But we're not saying we won't pay his wages. He's still getting paid by us at a VERY handsome 20k p/w. if HE wants to play football rather than sitting about, then he should take some initiative here. If clubs are being put off permanent deals because of his wage demands, that's entirely down to him/his agent.
Going right back to the beginning...I still don't see why Billy wasn't given a chance. The deal with Forest was set up and he got the bum's rush. I know we had to take out a loan when we went up to the PL...was our money that tight that savings had to be made.
I do get what you're saying Puck, and to some degree agree with you, but I just don't understand why the onus sits with the club to provide all the initiative here. Yes, long term we might be better off putting him in the shop window with 75% paid. But you know what, long term HE might be better off taking a slight drop and playing full time at a good championship club.
If the loan window closes and we've not accepted 75%, we'll have that discussion then. For now, it makes sense to be rejecting it.
I don't mean now, but when we initially went up. We had PL costs on Championship wages, hence securing a loan against our Sky money.
I think circumstances go against Sharp, even though I'm sure he is confident in his own ability. He has been at one or two clubs where he didn't light any fires, even though he's been good at others. That's possibly not his fault, he probably just didn't fit. The thing is to find a club who do fit him. The fit isn't right with Saints anymore. What are we supposed to do, play him, when it is quite obvious he doesn't have the complete game for the PL..? If he wants to play in the PL, then let him go to a Hull or Stoke, if they would have him. Thing is, they probably wouldn't want him either. He has to face it. He may have got his share of goals in the Championship to get Saints promoted but, like Deano, Chappers and Lee, he isn't quite up to playing at the higher level. Take a pay cut and get on with your career, Billy.
The loan was for the new training/ academy site so I was told. Others have said it was to buy Ramirez in one lump sum .We decided to get a 0% interest loan to cover it. Nothing suggests our finances were bad.
I accept the point he may still go out on loan at some point. Having said that... The thing is, there's a question mark over what's best for Sharp. In terms of his career it would probably be better for him to take a pay cut and go, but in terms of his life (and his family's) it might well be better for him to stay and get paid the wages that he has earned because he's around the wage level where he may or may not be set up for life when he finishes. From the club's point of view there is no question mark. When you have a player who you don't want on your books then you want their wages off your books. Ideally you get someone to sign them permanently or pay 100% of his wages but in this case that's highly unlikely to happen because we agreed to pay him over the odds. It's obviously better to top up his wages because it makes more financial sense to pay him £5k a week (or even £10k a week) to play for a Championship club than it does to pay him £20k a week to do nothing. Having said that, I see a Saudi prince has bought half of Sheffield United. Maybe they'll take him?
You are talking about a diference between 1m and 0.75m a year wages; I think he'll be fairly set for life either way. He doesn't have a contract forever here and if his form and fitness dips he won't get a big contract next time anywhere if he just sits it out, so if it is about the money, he's better taking the cut and playing for his next big contract.
Taking out a loan doesn't mean you are in a bad way financially (though Pompey fans liked to think it was)....sometimes it's just part of financial planning. I assume it was just to ease a cashflow problem. Individuals do that as well, but I'd have liked 0%.
Then again, just as we question why we should pay him more than we have to, why should he accept a pay cut when he doesn't have to? If he gets loans until his contract runs out, he's maximised his income and he's still been playing regularly. He may get a lesser contract at the end of it, but that's better than taking a lesser one now.
Well seeing as a few teams have already backed of due to his wages. You would have thought he wanted to play he would at least think of reducing his wage demands.
Saints have an obligation to their employee under the terms of the contract everyone signed in good faith. As far as I'm aware, Billy has done everything Saints have asked of him, despite his employer telling him (and the general public) that he's no longer wanted. I'm pretty sure if I was in Billy's position, I wouldn't feel obliged to bend over backwards just to make the deal right for Southampton FC a club that wants shot of him.
But Billy wants to leave, he has to compromise. Surely, he must understand that Saints have the right to demand that his wages are paid in full.
That's my point, he will play either way. If it comes to the last few hours of the loan window and no-one has offered 100% then we will accept less. There is plenty of interest in him and I can't see him staying here. He doesn't have to reduce his demands, whether he accepts a loan or not, he will get the same salary from us for the remainder of his contract.
I would rather play and be on say £10-£15k then sit on my arse and get £20k. It's not about bending over backwards it's about whether you have the hunger to play.
