1m from Caulker fee- less a bit to find some logic in the release 30k as a generous guess on his relegation release clause wage. Again less 15k of fat to factor in a saving to try and find a shred of logic. Gives you 15k a week On your marks, get set,... give some names
Are you sure your first name isn't Brain? He was LOANED for 1.2 million and his wages were 40,000 + You ask for facts but all you give are guesses, estimates and crap.
Yes but I knocked 200k off for some sense in us being so keen to receive that fee but fine. Let's boost your budget to 1.2m if it makes you happy. 40k wage was last year. Been established from TF back in May that other than the legacy players from before previous chamionship season have relegation clause's so a low 20%ish reduction to his wage there. Still waiting for those name's
Ahh, taking the swords route I see. Can't answer the question proves flaws in your argument. So go off topic and get silly instead. Is a common and easy tactic, can even understand you don't want to admit you are wrong because of my style in posing the questions to you. I'm not bothered about you though. Many of the nameless silent majority reading this will however see my point and they won't be able to come up with those alternatives either. So i'm alright with that.
In all honesty Damage has a point here. Letting two of your centre backs go (I include Dunne in this) without getting sufficient cover in first is ridiculous. Indefensible really. We've been here the last few seasons and it's not ended up well. Presuming we'd get players in, failing and then having a completely imbalanced squad at the start of the season. Caulker should be made to stay at Rangers until a replacement is found. Simple as that. It seems to me to be a wages issue and not a footballing one and thats a worry. His form last year was a blip in an otherwise decent career and he should be more than capable of handling the Championship - although now that's not going to happen. But don't worry we've got plenty of CBs up our sleeve...except oh dear... we haven't. Please prove me wrong Les & co.
There is no option to buy included in the Caulker deal, it is what it is a straight loan costing Southampton £1.5 million plus his wages for the year. That is actually good business assuming, if he has as I think Mr Damage has alluded to a great season, his stock then rises again and if they want a permanent deal we can rightly ask for more than the £8 mil we paid for him. Or if not we hopefully get an improved player back at the end.
Which centre backs l are better and going for 1m and on 15k a week? Also factor in Perch ain't a specialist centre back. And at his age we ain't going to get back what we paid for him. Froome- as for your stock rising point- Adel went elsewhere to a bigger team and peformed well but instead of his price rising they used his new found affinity with the club to hammer us on price to an extent we wouldn't agree so eventually lost him for nothing. Shortening time on contract only weakens our position
Best would been to have sold him for the £8 million. But that was never going to be an easy task when potential buyers look at his last season. As we have gone this route I got to believe some replacement is lined up who will cost less and perform better.
Three CBs gone if you count Rio Ferdinand, who at least provided some semblance of cover. Four, if you include the young Scottish lad (Donaldson?) Other than that, I agree 100%, even the bit about Damage. You couldn't make it up, could you?
Perhaps they have in mind a loanee replacement at a lower fee and lower wages. Maybe a youngster at a Premier club (Spurs?) needing first-team experience.
Two pages of thread later you decide there aren't any centre backs available at a price that make's this deal sense