Sorloth Signed A New Contract
#1
Reports say we gave Sorloth a new contract before he left for 2 years on loan. That means he arrived in January last year and 1½ years later got a new deal 4 or 5 year deal for being shite.

It means when he joined he must have signed a 4½ year deal if one year would be left when he comes back so to tie him down to longer than a year he has to have been given either a 4 or 5 year contract. I appreciate the other club is (hopefully) paying his wages currently, or some of them.

The report stated new contract and no a contract extension. As you may know an extension is just a new end date to existing agreements whereas any other changes requires a new contract. The mind boggles.

I appreciate it is to tie him down because after his loan he'll have 1 year left on his original contract but why not decide then?
Reply
#2
I wonder how much each goal has cost us so far.  Must be a fair few quid.  Makes me laugh when the club try to fleece season ticket holders to pay extra to watch meaningless friendlies, when they will happily pay millions in fees and wages on players who hardly ever contribute.
Reply
#3
(07-09-2019, 14:52 PM)elgin eagle Wrote: I wonder how much each goal has cost us so far.  Must be a fair few quid.  Makes me laugh when the club try to fleece season ticket holders to pay extra to watch meaningless friendlies, when they will happily pay millions in fees and wages on players who hardly ever contribute.

On the flip side they are going to take a £30m hit on Benteke next summer. That in itself makes me scratch my head because we signed him on a 4 year contract. Most clubs give a 5 year contract to someone costing that much and usually with an option for a 6th as a security. Admittedly if we got relegated, etc but that is a risk with a 4 year contract.

The amortisation rule would make it better to split £30m over 5 or 6 years than 4 years.
Reply
#4
(07-09-2019, 15:29 PM)The Expat Eagle Wrote: On the flip side they are going to take a £30m hit on Benteke next summer. That in itself makes me scratch my head because we signed him on a 4 year contract. Most clubs give a 5 year contract to someone costing that much and usually with an option for a 6th as a security. Admittedly if we got relegated, etc but that is a risk with a 4 year contract.

The amortisation rule would make it better to split £30m over 5 or 6 years than 4 years.
In theory I'm all for us signing younger players with potential resale value and lower wages instead of older pros with no resale value.

However the Sorloth and Cahill examples show why it is also risky/sensible.
Reply
#5
Sorloth seems to be keeping Daniel Sturridge out the Tranzonspor team.

Maybe hes nor as bad as some Palace players seem to think?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)