Interesting article in the Telegraph: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/...or-failing-to-pay-darren-bent-what-he-wanted/ Should Bent have been given the extra money?
No. If he had had another 24-goal season, yes. But one good season does not warrant a massive pay rise. We could have given him £100k and he could have been ****e. Who knows. He keeps being a 20-goal striker, it will look like a bad decision, but SAFC didn't have the benefit of foresight at the time.
Very difficult one this. I can see both sides of the argument. Bent probably was worth more than he was getting due to his goals. I can understand however the clubs reluctance given that Bent was under a fairly new contract and the undeniable unrest it would cause in the dressing room.
Good article, and I reckon we should have paid. As for Bendtner, my ITK tells me that Bendtner has said he is here for 1 season only and is in the shop window for CL Football next season. This is straight from the horses mouth. Bart
The problem was at the time Bent was 3rd choice because Welbeck and Gyan looked like a better partnership. Bruce and SNQ were not to know what was going to happen in the future. Also it was plain for all to see that Bent and Gyan did not get on, they certainly could not seem to form a partnership. Looking back now we would have been better off selling Gyan and making a massive bid for Welbeck, but highnsight is a wonderful thing.
Fingers crossed Bendtner gets the move as it will be more than likely such a move will only come on the back of a very good year for us!! 12-15 goals and he can go where he likes for me!!
A pay rise of something but a productivity bonus alongside. Why couldn't anyone think of that? Ridiculous. x
Because if you do it for Bent why not the rest of the team? He can't score many goals without a good cross or corner to get on the end of. It's either incredibly expensive or you say no. After all, he did sign his contract.
He got his head turned. I "think" we have performance contracts in place anyway - the higher we are, the more the bonus. What's wrong with weighting it towards those who score the goals, or (I agree) whom make them? OR who keeps the clean sheets? Not difficult. x
This whole line of thought is a red herring. Its not that Bent left. Thats not the issue. We are only debating it because he was allowed to leave and 9 months later, we still havent replaced him. Players come and go and DB wanted out then fine, sell him and move on. By Bruce and Quinn's own words, they knew back in the Summer of 2010 that he wanted away but had somehow managed to get him to stay. Knowing that (and we didn't at the time of course) surely they should have been making plans for getting him out and a replacement in. They had from August when Bent apparently was looking to go to Turkey, until January when he left but they either didn't bother looking, or else Short withheld the funds from his sale. Either way, Bruce is left looking the Pratt and holding the baby somewhat. Again, this summer, Gyan was either looking for a move or the club were looking to move him on (depending on who you believe) and preparations should have been made to recruit TWO forwards not one. In the end, we scrambled about and got in Bendtner and then Gyan ****ed off a week later. No-one will convince me that the club were not told prior to deadline day and thats why there was an almighty panic to get someone - anyone in before the transfer window closed. Poor preparation? An untrusted manager? Just unlucky? You choose but which ever way you do look at it, the whole Jones, Bent & now Gyan thing looks pretty shabby. To lose one striker is unlucky. To lose 2 inside 6 months disastrous. To lose 3 inside a year is totally bloody ridiculous.
People are people. Gyan may have been happy right until Thursday when they said $200,000 per week. It would certainly make me get the brochures out. Bent? Well, as I've said many times, we should have been able to keep him with a lucrative contract of goals per season, or assists, or results. I have no real answer for Jones - except he wanted more and lost the faith. x
In footballing terms, Bent was worth twice that money. But when wages take 80% of your turnover already, you've just got to think about it. I'd have loved him to stay. I'd love to say definitely, I wish we'd paid him. But all I can say is I wish we'd been in a position to pay him properly. I'm not so sure we are.
Should have paid imo. Wages aren't 100% about the money itself. They're also about making the player feel wanted and feel like he's being fairly payed (i.e. not underpaid) for what he's bringing to the team. £40k is absolute peanuts for a striker who banged in 24 goals that season, and if he was refused an arguably modest payrise by footballing standards (most strikers who can get anywhere near 20 a season are on £120-200k a week) for his performances, then he would have became aggrovated extremely quickly. At the same time though, sometimes you have to stick to your guns with things like that. Giving one player a pay rise out of the blue can cause team unrest and so on. Tricky one, really. As someone has already said though, with the way he was playing, he was worth twice the 60k a week.
should've paid good teams dont lose their best players, tevez wanted out got more money, rooney wanted out got more money, looks like good business from them
we should of payed Benty He is hated so much because of how good he was for us and we miss the bloke upfront everything had to go through him and I thought we could go on to be better and be more of a team with goals from all over the park but we aint able to attract players like that yet who will get 10+ goals from midfield. Or is it just Brucie's tactics?
Shouldn't have paid same as Gyan greed ****s have agreed to one thing signed a contract to that effect then decide that actually I want more. In Bent's case a bit of ****ing loyalty to the club that rescued his career wouldn't have been a miss, why not say when negotiating a contract at the onset if I improve as a player I want more money have trigger points not suddenly decide I'm a better player now because of how you've played me, I want more.
In the clarts in that respect, I think. We don't have a strict wage structure here from choice. At 80% of turnover, it's pretty much a choice between structure or Portsmouth. That's why the efforts to improve our global marketing are essential. The only big players who will come here are those with problems where they are - Bent at Spurs, Sess at PSG, Bendtner at Arsenal, etc. We give them a chance, they respond and they're back in international reckoning. Then they train alongside Terry, Rooney, Muntari &co. In their more sensible moments they might realise that SAFC can't compete with Chelsea, Man. U. or Inter and accept a lower wage. But then they talk to Downing and Young and it suddenly sinks in 'Christ, I've just scored 24 goals, Capello has said I'm part of England's future - and I'm the pauper round here!' It's bound to turn their heads a bit. A few of that calibre will come here but they'll always move on soon, especially strikers because Bruce is dedicated to one up front with no threat from elsewhere. It's horse-work for them, miserable horse-work Hey Chappaz - that's one of the most sensible posts I've read this morning. Thanks.
