Just a bit of a update on Diego the club offer is way short of what he wants. Diego wants to stay for at least one to two years and was hoping Riga was staying.the boy agent thinks the club are looking for a quick million or two through a tribunal. but he's agent wants charlton to come back with a more serious offer. I got this from good sources but I hope it not all true.diego is going for 10k and the club offer is 3k
Total bullshit. For one it won't go to tribunal. Fees are already fixed in advance, that was brought it a couple of years ago when the Football League as a whole sold its soul to the devil, the Premier League. Two, he's already on more than 3k pw. That is why he couldn't play under the Jiminez and Slater regime as a first team appearance triggered a huge pay rise for Diego that they just couldn't afford. Good sources? LOL.
So Diego is the boyfriend of my girlfriends best mate. I'm going to a party with them all next Thursday and I plan to find out all there is to know haha.
I reckon your girlfriend's best mate will get her to dump you if you start tittle tattling his business on here... haha.
Come on Curb It, tell him that after he's spilt the beans
Just a bit of a update on Diego the club offer is way short of what he wants. Diego wants to stay for at least one to two years and was hoping Riga was staying.the boy agent thinks the club are looking for a quick million or two through a tribunal. but he's agent wants charlton to come back with a more serious offer. I got this from good sources but I hope it not all true.diego is going for 10k and the club offer is 3k
Diego is the son of a premiership footballer and manager. I doubt he is wanting for money.
If I am Poyet, I would wait for the new manager to be appointed, sit down with him and discuss how he wants to play me - if happy sign a contract, if not, well there will be plenty of offers
In pure economic terms it makes good sense to offer Diego 10k a week. That contract over two years costs us a million pounds. Does anybody actually think that we wouldn't recoup that sum plus a very tidy profit in two years time ? Any development fee would be a huge financial hit on his ability and potential (400k ?)
I doubt we are that stupid not to maximise the gain. My feeling is that he hasn't signed for reasons not purely associated with our offer but more likely seeing what he can get elsewhere and possibly waiting to see what sort of Charlton team we have to start next season.
Diego is on way above the 3k already that's why he never played earlier as dumb and dumbass couldn't afford it
He only got his wages if played? Surely if he was on that money under the chuckle brothers he would get it if played or not?
There was something about playing triggering a big pay rise which is why he was left out. Doesn't sound logical (why would a youth team player have that clause in their contract?) nor does the figure of £6k a week, but who knows.
Can completely understand why a youth player has that clause - Solly didn't and was seriously underpaid compared to team-mates for a couple of seasons, I believe.
In pure economic terms it makes good sense to offer Diego 10k a week. That contract over two years costs us a million pounds. Does anybody actually think that we wouldn't recoup that sum plus a very tidy profit in two years time ? Any development fee would be a huge financial hit on his ability and potential (400k ?)
I doubt we are that stupid not to maximise the gain. My feeling is that he hasn't signed for reasons not purely associated with our offer but more likely seeing what he can get elsewhere and possibly waiting to see what sort of Charlton team we have to start next season.
This! In football and economic terms he's worth more than Kermorgant - sign him up and Gomez too while we're at it.
In pure economic terms it makes good sense to offer Diego 10k a week. That contract over two years costs us a million pounds. Does anybody actually think that we wouldn't recoup that sum plus a very tidy profit in two years time ? Any development fee would be a huge financial hit on his ability and potential (400k ?)
I doubt we are that stupid not to maximise the gain. My feeling is that he hasn't signed for reasons not purely associated with our offer but more likely seeing what he can get elsewhere and possibly waiting to see what sort of Charlton team we have to start next season.
I think the problem with that is that if he signs a two year contact then in two years he'll be out of contract and the development fee is probably already set out. We, basically, need to sell him before the end of his contract. Thus in a year if he signs a two year deal. I can't see him agreeing to sign a three or four deal so we would be best advised to sell him in January. What is the point in him signing for us for six months if he then leaves and we get all the transfer fee - he'd be better to sign a one year deal and leave next summer - when he can choose the club and they will pay him moire as there won't be a massive transfer fee.
The question is what is his value to the first team now if we accept that we will not get a fee (or nothing more than we can get now) if he signs for a season or two. In other words can we get a better player (free agent) on a two year contract now that is, say 28, who will leave in two years, than Poyet is now at nineteen, for the same wages?
Signing a 28 year old on a three year contract who we could sell in two years for a profit would, actually, be better business - especially if he is a better player than Poyet is now.
I would love him to stay, but I suspect that the clib are only, really, interested in the potential transfer fee and if the only contract he will sign prevents us from getting one is it not better to cash in now?
In pure economic terms it makes good sense to offer Diego 10k a week. That contract over two years costs us a million pounds. Does anybody actually think that we wouldn't recoup that sum plus a very tidy profit in two years time ? Any development fee would be a huge financial hit on his ability and potential (400k ?)
I doubt we are that stupid not to maximise the gain. My feeling is that he hasn't signed for reasons not purely associated with our offer but more likely seeing what he can get elsewhere and possibly waiting to see what sort of Charlton team we have to start next season.
I think the problem with that is that if he signs a two year contact then in two years he'll be out of contract and the development fee is probably already set out. We, basically, need to sell him before the end of his contract. Thus in a year if he signs a two year deal. I can't see him agreeing to sign a three or four deal so we would be best advised to sell him in January. What is the point in him signing for us for six months if he then leaves and we get all the transfer fee - he'd be better to sign a one year deal and leave next summer - when he can choose the club and they will pay him moire as there won't be a massive transfer fee.
The question is what is his value to the first team now if we accept that we will not get a fee (or nothing more than we can get now) if he signs for a season or two. In other words can we get a better player (free agent) on a two year contract now that is, say 28, who will leave in two years, than Poyet is now at nineteen, for the same wages?
Signing a 28 year old on a three year contract who we could sell in two years for a profit would, actually, be better business - especially if he is a better player than Poyet is now.
I would love him to stay, but I suspect that the clib are only, really, interested in the potential transfer fee and if the only contract he will sign prevents us from getting one is it not better to cash in now?
Yes we could, but the plan, as set out by SHG, was to get him to sign for two years and them generate money in two years time.
I'm more than happy to keep him, and I would think that breaking the bank for a three or four deal would be very sensible, I just think that two years or less and we have to try to establish what he is worth to the team now, opposed to gambling that we can get him sold in twelve months time. I'm basing this on the fact that there were rumors that the club were desperate to sell a star last summer and we couldn't find a buyer for any of them - or the players didn't want to move.
Yes we could, but the plan, as set out by SHG, was to get him to sign for two years and them generate money in two years time.
I'm more than happy to keep him, and I would think that breaking the bank for a three or four deal would be very sensible, I just think that two years or less and we have to try to establish what he is worth to the team now, opposed to gambling that we can get him sold in twelve months time. I'm basing this on the fact that there were rumors that the club were desperate to sell a star last summer and we couldn't find a buyer for any of them - or the players didn't want to move.
I used two years as a contract length as an example of how signing him up would be very cost effective. A one year deal is pointless. Three is unlikely but the longer the better. Whatever happens I'm sure any contract would need to have many clauses benefitting the player in order to get him to sign.
My real point is that under contract we will definitely make money when he is sold pretty much regardless of how much per week (within reason) 10 - 12 k we offer him.
Yes we could, but the plan, as set out by SHG, was to get him to sign for two years and them generate money in two years time.
I'm more than happy to keep him, and I would think that breaking the bank for a three or four deal would be very sensible, I just think that two years or less and we have to try to establish what he is worth to the team now, opposed to gambling that we can get him sold in twelve months time. I'm basing this on the fact that there were rumors that the club were desperate to sell a star last summer and we couldn't find a buyer for any of them - or the players didn't want to move.
I used two years as a contract length as an example of how signing him up would be very cost effective. A one year deal is pointless. Three is unlikely but the longer the better. Whatever happens I'm sure any contract would need to have many clauses benefitting the player in order to get him to sign.
My real point is that under contract we will definitely make money when he is sold pretty much regardless of how much per week (within reason) 10 - 12 k we offer him.
Agreed, but if he doesn't leave while he is under contract then he will probably leave for the same money as we will get this summer. Thus the contract needs to hedge against him leaving for a development fee by ensuring that he is worth what we pay him on a weekly basis if he doesn't provide us with a windfall to offset the wages.
I wasn't digging you out SHG, I want him to stay and think he is as likely to be our best player next season as anyone else, but there's always the risk that the club are tempted to pay him too much because they are obsessed with a transfer fee that they might never get.
According to Airman, it has nothing to do with money
Money a small part of it, I would have thought. Who the manager is, who is resigned and who is brought into the club and how will he be further developed ... primary considerations. I don't think that a 3-4 year question would be out of the question, if he has confidence in his ability he will believe regardless of the length of contract clubs will come sniffing or we want to cash in, this will give him security and if the worst came to the worst and he was injured he would have security of a long term contract, plus he could build in clauses for his release.
Yes we could, but the plan, as set out by SHG, was to get him to sign for two years and them generate money in two years time.
I'm more than happy to keep him, and I would think that breaking the bank for a three or four deal would be very sensible, I just think that two years or less and we have to try to establish what he is worth to the team now, opposed to gambling that we can get him sold in twelve months time. I'm basing this on the fact that there were rumors that the club were desperate to sell a star last summer and we couldn't find a buyer for any of them - or the players didn't want to move.
I used two years as a contract length as an example of how signing him up would be very cost effective. A one year deal is pointless. Three is unlikely but the longer the better. Whatever happens I'm sure any contract would need to have many clauses benefitting the player in order to get him to sign.
My real point is that under contract we will definitely make money when he is sold pretty much regardless of how much per week (within reason) 10 - 12 k we offer him.
Agreed, but if he doesn't leave while he is under contract then he will probably leave for the same money as we will get this summer. Thus the contract needs to hedge against him leaving for a development fee by ensuring that he is worth what we pay him on a weekly basis if he doesn't provide us with a windfall to offset the wages.
I wasn't digging you out SHG, I want him to stay and think he is as likely to be our best player next season as anyone else, but there's always the risk that the club are tempted to pay him too much because they are obsessed with a transfer fee that they might never get.
Didn't think you were and I agree that there is always a risk. I just think that even a two year deal would allow us to get a season out of Diego and sell next summer for far more than the wages paid over that period providing we don't go above reasonable amounts. I would go as far as saying that we could pay him 15k per week and still make a very hefty profit.
Comments
I doubt we are that stupid not to maximise the gain. My feeling is that he hasn't signed for reasons not purely associated with our offer but more likely seeing what he can get elsewhere and possibly waiting to see what sort of Charlton team we have to start next season.
In football and economic terms he's worth more than Kermorgant - sign him up and Gomez too while we're at it.
The question is what is his value to the first team now if we accept that we will not get a fee (or nothing more than we can get now) if he signs for a season or two. In other words can we get a better player (free agent) on a two year contract now that is, say 28, who will leave in two years, than Poyet is now at nineteen, for the same wages?
Signing a 28 year old on a three year contract who we could sell in two years for a profit would, actually, be better business - especially if he is a better player than Poyet is now.
I would love him to stay, but I suspect that the clib are only, really, interested in the potential transfer fee and if the only contract he will sign prevents us from getting one is it not better to cash in now?
I'm more than happy to keep him, and I would think that breaking the bank for a three or four deal would be very sensible, I just think that two years or less and we have to try to establish what he is worth to the team now, opposed to gambling that we can get him sold in twelve months time. I'm basing this on the fact that there were rumors that the club were desperate to sell a star last summer and we couldn't find a buyer for any of them - or the players didn't want to move.
My real point is that under contract we will definitely make money when he is sold pretty much regardless of how much per week (within reason) 10 - 12 k we offer him.
I wasn't digging you out SHG, I want him to stay and think he is as likely to be our best player next season as anyone else, but there's always the risk that the club are tempted to pay him too much because they are obsessed with a transfer fee that they might never get.
Down to Diego this one