I see you relied on
@Goat for the £100k.
Perhaps not the most logical or reliable 'source' of information.
Nevertheless, on a 3 year deal it would mean £15.6mil for an experienced player coming into their prime. Only 2-.2.5 years ago you'd have been hard pushed to do a deal under £50mil for him with that salary on top.
My point is, say it is $100k. I mean for that type of player it isn't out of the question that it would take that for us to sign him.
We are just closing out a few contracts at that level that have been absolutely dire for us. Our wages level even after the exits seemingly will still be huge. I understand the savings on the purchase price but ultimately, we need to fill out the team to a certain level plus get a hold of the wages that is my concern, the wages that are dropping off likely just get us to a workable level. Even if we take that gamble, we need game in game out performance.
Obviously, the discussion changes if the weekly wage is less, of course it is again we are going to need to be extremely careful handing out large contracts, so we don't repeat the mistakes of the past. We can't be 100% clear without knowing our exact position and then that within whatever regulatory framework we need to fit under.
It is a good target; however, we can barely pay the bills as it stands regardless of then trying to correct our current state without more deductions.
Unfortunately, I think realistically we may need to be even more frugal than previous windows and that may mean not being able to take advantage of free transfers like this.
Again, without being 100% clear of the actual wages level, I mean we thought the shedding of the players we had already would have got us right this year but it doesn't seem to be the case.
I can see a few loans and maybe signing some younger types.
