The wages ARE important though. If we had Johnson in our squad, performing at the level he currently is doing but being paid say 20k a week, brilliant! Low (relative) wage for a fairly average performer with experience. Great squad player and affordable meaning we could spend more in other areas. I'd keep him and he could challenge Flanno for a start, or sit on the bench as an option. Consider Johnson at his current performance level on 120k a week and you know what, it's a very different issue. He can't sit on the bench, no matter how **** he plays because it's wasted money which FSG hate (exactly why Reina was shipped out on loan when he wasn't sold to Barca). When he plays, he's half arsed and on poor form for the last 18 months too. He's on the old contract too, prior to FSG coming in, so he's on a huge basic wage and very little performance based pay - why should be give a **** when he gets paid a fortune regardless? His paycheck doesn't even encourage him to perform. We might not be privvy to all of the club finances and we may not be directly involved in paying the players' wages, but when we want to see us sign top quality new players to push the club on yet are hamstrung by wage leeches like Glen, we should be able to discuss it. If you want to completely ignore finances, go and watch what City or Chelsea have been doing and will continue to do where you can simply decide between want or don't want and money isn't a factor in the decision making process. For all other clubs, money matters. Wages matter.
That's a very good point. Let's get rid of him, bag £5m, save use £110k a week on 2 new full backs.
no grey area from me, i think he should go, as i want to see Wisdom,Flanno,Llori etc given chances and Mclaughlin the next to try and force his way in. he wont take a pay cut and be just a squad player, so no brainer, sell him. he is a good player but his wages don't justify what he is on, and be better used elsewhere in the team.
The wage bill as a whole does matter. But as I've said, it's a bit petty IMHO for a poster to make singular wages of a certain contract their chief point. If we are maniacal about assigning wages in proportion to player contribution - then, we would have only 1-year contracts, tear our hair out when somebody's injured for 6 months, heckle the unused subs for getting paid by warming chairs, etc. Saving 30k a week on Johnson's contract is offset by saving 1.5m on that year's transfer budget. Now, I don't see many posters throwing their arms in the air "Let's get Shaqiri for 18m!" "Whaat, 19.5m?" "F*ck him!"
Wages alone is not the issue. Suarez and Gerrard are on mega wages but they deserve it. Johnson and Reina don't deserve it which is why it's becoming a problem. Their performances are/were poor, regardless of what they're earning. And I think the paycut is a red herring. It's just an excuse not to offer Johnson a reasonable contract which he could accept. And savings wages isn't about being able to afford the transfer fees. I assume there is a separate budget. But getting rid of £110k a week on a single player who has hardly contributed for 1 year, would allow us to get 3 players who are on roughly £30-40k (or 2 players for £50-60k). Put it into context - Coutinho is on around £30-40k and Sturridge is on around £60-70k.
Johnson's the case study right now, but there are others on disproportionally high wages too. Reina will leave this summer because he can't get paid that much to sit on our bench next season, Skrtel and Agger are both earning 70k+ each but make regular slip ups and as of next season, they won't be guaranteed to start as a pair. Same reason why Cole and Downing were forced out not too long ago - huge wages, minimal impact on the team and too expensive to remain squad options. In normal clubs, it happens alot. When two or three such players are sold, you can make huge inroads to improving finances. It's not all about Glenda, but he's one of the ones who'll get the boot this season because of it and since we see him playing regardless of form, he's obviously at the forefront of opinion.
Doing painstaking armchair arithmetics with our budget makes one lose the forest for the trees, imo. If Brendan wants to sign him, he will. (Might get those wages lower by no more than 30k imo.) If Brendan signs him, it will be because he wants GJ to be/compete in the first team. It will be probably because he hasn't located any RB option that is better than him.
So your saying rodgers hasnt looked? If he looked he would find many many superior RB's to Glen Johnson. Better RB's play on Sunday mornings ffs.
Can't remember when I read it but a reporter from the Echo mentioned that GJ would be expected to take a paycut of around 50%.
Shall we start? Are you ready, buddy? Cleverly, Carrick, Fellaini, Rio, Vidic, Evans, Jones, Kagawa, Chicarito, Welbeck, Giggs, Mata, Rafael, Valencia, Ashley f**king Young... Want more? Nani. Want more? Fletcher. The poor old sod has been seen less on the OT pitch in the last 3 years than the ghost of your favorite ladyboy. Overpaid, the lot of them. Include Rooney there too.
Proportionally, I have to say I agree that 110k on GJ is ridiculous when you consider that there are far better players on less money. But again, I would say that fans arguing over what players get paid is neither fun or relevant. Is this why you guys watch football? I wouldnt have a clue what most Chelsea players are on, nor would I care, unless it got to the stage where the club was going in to administration or something. I watch football for the football. If I wanted to manage finances I would have done a degree in accounting.
I'd list their list of recent acheivements but I would feel harsh. I will though point out that our players are paid for achieving success, not because they might do in the future. Thats how things work, you get rewarded for success. Now our players will face a 25% reduction in wages because.... they have succeeded and have missed targets. All the while you pay £110k to Glen Johnson ( nothing ) £200k Suarez ( nothing ) and whatever you pay the rest. The only player worth his wage in your entire squad is Gerrard.
Were not watching football. Were also fans of clubs who are run under normal conditions and in a world where football clubs fold every week its probably a good idea that the clubs are run properly. You wouldnt understand being a Chelsea fan, its decades since your club was run properly to be fair.
Luis has only recently got his 200k wages and i would say it was justified, so bit early judging him surely lol GJ cant argue with never thought he justified his wages.
It's you who lacks understanding, I don't like you because of your arrogant attitude and the way that you respond (or have responded) to myself and to other people therefore I can be quite insulting, I know this and freely admit it. Others also respond to you with insults for the same reason I wont pull them up on it because it is your own fault. So no hypocrisy at all just honesty.
Your club would have done if it wasn't for Roman's bankrolling and wiping the debt year on year! And our club nearly did go into administration not so long ago, huge wage bills were part of that problem. You could (and probably will do) go out and buy a top drawer striker this summer and fork out 200k+ a week for him - think Cavani, Falcao or Costa - regardless of sales because Roman's got it covered. Torres on his 150k or whatever it is a week can stay on the bench, no worries again. Eto'o too, for that matter. For you, it makes no difference how much you pay or what they earn. It's always covered. We couldn't possibly buy a player and pay him that much a week (never mind the transfer fee) even if we got into the CL. To do so would mean we'd have to sell two of our high earners first just to cover the wages. We certainly couldn't play them off the bench either! Who would we sell for that to be worth the move, could we afford it, what happens if we then drop out the CL the following year? All big questions. You cannot compare supporting Chelsea to supporting Liverpool through how we look at players and what they get paid. Our finances are vastly different. Yours allow you not to care. Ours dictate that we do.
Different strokes I guess. I enjoy watching football and talking about football. It just never struck me that people were drawn to football due to interests in financial matters, but I supposed thats a big part of football nowadays, the way the media ****s a kidney everytime Rooney signs a new contract at United. I wonder if, back in the 60's and 70's, footie fans sat in the pub arguing over which club was more financially sound, and who had gotten a better return for their net spend Just hard to imagine.
Ask fans of clubs like Accy Stanley, Leeds, Portsmouth, Southampton, Rangers, Valencia and many more. They'll tell you the importance of finances in football. For some there is little else to discuss.
