sorry to start a new thread on whats probably been answered elsewhere, just general laziness on my part really.. but do people think theres any truth in the allams offering the money for sharp, and barmby and pearson saying no because he would be too expensive? surely sharp isnt a 20/30 grand week player, and if he would have earnt 3-5 k more a week then fryatt ( or whoever it would upset) then thats fryatts agents problem for not engineering his deal better at the time?
I think it's very possible that the Allams kept hearing the name mentioned, if nothing else there's bound to be some City fans work at Allam Marine that asked them if we were signing him when they've been in the offices there. The next step for people who know nothing about football would be to ask the people who do what they think about him. And given what he's gone for and the reported wages (£25k/wk allegedly) I'd have said no as well. Throw in that he's not a lone striker and what we actually needed up front was a lone striker and it'd have been not much more than a popularity signing for us, certainly not worth the money for the marginal improvement we'd have had.
He's not on £25k a week. Lambert and Lallana aren't on that much and he would have been brought in on a much lower wage than them. He might be pushing that with a promotion clause in his contract but def not when we signed him
I've not got a concrete source for that, but I tend to work on the basis that unless you've only got 6 months left on your contract or you're a free transfer then your wages are going to be in someway relative to your transfer fee. I know if I was an agent and a club signed a player for £1M and then had a £2M bid accepted for one of my players I'd be looking for much higher wages. £25k for a £2M signing doesn't seem all that drastic, it'd mean over 3 years he'd cost just over £5M in total. Southampton were all but promoted by then so they probably gave him a £25k/wk contract with no pay rise on promotion in order to secure the signature, where we'd have had to say £15k tops now and you can go to £25k when we're promoted. And I'd not be happy with that for an unproven player at that level anyway.
Your 'concrete' hasn't set properly as i also have good solid insider information and he wouldn't have been signed on anywhere near that. He may have asked you/ us for it, but there again I asked for a Ferrari for Xmas!!
It would have a job setting since I said I didn't even have any, and having heard it was accepting it purely on the basis that it doesn't sound too unreasonable relative to the transfer fee if it were being done in lieu of a promotion pay rise.
lets say he was asking for 20k a week then... couldnt barmby say, thats very generous mr chairman, but sharp isnt the kind of guy we need ..i could use that 1.8m and 20k a week to add a couple of faces that i think we do need tho, and surely they would trust his judgement? i dont know, just trying to look at it from both sides, barmby cant claim broken promises if that sort of offer was made can he...
How about looking at it this way: Nick has the young squad believing in him, working for him, and determined to stay with him/Tigers. Bring in a 'star player' on silly money and you lose the allegiance of the bunch?
thats what i mean, but if they where offering money he could have used it to add players he wanted, surely the allams wouldnt say you can only have the money if you buy billy sharp, im just saying he cant claim in the press like he hinted the other week, that promises he was made need to be kept regarding funding, if he turned down offers like that from the allams in january...
I sort of agree with you, but I do think that the Allams will have wanted a 'performer', a known quantity, rather than a couple more young 'developers'. Hence: both parties could claim to be 'right'.
That's bollocks. All of the player interviews I have read seem to complain about us not strengthening. A temp player to bring them their promotion bonus would have been as welcome as a warm minge.
