Not suggesting that whatsoever. There is no realistic possibility that he will be left in the reserves though, because it is not at all in the club's interest to do that. So given there is little prospect of damaging his career by spending the next two years on loan, why should he take a pay cut? The only answer I can see is "because he could live on less", and from his perspective that doesn't really cut it.
Am I wrong in thinking that billy had the chance of actually going to other clubs on a permanent footing but it broke down because of wage demands of the player? Or did I dream that.........I still cannot fathom other than as I have suggested, why he can't get another Championship club to hire him but for his wage demands?
If that is the case I haven't heard it. I think it's more that teams are put off bidding by the wages he is on currently, logically presuming he won't want to take a cut. Those same teams might be interested in loaning him of course...
Cheers for putting me right on that..........Sadly though, then it would seem they want to do it on the cheap which of course they are obviously not going to be able to do then........
Believe that we've also been seeking a not-insubstantial transfer fee from teams looking to sign him permanently. We have every right to do so, but it makes it an even harder sell.
Well, even if they agree to pay 100% of his wages, which I think is likely, they won't have to pay a transfer fee of course, so while not quite "on the cheap" they will still be saving some money (albeit they won't own the player). Did they make a bid?
Thanks I didn't know that. Bet they are in for him on loan then, particularly after their indifferent start.
Billy is a really nice guy, no doubt about that. He was instrumental in getting us across the line and into the premier league. I honestly don't think we would have done it without him. Now he has choice to make. 1 fight for his place here (acknowledging that mauricio has said he is not part of us plans this is a puncheon-esque task. 2 take wage cut and play football 3 train with the kids and keep a really good salary The choices reflect the three types of footballers around at the minute - the driven, the realistic and the plain greedy. I would go for option 2 personally because a 50% cut in wages is still more 10 times more than most of us take home.
You forgot option 4 (the most likely one) - play out the remainder of his contract on loan, and move to a lesser deal at another club when his contract with us expires.
Fair enough....but it seems a long time to wait for a permanent club. I thought someone had been in for him.......Clubs cannot be enamoured with him was surprised he didn't go to Forest after last seasons loan......He surely cannot wait the time out without regular games it would practically finish his career for playing higher than league 1 or even two.
I think after O'Driscoll went Billy Davies didn't fancy him for some reason. He certainly didn't get as much game time after that. I guess the ideal situation for him is that after this season on loan he will have impressed whoever takes him enough that he will be bought permanently and paid close to what we are paying him. Failing that though, it seems more loans might be considered the best, or perhaps least worst, option.
Apparently he's on £12k a week which is why no one will sign him and he's reluctant to take a wage cut
12k was probably the original contract when he signed before bonuses and before a rise on promotion. 20k+ bonuses is the current 'after promotion' rise.
