Gone Elsewhere Antonee Robinson

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?


I just find it strange that a player costs 2m and yet want to pay him 50k a week, did Fulham learn nothing last time round flashing the cash.
 
Yewsman said:
Fulham have the London (and some other ) clubs mentality that if you don’t pay a lot of money for a player (either transfer fee Or wages) they won’t be any good! We’ve shown in the past that’s not true (look at most of our squad) but now we’re in the PL it seems that as soon as we are interested in a player the agents are onto it and touting round other clubs who are prepared to out bid us in fees or wages. Looks like we’ve lost Tonee, Swift, Cash and May be even Ramsdale now. Bit depressing and frankly rather worrying that we are outbid by a poxy little freshly promoted club like Fulham.
Click to expand...
Where money is concerned , Fulham are neither poxy nor little.
But how on earth do they stay within FFP ?
 
Obviously financially motivated, fair enough. It's all well and good until he's back in Championship next year having played 2nd fiddle to Bryan for 12 months, but will probably have an extra million quid in the bank!

Whilst we are operating at such a different wage structure this will be the norm and to be expected.

I'd put in a bid for Bryan... Would make it pretty clear he's signed as a 2nd choice! 😂
 
FallowfieldBlade said:
I dont think that, but if we were serious about signing him instead of trying to get a bargain then i dont think paying 30/40 k for a premier league player is unreasonable


If we signed him for 5/6 million then many would still see that as a bargain. Paying him an extra 10/20k a week signing for £2million would work out at around the same value overall.

I suspect fulham are only offering him 40/50 is because they know there getting a bargain with the transfer fee paying him an extra 20k a week would still work out cheaoper than what he would have cost in january
Click to expand...

Well I'm just glad you're not holding the purse strings at Utd. Paying players unproven above Champ level who will start the season as understudies, even if they do have potential, £45k/week is wholly unreasonable IMHO. If Fulham want to blow huge amounts of money again then let them but I wouldn't want Utd to use this tactic which at best would be described as carefree and at worst, reckless
 
FallowfieldBlade said:
I dont think that, but if we were serious about signing him instead of trying to get a bargain then i dont think paying 30/40 k for a premier league player is unreasonable


If we signed him for 5/6 million then many would still see that as a bargain. Paying him an extra 10/20k a week signing for £2million would work out at around the same value overall.

I suspect fulham are only offering him 40/50 is because they know there getting a bargain with the transfer fee paying him an extra 20k a week would still work out cheaoper than what he would have cost in january
Click to expand...

"Hi boss, it's Enda Here. I've been speaking to my agent and I'm not happy that my back-up is getting paid 50% more than me. Either you give me a contract now or I want to leave"
"Hi boss it's Sander here, I signed for you within the club's wage structure because I believed in the team ethos you're building. However, now you're paying some kid from Wigan more than me I want a new contract or I'm not playing"
"Hi boss, it's JoC here. I'm your best defender yet you're paying a reserve defender more than me. I've been speaking to my agent and Everton and Southampton are willing to give me 50k per week and buy me a house. I want to go on the transfer list."

etc etc etc
 
FallowfieldBlade said:
I dont think that, but if we were serious about signing him instead of trying to get a bargain then i dont think paying 30/40 k for a premier league player is unreasonable


If we signed him for 5/6 million then many would still see that as a bargain. Paying him an extra 10/20k a week signing for £2million would work out at around the same value overall.

I suspect fulham are only offering him 40/50 is because they know there getting a bargain with the transfer fee paying him an extra 20k a week would still work out cheaoper than what he would have cost in january
Click to expand...

It's not about that particular deal though. Its about how bringing in a player, especially one not even guaranteed to start, on double the wages of the rest of the squad is asking for trouble for loads of reasons. It would be madness to bring him in on that sort of wage.
 
robbiez666 said:
"Hi boss, it's Enda Here. I've been speaking to my agent and I'm not happy that my back-up is getting paid 50% more than me. Either you give me a contract now or I want to leave"
"Hi boss it's Sander here, I signed for you within the club's wage structure because I believed in the team ethos you're building. However, now you're paying some kid from Wigan more than me I want a new contract or I'm not playing"
"Hi boss, it's JoC here. I'm your best defender yet you're paying a reserve defender more than me. I've been speaking to my agent and Everton and Southampton are willing to give me 50k per week and buy me a house. I want to go on the transfer list."

etc etc etc
Click to expand...

I bet Joe Bryan, who pretty much won Fulham the play off final, is particularly delighted at Robinson coming in on far more than he's on.
 
Nah den said:
Amounts to the same thing doesn't it? We bid for a player we want. Bid accepted. We discuss personal terms and player can get more elsewhere, we miss out on a player we thought would improve us.

On Robinson specifically, he is worth 50k a week to himself and his family because that's what Fulham are prepared to pay him (as you say, good luck to him). But no, he's not worth that to us. In part because it's not a priority area I don't think, given Osborn can cover that position.
Click to expand...
Not really because we’re not missing out on him, we’ve made the decision we don’t want him for those wages.
 
robbiez666 said:
"Hi boss, it's Enda Here. I've been speaking to my agent and I'm not happy that my back-up is getting paid 50% more than me. Either you give me a contract now or I want to leave"
"Hi boss it's Sander here, I signed for you within the club's wage structure because I believed in the team ethos you're building. However, now you're paying some kid from Wigan more than me I want a new contract or I'm not playing"
"Hi boss, it's JoC here. I'm your best defender yet you're paying a reserve defender more than me. I've been speaking to my agent and Everton and Southampton are willing to give me 50k per week and buy me a house. I want to go on the transfer list."

etc etc etc
Click to expand...
"Hi boss, it's Enda Here. I've been speaking to my agent and I'm not happy that EVERY OTHER LB IN THE LEAGUE IS GETTING MORE THAN ME . Either you give me a contract now or I want to leave"
"Hi boss it's Sander here, I signed for you within the club's wage structure because I believed in the team ethos you're building. However, now you're paying some kid from Wigan more than me I want a new contract or I'm not playing"
"Hi boss, it's JoC here. I'm your best defender yet you're paying a reserve defender more than me. I've been speaking to my agent and Everton and Southampton are willing to give me 50k per week and buy me a house. I want to go on the transfer list."
Roygbiv said:
It's not about that particular deal though. Its about how bringing in a player, especially one not even guaranteed to start, on double the wages of the rest of the squad is asking for trouble for loads of reasons. It would be madness to bring him in on that sort of wage.
Click to expand...

I agree we arent gonna smash our wage structure but if we were bringing in a starting LB or matty cash for exampke and he asked for 40K thats the going rate for a mid table Premier league player.

We arent in league one anymore

If we don't offer the going rate a lot of our players heads will turn


You reckon if Everton come in for Egan OR JOC and offer 60/70k there gonna stay ? Not happening
 

Kevin Arnott said:
Villa, Fulham, Newcastle , Barcelona ?
Click to expand...
Villa - Spent the most in the championship Got promoted
Fulham - Same as villa
Barca - Have spent the most in Spain that's why there top 2 every season
Newcastle - Have spent bottom half wages/transfer fees which is why they have finished around there most seasons
 
FallowfieldBlade said:
Villa - Spent the most in the championship Got promoted
Fulham - Same as villa
Barca - Have spent the most in Spain that's why there top 2 every season
Newcastle - Have spent bottom half wages/transfer fees which is why they have finished around there most seasons
Click to expand...
Fulham spent big when they last came up - relegation.
 
FallowfieldBlade said:
"Hi boss, it's Enda Here. I've been speaking to my agent and I'm not happy that EVERY OTHER LB IN THE LEAGUE IS GETTING MORE THAN ME . Either you give me a contract now or I want to leave"
"Hi boss it's Sander here, I signed for you within the club's wage structure because I believed in the team ethos you're building. However, now you're paying some kid from Wigan more than me I want a new contract or I'm not playing"
"Hi boss, it's JoC here. I'm your best defender yet you're paying a reserve defender more than me. I've been speaking to my agent and Everton and Southampton are willing to give me 50k per week and buy me a house. I want to go on the transfer list."


I agree we arent gonna smash our wage structure but if we were bringing in a starting LB or matty cash for exampke and he asked for 40K thats the going rate for a mid table Premier league player.

We arent in league one anymore

If we don't offer the going rate a lot of our players heads will turn


You reckon if Evertone come in for Egan OR JOC and offer 60/70k there gonna stay ? Not happening
Click to expand...

The idea that we should bring this guy in on double the wages of everyone else is madness however you look at it. We've always said we build slowly and that's what we will do. Bringing in Antonee Robinson on £50,000 a week is totally illogical for us as a club right now. All the players other than Egan and Lunny have happily signed a new contract in the past 12 months or so. Bringing in someone on double what they signed for would completely destroy the harmony of the club and morale of the players.
 
FallowfieldBlade said:
Theres a direct correlation between money spent and success
Click to expand...
I get the point at the highest level but Liverpool spent less than several of the top clubs over the past few years. Their wage bill is also less than the two Manchester clubs but ultimately spending will get you there if your funds are seemingly bottomless. However Leicester are seriously punching, Burnley regularly over perform we’ve also massively over achieved based on outlay.
Villa and West Ham also massively underachieved based on their spend on both wage bill and fees.
It certainly isn’t an infallible conclusion that top spenders will always equal success. What is true is if you can continue to do it without consequence and still somehow maintain increasing levels of spend, your chances of beating those who can’t increases.
 
Danetheblade said:
Fulham spent big when they last came up - relegation.
Click to expand...

Teams who spend the most money, most of the time have better players and finish higher up

Teams who spend less money have poorer players than those who spend more

It Obviously isn't a fact but there is a direct correlation
 
Flatulent_Bob said:
I get the point at the highest level but Liverpool spent less than several of the top clubs over the past few years. Their wage bill is also less than the two Manchester clubs but ultimately spending will get you there if your funds are seemingly bottomless. However Leicester are seriously punching, Burnley regularly over perform we’ve also massively over achieved based on outlay.
Villa and West Ham also massively underachieved based on their spend on both wage bill and fees.
It certainly isn’t an infallible conclusion that top spenders will always equal success. What is true is if you can continue to do it without consequence and still somehow maintain increasing levels of spend, your chances of beating those who can’t increases.
Click to expand...

Liverpool spent 70 million on both VVD and Allison and got two of the players in there positions
 
Wilder is aware that we need to increase our wage structure and has made the owners aware of this, he had gone in record to say that they support him in this.
This however is a gradual process and no doubt we will lose some players along the way, that indeed is the nature of football and its development within a well managed club. Structure
Some of the players sold will be used to not only purchase new players but fund wages, you only have to look at the incoming Ramsdale as a case in point.
But to make wholesale changes in a v short period of time is a sure fire recipe for disaster, just look to the north of the city !

so shut up and again trust our manager and his management team!
 
YES Blade said:
If Fulham see him as their new first choice left back, then I don't see it as insane, probably a little bit high but not crazy considering the fee is peanuts.
Click to expand...

I think they're probably looking at the overall cost of the deal. At a fee of £1.9m it gives you room to offer a great wage and it still be a good deal overall. Unfortunately this wouldn't work here due to the wage disparity. Maybe Fulham don't have that issue.

He's certainly hit the jackpot as no way was he on more than £10k a week at Wigan if that.

Smacks of The Grunters business model. I know for a fact Sam Winnall was on £3k a week at Barnsley. The grunters could probably have got him for £10/£12k a week but handed him £28k. Idiots!

s4-blade said:
If he wants to sign somewhere for the money then fuck him the cunt. Career ending injury would do nicely
Click to expand...

Slightly harsh 🤔

SufcBilly said:
The daily mail article had a hilarious line it, it said "he's leaning towards working with Fulhams bright thinking manager Scott Parker"
Click to expand...

"Fulhams bright thinking manager" 🤔. Scott Parker is an utter fraud and will be found out extremely quickly in The Prem this season. With the squad he had at his disposal he should have walked that league instead of scraping up through the play offs.

Roygbiv said:
Surely nobody genuinely thinks it would be a good idea to match Fulham for this guy. Make an unproven player in a position we are relatively strong in our highest paid player by about double? I could see the logic if it was someone who was obviously going to make a huge difference to our side but wanting to make what is essentially a good prospect our highest earner and giving the likes of Egan, JOC and Fleck the opportunity to rightly demand a huge wage rise? All for a player who almost certainly wouldn't be our first choice? Bonky madness I tell you.
Click to expand...

Spot on. No way would he have started the season in the LWB spot so paying him £50k a week would have been absolute insanity for our squad harmony. I wonder what Joe Bryan thinks about all this as I'm also certain he's on nowhere near that figure?

FallowfieldBlade said:
I dont think that, but if we were serious about signing him instead of trying to get a bargain then i dont think paying 30/40 k for a premier league player is unreasonable

If we signed him for 5/6 million then many would still see that as a bargain. Paying him an extra 10/20k a week signing for £2million would work out at around the same value overall.

I suspect fulham are only offering him 40/50 is because they know there getting a bargain with the transfer fee paying him an extra 20k a week would still work out cheaoper than what he would have cost in january
Click to expand...

See my answer above. Not sure we can do that even if the overall deal is still great value.
 
We are an embryonic PL club with the least financial resources - if we survive it will be a modern miracle.
Finding players to improve our squad , for wages which fit our structure , is almost impossible.
But we have the only manager who could just do it.
 
FallowfieldBlade said:
Teams who spend the most money, most of the time have better players and finish higher up

Teams who spend less money have poorer players than those who spend more

It Obviously isn't a fact but there is a direct correlation
Click to expand...

I know your post was a reply to another poster, but the general theme of paying large seems to have gripped a few on here. Choosing to forget the basics of 'in' columns and 'out' columns, of income versus expenditure, is a path towards collapse. Sometimes a gamble is warranted, but only sometimes. I think Wilder's approach is healthy and worth backing. No doubt Chris will want to bring in the type of quality players he imagines will improve us as a club, but this has to be at the behest of the board and most importantly, the Prince. Let's not forget, the Prince is mainly a figurehead as opposed to someone like Abramovich at Chelsea. Whatever money we spend is based on the revenues we receive due to our position in the Premier Division, and although this doesn't put us anywhere close to pole position, it does afford us a chance to research players who are gifted enough and affordable enough.

Who knows what's around the corner, perhaps the Prince will sell his shares and we'll suddenly be owned by someone who is a genuine moneybags? Of course there are dangers in who takes control, just look at the shambles of a club over at S6? All we can hope for is that due diligence is shown to work accurately, and should that take place then finger's crossed we'll be in a decent position.
 
FallowfieldBlade said:
Liverpool spent 70 million on both VVD and Allison and got two of the players in there positions
Click to expand...
Compare their spend to the others they’re competing with over a couple of year period. Man City and Man Utd spent more so its not a certainty, you need to spent it wisely and have some talent.
 
Flatulent_Bob said:
Not really because we’re not missing out on him, we’ve made the decision we don’t want him for those wages.
Click to expand...
Sigh. At the risk of going round in circles...we are missing out on him because we wanted him, had a bid accepted for him. The reason we're missing out on him is because Fulham are willing to pay a lot of money to an unproven kid and quite rightly we are not. But missing out on him we are.

I'm less bothered about this than someone like Cash, if he goes elsewhere or if a striker we've decided to go all in for goes to Villa, or Leeds for example.

It's just a function of where we are, but as a result we'll lose out on a lot of our top targets. And therefore progress may be slow. But if we can maintain our PL status whilst not spending much on wages (relatively) then great, just hope it doesn't catch up on us.
 

FallowfieldBlade said:
"Hi boss, it's Enda Here. I've been speaking to my agent and I'm not happy that EVERY OTHER LB IN THE LEAGUE IS GETTING MORE THAN ME . Either you give me a contract now or I want to leave"
"Hi boss it's Sander here, I signed for you within the club's wage structure because I believed in the team ethos you're building. However, now you're paying some kid from Wigan more than me I want a new contract or I'm not playing"
"Hi boss, it's JoC here. I'm your best defender yet you're paying a reserve defender more than me. I've been speaking to my agent and Everton and Southampton are willing to give me 50k per week and buy me a house. I want to go on the transfer list."


I agree we arent gonna smash our wage structure but if we were bringing in a starting LB or matty cash for exampke and he asked for 40K thats the going rate for a mid table Premier league player.

We arent in league one anymore

If we don't offer the going rate a lot of our players heads will turn


You reckon if Everton come in for Egan OR JOC and offer 60/70k there gonna stay ? Not happening
Click to expand...

You appear to have confused Enda with Lunny!

This is not Football Manager. We make our basic wages more attractive with generous incentives. The plan will be to increase the basic wage in a sustainable way.

Fulham can pay Robinson 40k. Heck, they can pay 25 players 40k. When they get relegated they will be royally f**ked if they can't get back up again in 3 seasons. Players aren't signing 40k contracts with a relegation wage deduction for a team likely to go down. They won't be able to shift players because of the wages they're on.

If you're paying 25 players 40k pw, that's 50 million over a year. That's half, if not more, of our transfer budget right there.

We are a team which is significantly better than the sum of its parts. Destroy that team spirit and relegation here we come.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MayorOJC
Players From The Relegated 3
Replies
12
Views
2K
finlaytheblade
F
Carlton Blade
The Championship - January 2024 - You know we'll be looking
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
Espania blade
Espania blade
T
Moving on…
2 3
Replies
87
Views
6K
Booker4
Booker4
Coolblade
A few observations from the stats (Boro)
Replies
13
Views
1K
Barmyblade
B
B
Where we’re at
Replies
24
Views
2K
MBH
M

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom