Heitinga hints at Everton exit

[SteKelly]

He isn't a bad player. I just don't think he is a prem player

 

[bainesontoast]

there is an arguement to be made we have managed a really talented player shockingly.... u dont play in a WC final for no rea\son

No, not really. But this will be the angle the media go with.

 

[Jayhow15]

In actual fact he was not that good in the last world cup. Stuck with the barsteward, damn. Come on Bill, just pay him off on the 30th January and get rid.

Bit fickle.

 

[Papa Shango]

In actual fact he was not that good in the last world cup. Stuck with the barsteward, damn. Come on Bill, just pay him off on the 30th January and get rid.

So you would pay off the rest of his contract and not have him as a back up player either?

 

[Toffeelover]

In a word - YES.

If he signed for the Hammers he would not be available then, would he?

 

[TheFinnFan]

Is he still here..ffs..get on with it johnny and stop exploiding our club and stop ruining your career, pretty please

 

[Themaster]

In a word - YES.

If he signed for the Hammers he would not be available then, would he?

Yes but you sem to be missing the point of getting him off the wage bill if you pay him all his wages.

 

[Toffeelover]

Yes we would pay him the wages owed but there would be no mre expense involved with him, just an idea tha's all.

 

[Moomin]

there is an arguement to be made we have managed a really talented player shockingly.... u dont play in a WC final for no rea\son

This, never been the same for us since the shenanigans of trying to sell him to Fenerbache in the summer of 2012.

Loyalty works both ways.

 

[lmurkder]

We want it sorted fairly quickly as we want him off the wage bill now.

I guess the club will be saying 'pick a team johnny' then 'goodbye'

then we can spend some money ourselves or know we can for sure.

 

[davek]

We want it sorted fairly quickly as we want him off the wage bill now.

I guess the club will be saying 'pick a team johnny' then 'goodbye'

then we can spend some money ourselves or know we can for sure.

Why do we need to wait for that to bring a player in?

 

[lmurkder]

Why do we need to wait for that to bring a player in?

Because that will be a good indication what budget is available to pay in wages to the replacement player.

You do know what a budget is don't you?

As in a 'wage budget' ?


If they bring someone in and then don't sell or get less than expected for Heitinga, that is what Peter Johnson's world looked like. Crippling loses.

'Wage budget' What wage budget?

 

[Alan Whittle]

GET HIM PULIS FFS!!!

 

[ijjysmith]

GET HIM PULIS FFS!!!

I thought you wanted to stay up mate!

 

[toffeestillidie]

Because that will be a good indication what budget is available to pay in wages to the replacement player.

You do know what a budget is don't you?

As in a 'wage budget' ?


If they bring someone in and then don't sell or get less than expected for Heitinga, that is what Peter Johnson's world looked like. Crippling loses.

'Wage budget' What wage budget?

By this logic, wouldn't it make more sense to keep him on the wage bill until we've signed a new player? If we get rid of him first, the new signing's agents will know that we have more money to spend in wages, whereas if there is uncertainty about him going, they can't use that as a bargaining chip