Rhodes will be cheaper, OK so the fee would be 8m v 2m but the wages would be 20k different. that is 2m so theres4m difference. we will get nothing back for crouch so all we have to do is get 4m for Rhodes to make him cheaper than crouch. investing money versus throwing it down the drain.
My "PC" don't recall knockdowns, only Rasta pull downs and 30 yard volleyed missile goals. So Peter is the man for me as long as he's fueled up for us.
Your estimates of 7M over 2 years for Crouch (assuming 50K wages) compared to 11M (assuming 30K per week) for Rhodes over the same period less transfer fee received make it sound quite appealing.
Which is why you always go with young players, its fat cheaper in terms of wages and what youll get back when they leave, the only thing is the big fee but its cheaper in the end.
Hughes says Crouch is not for sale... http://www.teamtalk.com/queens-park...ouch-will-stay-at-Stoke-amid-QPR-speculation?
