Oviedo but

sunderpitt

Winger
Donald said multiple times we could afford to keep if he's contributing.

Not bleeding us dry at all. Just means the owners may have to put their hand in the pocket to actually fund us...

The Oviedo wages won't be reinvested, the Cattermole wages haven't been reinvested. Not my issue as a fan if the owner has to actually put his hand in his pocket. As a fan id rather watch a better footballer & seeing how he wont be released I want to stay. Couldn't give a fuck about wages. His wage will be off the book next year anyways and we're okay for this year. Donald already said we're in a good state this year. What's the big rush to get rid? If he had 2 year left I'd say fair enough but in the last 12 month now.
Clatterhard and Ovideo's wages saved would not necessarily be 're-invested' as they were a big part of the wage bill pushing us into a large deficit. When we get income and expenditure equal then we can expect one in one out... ie reinvestment
 
Clatterhard and Ovideo's wages saved would not necessarily be 're-invested' as they were a big part of the wage bill pushing us into a large deficit. When we get income and expenditure equal then we can expect one in one out... ie reinvestment
We’re still paying Cattermole just over a longer period so we haven't saved his wage just stretched it. If someone insane said ‘here goes we’ll take him and pay him the same despite his successive debilitating injuries’ we’d be better off.
 

Mary Hinge

Striker
Its not peanuts at all and it will take up over the leagues rules on wages....We spent heavily on Grigg at xmas and there is no way you can look at this squad and think its weak as piss, that is just nonsense.



Provide some solid evidence that the owners are dodgy etc and people will listen, while ever people continue to post unsubstantiated bull shit then they need to expect to be shot down in flames.
Every game I watched I saw us bullied, our midfield and forwards were weak as piss.......19 draws
 

Robanner

Midfield
People need to stop getting worked up about wages in football. They are obscene...we all know that, but a football career is relatively short and you can't blame anyone for taking the cash. We as a club were the ones offering the contract terms, and we can't get upset by having to honour these. I just thank our lucky stars that we're not still in the PL - we've been so badly run that we probably got out of the top league at the right time before the escalation in salaries and wages of the past 2 seasons. If we'd have remained in the PL during that time the club may have never recovered from the bad financial decisions that would no doubt have been taken during that time.
 

cbwhu

Winger
so you want him to accept a 15ka week paycut

in essence you are asking him to give Sunderland 780,000 quid
 

sproates33

Striker
People need to stop getting worked up about wages in football. They are obscene...we all know that, but a football career is relatively short and you can't blame anyone for taking the cash. We as a club were the ones offering the contract terms, and we can't get upset by having to honour these. I just thank our lucky stars that we're not still in the PL - we've been so badly run that we probably got out of the top league at the right time before the escalation in salaries and wages of the past 2 seasons. If we'd have remained in the PL during that time the club may have never recovered from the bad financial decisions that would no doubt have been taken during that time.
Agree with this.

I think over the next few years we will see some clubs fall out of the PL and never recover.

Your talking now about 50K a week for a very, very average PL footballer. If some sides go down, and don't get promoted back with the parachute money, they are going to have around 15/20 players on money they simply won't ever be able to shift from the books.
 
We’re still paying Cattermole just over a longer period so we haven't saved his wage just stretched it. If someone insane said ‘here goes we’ll take him and pay him the same despite his successive debilitating injuries’ we’d be better off. Unfortunately our previous regime were total dickheads.
I don't see the advantage of doing this. This year is the year we have more money, it would make more sense to shorten it
 

gazza.1990

Midfield
I don't see the advantage of doing this. This year is the year we have more money, it would make more sense to shorten it
The advantage is if he was on 40k before, we will "save" £20k a week in the short term but stretching his contract to enable us to manoeuvre a bit more in the market now. The problem comes when those 2 years end and we're still paying £20k a week.

Personally, I dont believe anyone on here who says that's the deal mind. I think he will have had a payoff, of which the overall amount will be less than what he was due over the original 2years. No basis to that opinion, just like the posters with no basis to them saying were paying him the same amount over 4yrs.
 

Perryqhill

Striker
We’re still paying Cattermole just over a longer period so we haven't saved his wage just stretched it. If someone insane said ‘here goes we’ll take him and pay him the same despite his successive debilitating injuries’ we’d be better off.
Are we though? even if he split his wages over two/three/four years it's an insane thing to do just to get cash flow moving at the moment, as we'd still be tied to 10k, 20k a week etc (depending on the length) for two, three or more years when we haven't got any parachute payments left. A total guess giving the timing of him and Love leaving would maybe suggest there's some payments being made, but also they had a chunk of money up front given first instalments of said parachute payments are paid to us in June/July.
 
Last edited:

G Force

Striker
We’re still paying Cattermole just over a longer period so we haven't saved his wage just stretched it.
Is this true?

I’ve seen this reported on here, but also that he’d been paid off with an upfront fee.

Which one is true?

Anything official from the club or is it all just hearsay?
 

Perryqhill

Striker
The advantage is if he was on 40k before, we will "save" £20k a week in the short term but stretching his contract to enable us to manoeuvre a bit more in the market now. The problem comes when those 2 years end and we're still paying £20k a week.

Personally, I dont believe anyone on here who says that's the deal mind. I think he will have had a payoff, of which the overall amount will be less than what he was due over the original 2years. No basis to that opinion, just like the posters with no basis to them saying were paying him the same amount over 4yrs.
As said above - it would hit us hard next season and the season after, doesn't make sense. Given the timing we know a good few million will have come into the club from the Parachute payments over the last few months, so the club may well have utilised that.

I think Nixon or others who have passed on this information as being true are confusing it with what we've tried to do with McGeady's contract - maybe we even tried with Catts?
 
The advantage is if he was on 40k before, we will "save" £20k a week in the short term but stretching his contract to enable us to manoeuvre a bit more in the market now. The problem comes when those 2 years end and we're still paying £20k a week.

Personally, I dont believe anyone on here who says that's the deal mind. I think he will have had a payoff, of which the overall amount will be less than what he was due over the original 2years. No basis to that opinion, just like the posters with no basis to them saying were paying him the same amount over 4yrs.
Yes but that makes no sense. Firstly we can only have a percentage of turnover for wages. This year our turnover is artificially high due to parachute payments. Extending a high wage into years where we don't have that advantage is stupid. It would make far more sense to use the whole thing up this year, or you know equivalent 60k a week or something like that.
 
Is this true?

I’ve seen this reported on here, but also that he’d been paid off with an upfront fee.

Which one is true?

Anything official from the club or is it all just hearsay?
Nothing official i’m just trusting some posters I don’t always agree with strategy wise but are very reliable on this stuff @prehab26
 

MrBraithwaite

Midfield
I'm not sure why anyone would expect him to leave. He's probably still making more money than he could get elsewhere, he's still getting picked for his national team, and his injury history and age severely limits the number of clubs who would be interested in taking him and paying him anything worthwhile. 29-year-old fullbacks who can't stay fit, have never been starters at a standard higher than dismal relegation season in the Championship, and still play for their national teams (again, risking their already dodgy fitness) aren't exactly going to have clubs lining up to sign them.
He was a starter at Everton, and was extremely promising before he got a bad injury.

Getting rid of him is stupid as :

He won’t be replaced with someone as good.
If he is fit he is one of the top three players at the club.

It would be more sensible for the manager to manage him carefully to ensure he is fit as much as possible, and to play a formation where he will be accommodated - 352.

Don’t forget, he is used to actual movement off the ball, and to being covered when he goes forward. You need the players around you to perform to your best.
 

SYB_DC

Winger
He was a starter at Everton, and was extremely promising before he got a bad injury.
I remember that he was good, but he was never really a full-time starter. He never made more than 15 league appearances (let alone starts) in a season there, before or after the injury.
 

studs

Central Defender
The advantage is if he was on 40k before, we will "save" £20k a week in the short term but stretching his contract to enable us to manoeuvre a bit more in the market now. The problem comes when those 2 years end and we're still paying £20k a week.

Personally, I dont believe anyone on here who says that's the deal mind. I think he will have had a payoff, of which the overall amount will be less than what he was due over the original 2years. No basis to that opinion, just like the posters with no basis to them saying were paying him the same amount over 4yrs.
The main problem we have i think is donald and co have made out theyd invest far more than they have done. Nixon been along the right lines in that hes used clubs parachute payments to fund the purchase. Any club is going to suffer if 25m is taken away. If they had the intent or financial cliut to put it back like they orignally aluded to we'd have been under less pressure to make these decisions
 

Top