be anything else? Quite often loan moves are mixed in who pays % of what, it can even be a token ammount of loanee club just paying £1, all part of the deal the clubs agree. If there is truth in this then would expect the club to annouce asap as it wouldbe a bit of a coup, and with social media, no reason to wait for papers, could announce it right away 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sp3ckyh0td0g81 Posted January 7, 2018 Report Share Posted January 7, 2018 And let's be honest what the agreement will be will all be speculation no one on here will know the facts before SSC took charge did anyone think we could afford to attract a manager of his calibre ? whatever the deal is happy days let's just sit back and wait for it to be officially announced then we can all go to work tomorrow and laugh at they Sevco numpties 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doonhamer Posted January 7, 2018 Report Share Posted January 7, 2018 2 minutes ago, KevM said: Because in most loan cases the percentage of wages paid by the club getting the player is completely negotiable! You think Cowdenbeath pay guys they get on loan from hearts or hibs the same wage they get there? Most clubs are happy to reduce anything off wage bill, sometimes as little as 10%. I understand that. The original post states half his wage. Therefore I’m referencing that, which is his contractual wage, not what KFC maybe contributing to it and hoping we don’t go down that route. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle10g1 Posted January 7, 2018 Report Share Posted January 7, 2018 4 minutes ago, Doonhamer said: I don’t understand your statement. If SN is still under contract with Norwich, then surely it would be half of his contractual earnings which we would be expected to pay? Why would it be anything else? Because clubs who are sitting on expensive contracts for players who don’t feature in their long term plans cut their losses. These losses can, in some cases for players whose stock is low, be almost the same as paying the whole contract up. Clubs don’t want disgruntled players simply seeing their contract out as causes morale issues etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skygod Posted January 7, 2018 Report Share Posted January 7, 2018 22 minutes ago, Lorielus said: That's not how it would work at all. Naismith and Norwich would come to an agreement to terminate the contract early, say at 50% of the value of the remaining contract for the sake of argument. We would then sign him with whatever wage we can afford and that he'll agree to, which won't be £50k a week. No one knows what Naismith will accept, Norwich will accept or Kilmarnock will fund as yet. If his contract was terminated it wouldn't be a loan though, would it? He would be a free agent, and that doesn't seem to be what is happening. I think Norwich could probably get a higher wage contribution from an English club but Naismith may have made it clear that he will only go to a Scottish club so it's a case of "something or nothing" for City. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boabkfc19 Posted January 7, 2018 Report Share Posted January 7, 2018 Hope it's all true! Cmon stevie come and join the wave we all been on since ssc came in 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrelhumper Posted January 7, 2018 Report Share Posted January 7, 2018 32 minutes ago, Doonhamer said: I don’t understand your statement. If SN is still under contract with Norwich, then surely it would be half of his contractual earnings which we would be expected to pay? Why would it be anything else? As he's not getting a game. If they get say 5k a week back its better tban nothing. plus jt gets him fit 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkeye the Gnu Posted January 7, 2018 Report Share Posted January 7, 2018 24 minutes ago, Doonhamer said: I understand that. The original post states half his wage. Therefore I’m referencing that, which is his contractual wage, not what KFC maybe contributing to it and hoping we don’t go down that route. The 'OP' meant half of the negotiated wage. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kfc_superteam Posted January 7, 2018 Report Share Posted January 7, 2018 (edited) Had a flick through the esteemed Rangers forum 'follow follow'. Got through the first two pages from a week ago but they are of the opinion, Naismith had offered to play for free for them but Murty had knocked it back, that Naismith himself had told someone he wouldn't be signing for us, also that he wouldn't sign due to plastic pitch. Who knows? https://www.followfollow.com/forum/threads/steven-naismith-set-to-sign-for-kilmarnock.14700/ Edited January 7, 2018 by kfc_superteam 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doonhamer Posted January 7, 2018 Report Share Posted January 7, 2018 12 minutes ago, Hawkeye the Gnu said: The 'OP' meant half of the negotiated wage. Likewise, my OP is based on contractual wage. its all “he said, she said, if, buts and maybes” at the moment. Let’s see if he signs, which is the main thing. The clever people will take care of the finances I’m sure. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullitt Posted January 7, 2018 Report Share Posted January 7, 2018 It makes more sense for Norwich to release him if he can find a club than have him on loan. Even if we are paying 5k a week, Norwich still have to pay 45k... so if we signed him permanently for free, Norwich actually would save themselves about 1m over the rest of his contract. A loan just doesn't make any sense to me at all 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doonhamer Posted January 7, 2018 Report Share Posted January 7, 2018 1 minute ago, Bullitt said: It makes more sense for Norwich to release him if he can find a club than have him on loan. Even if we are paying 5k a week, Norwich still have to pay 45k... so if we signed him permanently for free, Norwich actually would save themselves about 1m over the rest of his contract. A loan just doesn't make any sense to me at all Agree 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bute-killiefan Posted January 7, 2018 Report Share Posted January 7, 2018 7 minutes ago, Bullitt said: It makes more sense for Norwich to release him if he can find a club than have him on loan. Even if we are paying 5k a week, Norwich still have to pay 45k... so if we signed him permanently for free, Norwich actually would save themselves about 1m over the rest of his contract. A loan just doesn't make any sense to me at all Puts him in the shop window for a potentially longer term solution in the summer? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.