100k a week for Austin?! Are you crazy? He's done very well for us, but don't let an excellent 6 months (could just be good form) get to your head. Keep your feet on the ground here. No player we currently own is worth anywhere close to 100k a week.
In the context of what faces us if we lose him on the cheap £100k a week for the rest of this season is peanuts in relation to our losses if we go down, which we will if he goes in January...
Crossed wires here Soops. I was going on the assumption that he won't be going anywhere in January and Bill probably is too. Forget January because we don't have to sell him no matter how much is offered. In the Summer though we'll probably have to move him on. His current value according to The Sun is 8 million. Taking everything into consideration I'd put his current value at around 16 to 17 million. Selling him at that price will give us a 300% profit (I think). Very good business.
Value is related to the remaining time on a contract, no-one will pay £16-17 million going into his last year. Someone with one year left is worth a quarter of the value of a four year contract. That's why we should get him signed up for four years and £30 million would be a fair price for a 25 year old...
Try and sign him up definitely but we can't be offering him anywhere near 100k. 60 should be our limit. If he doesn't want to play ball then we should cash in. He's worth nowhere near 30 million right now but we could get in the late teens for him which would be a very good return on our investment.
I agree with you Swords Hoopster. We cannot avoid a January punctuated by endless speculation; but for our hopes of survival we need to retain Jane's great grandson. Amazing to think we were hopeful of Loic Remy staying until January; a case of one door closing and another opening?!
I never understand why anyone thinks any of the football salary numbers circulating in the public domain are at all likely to be accurate. Surely it goes like this: agents make up numbers and share them with journalists in order to inflate the value of their clients.
Give him 3 years on a decent wage and if he leaves after 2 for a good price and a better team its a case of "Thank you very nuch Chaz. Sad to see you go but thank you for everything and we wish you the best in your European adventure". Id not be happy abpout that but could certainly accept and appreciate it. Lets be honest the bloke is already a cult hero and whilst i'l refrain from legend, he is everything but... Really hope he stays with us for the long term, and if we can get some decent players to play alongside him, we may have half a chance. Cant stand in the way of ambition though
Exactly..... Agent calls paper contact 'off the record Charlie has turned down 64k'. Paper - anon source confirms Charlie turned down 64k. Sucker manager / owner -'crikey if he won't accept that best we go in at a higher price' Winner is agent with enhanced fees and cut of new contract plus player and there was never even an offer! I recommend a read of Craig Bellamys autobiography if you want any clue as to how football business is done! Edit! Just seen TIME post, hadn't got that far but agree obviously!
A new improved contract is a win-win for everyone. We tie him down for longer period (which means if he does go we get a larger fee to reinvest in a new player/players), while Charlie has improved wages and is worth more in the marketplace (ie new club will need to improve his wages and he will get more from larger transfer fee as mentioned earlier).
