Jump to content
IGNORED

Buzsaky / Baldock (+ A Little Bit Of Gerrard) .... Merged

Brizzle Jordan

By Brizzle Jordan
in Football Chat

Recommended Posts

downendcity

downendcity

Posted
Posted

Sign the second one, he's a solid performer at the back, not the sort to get caught with his pants down!!! Oooh err and something about pussys.

He could play as a sweeper, because he could spot a gap at the back and fill it in a second. If he was in the team you could guarantee that we would be able to play with our backs against the wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pezo

Pezo

Posted
Posted

I am trying not to get my hopes on this one, but what a fantastic signing if true. I firmly believe he could be in the class of Hartley/Joe Kieth/Jackie who lit up our midfield in years gone by.

Would you really put Hartley in the same class as Jackie? I don't see it personally but interested if others see it this way. Don't get me wrong IMO Hartley was a good player but I wouldn't say he lit up our midfield he just passed the ball around very well in a team that didn't seem to be able to pass the ball around very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red 'un'

Red 'un'

Posted
Posted

He could play as a sweeper, because he could spot a gap at the back and fill it in a second. If he was in the team you could guarantee that we would be able to play with our backs against the wall.

no chance of him dribbling into the box either..could fill the hole at the back though
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Southport Red

Southport Red

Posted
Posted

He could play as a sweeper, because he could spot a gap at the back and fill it in a second. If he was in the team you could guarantee that we would be able to play with our backs against the wall.

no chance of him dribbling into the box either..could fill the hole at the back though

Yellow cards to Downend and Galley.

You are accused of suffering from Incurable bouts of what we doctors call "Carry-On itis". There is no cure but also no excuse. Yellow card and banned from next game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
downendcity

downendcity

Posted
Posted

Yellow cards to Downend and Galley.

You are accused of suffering from Incurable bouts of what we doctors call "Carry-On itis". There is no cure but also no excuse. Yellow card and banned from next game.

"Infamy, infamy - you've got it infamy"

I'm sure there must be a medical cure and to find out I will just call for "Maaaatronnnnnnnnnnnnnnn"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
downendcity

downendcity

Posted
Posted

So's paying 800k for Keogh but no-one's threatening to string McInnes over the nearest tree branch about that colossal waste of money!

For the same sum of money you can:

a) Pay 800k plus wages and sign Keogh for 2 years

b) Sign Bikey for free and pay only wages for 2 years.

The cost would be probably a lot less for Bikey TBH....we managed to afford him on loan. He's unemployed and will take less if he wants a job in a decent league.

I would take option B every day of the week.

Just saying - don't drag the fellers out of that there saloon to git yourself up a lynchin mob...

Although the financial logic sounds fine, I have a funny feeling that wages and transfer fees come from different budgets. Transfer fees would be from a capital budget ( and I suspect that SL dips into his pocket to fund them) while wages have to be covered from reveneue, so Bikey's wages would make a much bigger hole in the wages budget than would Keogh's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
semblar

semblar

Posted
Posted

So's paying 800k for Keogh but no-one's threatening to string McInnes over the nearest tree branch about that colossal waste of money!

For the same sum of money you can:

a) Pay 800k plus wages and sign Keogh for 2 years

b) Sign Bikey for free and pay only wages for 2 years.

The cost would be probably a lot less for Bikey TBH....we managed to afford him on loan. He's unemployed and will take less if he wants a job in a decent league.

I would take option B every day of the week.

Just saying - don't drag the fellers out of that there saloon to git yourself up a lynchin mob...

As presented, so would many people - but my understanding was that free agents get larger "signing on" fees, meaning the gap between the two options is usually far less than is obvious.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
42nite

42nite

Posted
Posted

Right, been away for a few days, is someone going to save me having to trawl through this entire thread.....PLEASE!

Have we spoken to him (confirmed?)??

Don't bother going through this pile of time wasting shite, It'll be at least half an hour of your life wasted!

Basically...no-ones any the wiser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Andy082005

Andy082005

Posted
Posted

Although the financial logic sounds fine, I have a funny feeling that wages and transfer fees come from different budgets. Transfer fees would be from a capital budget ( and I suspect that SL dips into his pocket to fund them) while wages have to be covered from reveneue, so Bikey's wages would make a much bigger hole in the wages budget than would Keogh's.

I think its more a case of City work with a wage wage structure....and Bikey may well not fit into it.

Its easy to say give him £XX,000 a week because we didnt have to pay a fee for him, but if he is earning a few thousand more then a couple of other first teamers, it could well cause problems. Its important that wage structures are kept to and are spot on

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron

Ron

Posted
Posted

a) Pay 800k plus wages and sign Keogh for 2 years

b) Sign Bikey for free and pay only wages for 2 years.

So when signing Bikey we're going to pay him half what he was on at Burnley and he won't be asking for a signing-on fee (unlikely when there's no transfer fee). From a player who was one of Burnley's highest earners when they were a Premier League side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
123456789000

123456789000

Posted
Posted

So's paying 800k for Keogh but no-one's threatening to string McInnes over the nearest tree branch about that colossal waste of money!

For the same sum of money you can:

a) Pay 800k plus wages and sign Keogh for 2 years

b) Sign Bikey for free and pay only wages for 2 years.

The cost would be probably a lot less for Bikey TBH....we managed to afford him on loan. He's unemployed and will take less if he wants a job in a decent league.

I would take option B every day of the week.

Just saying - don't drag the fellers out of that there saloon to git yourself up a lynchin mob...

.

Say for arguments sake that we will keogh 8k a week and bikey 13k a week, and that both would get 2 year contracts. Keogh's total fee would come to about £1.6m and bikey £1.3m, and I fully expect that bikey's signing on fee would be more than 300k. Plus keogh is younger so if we ever look to sell he will definitely have a sell on value where as we wouldn't get any return on bikey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron

Ron

Posted
Posted

Serie C? He was close to a move to China in January before Howe blocked the deal, and he would be on a decent wage there. Nothing wrong with making an approach, the point we picked you up on was your Amougou vs. Keogh comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
marcofisher

marcofisher

Posted
Posted

So's paying 800k for Keogh but no-one's threatening to string McInnes over the nearest tree branch about that colossal waste of money!

For the same sum of money you can:

a) Pay 800k plus wages and sign Keogh for 2 years

b) Sign Bikey for free and pay only wages for 2 years.

The cost would be probably a lot less for Bikey TBH....we managed to afford him on loan. He's unemployed and will take less if he wants a job in a decent league.

I would take option B every day of the week.

Just saying - don't drag the fellers out of that there saloon to git yourself up a lynchin mob...

Bikey was on about 30k a week wages at Burnley and David James was our previous highest earner and he was on about 15k per week as far as I remember? So In reality Keogh would probably be on around 10k per week of we were to sign him. So per year bikey would cost you about 1.5 million whereas Keogh would cost 500k and that's only after one year! So it's fairly simple to be honest you would rather take option A! As much as I would like to see Bikey here it's not for the best, I mean look at Portmouths players on ridiculous wages that don't represent there standards anymore, it's unviable!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FanaticRed

FanaticRed

Posted
Posted

Bikey was on about 30k a week wages at Burnley and David James was our previous highest earner and he was on about 15k per week as far as I remember? So In reality Keogh would probably be on around 10k per week of we were to sign him. So per year bikey would cost you about 1.5 million whereas Keogh would cost 500k and that's only after one year! So it's fairly simple to be honest you would rather take option A! As much as I would like to see Bikey here it's not for the best, I mean look at Portmouths players on ridiculous wages that don't represent there standards anymore, it's unviable!

You seem to be forgetting the transfer fee involved with option A which you wouldn't have to pay with option B.. Plus you or anyone else for that matter doesnt know our clubs wage structure so it strikes me as odd how you seem to 'know' how much David James was earning!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
marcofisher

marcofisher

Posted
Posted

You seem to be forgetting the transfer fee involved with option A which you wouldn't have to pay with option B.. Plus you or anyone else for that matter doesnt know our clubs wage structure so it strikes me as odd how you seem to 'know' how much David James was earning!

Well clearly I don't know exactly how much either Bikey or James were earning but those were the numbers I had seen around before so I was going by that. But still Bikey is on prem wages and Keogh would have been on low championship wages most likely, Plus the fact that Keogh is younger, it would easily be much more expensive to get Bikey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hortonred

hortonred

Posted
Posted

I appreciate and accept all that 'signing-on fee' stuff.

But lets also not lose sight of the fact that Bikey is,at the moment unemployed!!

He, I assume,liked it here,the fans supported him, so why not ask?

There will be a lot of non-league footballers in 4 weeks time that were holding out for 'the right deal'.

I'm sure Bikey is more than happy to play in the Champ than Serie C.

All I'm asking is to know wether we have made an approach or not - for a long term supporter of a professional English football club,I don't think that's too unreasonable.

It's been months since he was here, and he did a great job, so unless he's already said "NO" - then why aren't we taking him to Spain?

Anyone else want Bikey here for next season?

I thought he was a major factor in us staying up at the end of last season.And I had hoped we sign Amougou or Bikey as soon as we could. I would love to see him signed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...