Salaries - The Way Forward?

[kenada_blue]

I'd wanna have him signed but.... Gibson will be back.

Then again he's a bit of a sick note and we do need bodies in the middle.

 

[BoysInBlue]

He won't get three years at any other club in our position, no chance we should be giving it to him. Two years is plenty and if he's good enough give him another.

I think you're underestimating other clubs and the money they have.

 

[Brennan]

I think you're underestimating other clubs and the money they have.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Barry left City to play, he won't get regular first team game time for a better team than us. We've no need to commit to a three year deal.

 

[Deleted member 28206]

Having read in the Sunday papers that we are about to offer Gareth Barry a three year contract for a 33 year old of 8 million which equates to 51k a week I was wondering what other readers think on this subject, given that we are potentially offering Tony Hibbert a contract extension.

For me both are a no no, Hibbert as we have enough cover in defense and Barry because we should by next season have a regular in Barkley and start introducing youth.

51k over three years is a big commitment to any clubs wage bill and one that although has had a reasonable season so far does not warrant such high wages at this stage of his career.

Minus 50% in income tax.

Give he is a free agent, this is a bargain deal, he can play for at least 2 years I reckon.

 

[sw blue]

But the like of Spurs and Arsenal could offer him higher wages. But they would probably only offer him a two year contract. We're offering him stability and a guaranteed 3 years still in the top flight. The length is our UPS to choose us over the others. Seeing as he was on 100k plus at City, if he took this it's a pretty good deal in my eyes.

 

[Brennan]

But the like of Spurs and Arsenal could offer him higher wages. But they would probably only offer him a two year contract. We're offering him stability and a guaranteed 3 years still in the top flight. The length is our UPS to choose us over the others. Seeing as he was on 100k plus at City, if he took this it's a pretty good deal in my eyes.

Our UPS is that he'll start a decent amount of games for us. He wouldn't at Spurs or Arsenal. If he wanted money he could have probably stayed at City, he left for first team action.

This is an example of why fans shouldn't run football clubs tbh, i'd be fuming if we gave a 33 year old a 3 year deal.

 

[Garrick]

I'm not sure what you mean.

Barry left City to play, he won't get regular first team game time for a better team than us. We've no need to commit to a three year deal.

To get playing time to bid for a World Cup roster spot.

I can't speak for the man, but perhaps regular playing time won't be as important to him next season, unless he thinks he can keep his career alive until Euro 2016.

 

[Brennan]

To get playing time to bid for a World Cup roster spot.

I can't speak for the man, but perhaps regular playing time won't be as important to him next season, unless he thinks he can keep his career alive until Euro 2016.

I think he just wanted to play games personally, he won't be going to the World Cup. Players aren't generally happy being on the bench no matter how much money they get.

 

[Garrick]

I think he just wanted to play games personally, he won't be going to the World Cup. Players aren't generally happy being on the bench no matter how much money they get.

John Heitinga. Apostolos Vellios.

But no, I'd agree. Most players want regular playing time. Barry strikes me as one of those kind of guys.

 

[BoysInBlue]

Maybe he doesn't want to play 30 games a season.

The point I was making is that if we don't give him a 3 year deal, Spurs or Arsenal might.

By the way, there is a previous example - we gave Phil Neville a 3 year contract at the age of 33 in 2010. So it is hardly beyond the realms of possibility.

With some footballers, age doesn't matter. You just know they're going to play until their mid-to-late 30s, and Barry is probably one of them. I really don't see the big issue. Give him 2 years if there's no-one else interested, but if there is, let's not be mingebags and just get the deal done quickly without it dragging on and risk the chance of us being gazumped.

 

[Jags..class]

Deffo would keep him, he always fit unlike Gibson. He still got a few years left in him. 55K might be a lot but not in football these days. Top players are now getting 250k a week.

 

[raib]

Quality player and has helped us change our season - 3 years is right.

 

[ToffeeDan]

So, 3 year deal rather than 2?..as opposed to a similar wage and a transfer fee for a comparable player. He might want to retire, move into coaching/management or we could easily agree a deal with (say) a Championship club like Newcastle or Villa (ha ha) to pay (half of) it up. For what he offers us it's a no-brainer - got to sign him.

 

[Howards tipple]

Also worth bearing in mind that there would be zero transfer fee.

It's the way the headline has been written which makes it sound shocking. Ultimately, he's free, and for some one of his quality we would expect to be paying those wages.

 

[DanB90]

Don't know why people think 3 years is too long for a player of his quality. IMO he's one of the best in the league at the job he does, not like pace has ever been a massive part of his game, his intelligence and awareness more than make up for that. Personally I think 50k a week is a steal for him. We were paying Heitinga the same amount to sit on the bench. If his legs do suddenly go after 2 years, move him on for a nominal fee, I'm sure some foreign money bags or QPR like team would be willing to pay him 50k for his services.