City confirm departing players.

[Fenway Frank]

Kinda winds me up a bit when people break it down to financial jealousy though, bemoaning the fact that footballers get paid a lot of money. It is what it is, thats the going rate, whether you like it or not. Naismith is an honest player, whatever he is paid.

I agree, always make me smile when people slate a player who had a poor game, stating "he earns thousands a week"  as if that somehow means he should never make a mistake because he's got a bigger bank balance.

 

[morty]

Kinda winds me up a bit when people break it down to financial jealousy though, bemoaning the fact that footballers get paid a lot of money. It is what it is, thats the going rate, whether you like it or not. Naismith is an honest player, whatever he is paid.

I agree, always make me smile when people slate a player who had a poor game, stating "he earns thousands a week"  as if that somehow means he should never make a mistake because he's got a bigger bank balance.

What about nurses and soldiers, they should get paid the same!

 

[Canaryboy]

When people talk about Naismith probably earning £40k or £50k, it isn't jealousy but realism. That's a good Premier League contract and we aren't a club which is currently seeing Premier League levels of revenue, and in 12 months time (halfway through Naismith's remaining contract) we'll be seeing another significant decline in revenues when our top tier parachute payments come to an end (should we fail at second attempt to get out of this division).

Just like Webber was saying, our resources have been allocated poorly. We've got Naismith, Pritchard, Hoolahan, Maddison, and Andreu on the payroll and Toffolo was our only contracted left back.

Its a bit of a shame that we've just started to see the best of Naismith, people have started to lay off him, but we have to be pragmatic really. If its true then clearly Webber wants to get an attacking midfielder or two off the payroll in order to invest in the defense. Presumably it could have been either one of Hoolahan or Naismith, but there is an obvious destination for Naismith and it sounds we could be trying to get him out without a pay off. Hoolahan leaving one year early would likely require a financial settlement, and it would probably leave a bad taste in a lot of peoples mouths because we'd be depriving him of his big send off. 

If waiving the transfer fee means Rangers can make Naismith their flagship signing this summer, then that is probably more feasible and realistic than expecting the board to agree to pay Hoolahan 60% of his wages to win games for Paul Lambert.... at least Rangers aren't going to be potential promotion rivals next season. 

If it is made clear that this is probably Hoolahan's final year that could give the season a bit of a narrative too, lets try and make sure Hoolahan's testimonial year ends on a high 

He's a decent player, we're a decent club, but it felt like an arranged marriage. Argued a lot at first, learnt to understand and respect each other a bit as time went on, but we never fell in love. 

 

[Canaryboy]

Although I don't think the same transfer fee waiving arrangement should be made if the destination is going to be a division rival, like Sunderland. If we want or need him off the payroll, then perhaps setting the price at £0 for Rangers or £2.5m for Sunderland is actually the more sensible idea. 

One would hope that Naismith is also waiving his loyalty bonus though, if we're expected to waive his transfer fee to give him his dream move. 

Another good clause would be £0 transfer fee on the condition that he isn't sold or loaned to an English club for 12 or 18 months, at which point Rangers owe us £2m or something. To ensure he doesn't move to Sunderland on loan in January. 

It makes more sense the more I think about this, as long as the destination is Rangers. 

 

[Canaryboy]

To be honest, you can either choose to believe, or disbelieve stuff like this.

The Pink'un journalist Mark Armstrong seems to be stating it as a fact:

"Sporting director Stuart Webber admitted in a recent interview that he was surprised at the current wage bill and with Naismith on around £50,000 a week, there is a big saving to be made."

 

[morty]

When people talk about Naismith probably earning £40k or £50k, it isn't jealousy but realism. That's a good Premier League contract and we aren't a club which is currently seeing Premier League levels of revenue, and in 12 months time (halfway through Naismith's remaining contract) we'll be seeing another significant decline in revenues when our top tier parachute payments come to an end (should we fail at second attempt to get out of this division).

Just like Webber was saying, our resources have been allocated poorly. We've got Naismith, Pritchard, Hoolahan, Maddison, and Andreu on the payroll and Toffolo was our only contracted left back.

Its a bit of a shame that we've just started to see the best of Naismith, people have started to lay off him, but we have to be pragmatic really. If its true then clearly Webber wants to get an attacking midfielder or two off the payroll in order to invest in the defense. Presumably it could have been either one of Hoolahan or Naismith, but there is an obvious destination for Naismith and it sounds we could be trying to get him out without a pay off. Hoolahan leaving one year early would likely require a financial settlement, and it would probably leave a bad taste in a lot of peoples mouths because we'd be depriving him of his big send off. 

If waiving the transfer fee means Rangers can make Naismith their flagship signing this summer, then that is probably more feasible and realistic than expecting the board to agree to pay Hoolahan 60% of his wages to win games for Paul Lambert.... at least Rangers aren't going to be potential promotion rivals next season. 

If it is made clear that this is probably Hoolahan's final year that could give the season a bit of a narrative too, lets try and make sure Hoolahan's testimonial year ends on a high 

He's a decent player, we're a decent club, but it felt like an arranged marriage. Argued a lot at first, learnt to understand and respect each other a bit as time went on, but we never fell in love. 

I get all that, and if he really is earning that kind of money then a decision has to be made. But consider the money we have already saved?

Naismith would walk into any Championship team, I would think most managers would jump at the chance to have him. I just think that with all the upheaval and restructuring going on, we may need a bit of continuity, experience and leadership. And if we're going with a lot of youth I don't want to be watching us next season thinking "Yeah we could really do with a Naismith right now".

He'd be worth every penny if he is crucial to our promotion.

And regarding Hoolahan, if people are banging the drum about value for money, then the same rules should apply, sentimentality won't win us the league.

 

[morty]

Although I don't think the same transfer fee waiving arrangement should be made if the destination is going to be a division rival, like Sunderland. If we want or need him off the payroll, then perhaps setting the price at £0 for Rangers or £2.5m for Sunderland is actually the more sensible idea. 

One would hope that Naismith is also waiving his loyalty bonus though, if we're expected to waive his transfer fee to give him his dream move. 

Another good clause would be £0 transfer fee on the condition that he isn't sold or loaned to an English club for 12 or 18 months, at which point Rangers owe us £2m or something. To ensure he doesn't move to Sunderland on loan in January. 

It makes more sense the more I think about this, as long as the destination is Rangers. 

I doubt Rangers could afford Naismith, even on a free.

In fact, thinking about it, especially on a free.

 

[Canaryboy]

If we need to balance the books this summer and generate some more money to rebuild the defense, then saving £5.8m that would otherwise be owed to Naismith over the next two seasons (£5m wages, £800k loyalty bonus - 10% typical) is a far better option than selling Pritchard, Howson, Maddison, or Jacob Murphy. I can't think how else we could do it. Contracts are declared as a liability, so giving Naismith a free transfer but not paying him off would be the equivalent of us receiving £5.8m in cash when it comes to the balance sheet.

Presumably the reason it would be Naismith instead of Hoolahan is that our liability for the latter seizes to exist by the time our parachute payments end... £50k a week to a club without parachute payments, on a proper Championship budget, pays the wages for 5 good Championship players. 

So I guess its about balancing risk. 

 

[Canaryboy]

But maybe it isn't about Naismith vs Hoolahan, perhaps we'd like to shift them both and have a new player in mind? 

 

[morty]

If we need to balance the books this summer and generate some more money to rebuild the defense, then saving £5.8m that would otherwise be owed to Naismith over the next two seasons (£5m wages, £800k loyalty bonus - 10% typical) is a far better option than selling Pritchard, Howson, Maddison, or Jacob Murphy. I can't think how else we could do it. Contracts are declared as a liability, so giving Naismith a free transfer but not paying him off would be the equivalent of us receiving £5.8m in cash when it comes to the balance sheet.

Presumably the reason it would be Naismith instead of Hoolahan is that our liability for the latter seizes to exist by the time our parachute payments end... £50k a week to a club without parachute payments, on a proper Championship budget, pays the wages for 5 good Championship players. 

So I guess its about balancing risk. 

I just think it has to be very carefully managed. We have already got shot of 7 players who were on very good money, I presume the maybe 5 players we bring in won't be on nearly as much, so we have already made huge savings. We have 30m of parachute payments next season, lets not go too far and try and pretend we're broke, we still need to have a competitive squad. If we're going to completely honest, assuming a new coach has a bit about him, with the addition of a keeper, two central defenders, a DM and a striker, we still have a decent squad. Because the ones that are already released hardly contributed anyway.

 

[Fenway Frank]

It's not like we will have to bring in seven replacements either as the squad was too big anyway

 

[SwindonCanary]

I can understand getting Naismith off the wage bill, but I feel it would be better to try and sell him first. If there's no takers, due to his wage demands, then let him go on a free.

 

[morty]

It's not like we will have to bring in seven replacements either as the squad was too big anyway

Indeed, I would consider maybe 5 or 6. And that isn't factoring Louis Thompson and Ben Godfrey, who must be there or thereabouts, or indeed any other youth that are nearly there.

Those 7 released barely featured, other than maybe Ruddy and Ryben. Toffolo will be back up at LB, assume Rudd will either be backup for McGovern (please no) or his replacement. 

We really don't need to buy that much.

 

[morty]

I can understand getting Naismith off the wage bill, but I feel it would be better to try and sell him first. If there's no takers, due to his wage demands, then let him go on a free.

I said in a previous post that any Championship club would love him in their side, we have already saved a huge amount on wages, we still want a competitive squad at the end of this cull.

 

[Fenway Frank]

Indeed, I would consider maybe 5 or 6. And that isn't factoring Louis Thompson and Ben Godfrey, who must be there or thereabouts, or indeed any other youth that are nearly there.

Those 7 released barely featured, other than maybe Ruddy and Ryben. Toffolo will be back up at LB, assume Rudd will either be backup for McGovern (please no) or his replacement. 

We really don't need to buy that much.

Thinking about this, we need a keeper, a left back, two centre halves and a different type of striker, that's five. 

 

[GJP]

I wouldn't rule out both Rudd and Toffolo being elsewhere come the end of August. If we can get other deals done or perhaps to finance other deals.

 

[Canaryboy]

We do need to purchase a decent striker though, and they usually cost a lot of money. We got very lucky with Jerome.

We'll see what happens anyway, could just be paper talk or it could well be Naismith asking to leave. Its not one we have to rush into is it, should focus on signing a couple of defenders and a goalkeeper first and then see what we need and whether we need additional funds. 

As you said we've taken a huge chunk off the wage bill, so should nothing stopping us from bringing a few in as soon as possible. It shouldn't be "sell to buy" just yet.