18 Feb 2015 10:35:33
I feel that Milner would be an excellent signing on a free. Skilful, hard working, experienced and proven in the Prem.
Very good player and versatile. The only thing is what's his best position?
Only thing is he won't be free, he will be on stupid wages with his signing on fee included.
Mighty reds, He could play either centre mid or right wing back in our current system. A good utility player to have. Wages are my only worry.
I can't see him going for stupid wages.
Some one of his ability for me should be within a top 4 chasing side.
United is awash with mids same with arsenal and spurs, chelsea have no need for him, city letting him go.
That pretty much leaves us & southampton as champions league chasers that may interest him. I think he'd be a regular starter too.
If he goes to a team like westham, swansea etc I feel he will be wasting his talents, in simply securing higher places for these teams, rather than chasing medals.
18 Feb 2015 12:29:37
Pet hate of mine that Lavers! Sure, you're correct. But the players we pay money for also come with the same wages/signing fees. This is rarely mentioned when we're in for X player worth £30m so why is it such a big thing when the player in question could be signed without a fee paid to a different club?
Not having a pop, just saying it's a pet hate of mine, in the grand scheme of things in the net pay of transfers should Milner sign, it will say £0.
Obviously wages etc aren't taken into account but I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from here.
{Ed001's Note - sorry but players on a free get a much higher signing bonus and ask for much higher wages generally. So your pet hate is simply you being wrong. Players being bought for a fee will come with much lower associated costs, they get a percentage of the transfer fee instead.}
Personally, I wouldn't rule out a move abroad for him Bob. Bayern, PSG, Atletico, Roma, Dortmund, Juventus etc.
More and more english players seem to be doing it recently and all of those teams could well be looking for a versatile midfielder this summer.
Exactly ed
When joe cole came wasn't he on over 100 grand a week because his signing on fee was tied into his wage.
Degan was another 60-70 grand a week or something stupid.
Can anyone remember us getting someone for "free" and actually working out for us?
Gary Mac was good, Markus Babel was good until that illness, but other than that they have been rotten.
Personally, I hope we avoid Milner as I don't he is a good a prospect on a long term deal, seem to remember the last 29 year old that we signed on a free from an oil money team didn't work out that well either and we spent most of the time trying to rid ourselves of him.
Not a fan of Milner at all, as he is not a particularly brilliant wide player and not a particularly brilliant CM either when you compare the total outlay for him.
In my opinion, he is a Hodgson type player, lots of running around and not much intelligence.
@bobatron, City want him to stay and sign an extension.
Also Man Utd are looking for another midfielder. You would never know with Spurs. If Everton were to sell someone like Barkley I think he'd also be an option there.
18 Feb 2015 13:55:57
Kolo Toure has been decent.
Lavers
Kolo Toure
18 Feb 2015 15:21:49
Signing fee = x amount
Percentage of fee = x amount
My point was they're still there for both set of players. Yet the second seems to be overlooked completely or ignored.
Would it not be fair to suggest that although player B who came with a transfer fee receives less personally, but the overall outlay is larger.
Ultimately, if the player is seen as the best option free or not, the club pay the bill not us, we should be backing whoever it is.
{Ed001's Note - how is it ignored? It is included in the transfer fee. I don't think you are making sense at all.}
18 Feb 2015 15:56:47
I meant by fans, by and large the signing fees are only ever talked or debated when a player is signed on a 'free'. Or should I say, many are opposed to such signings because of it, yet are more than happy when the club sanctions £30m deals.
I just don't understand the necessity to obsess over a signing on fee which may be slightly larger yet the overall outlay will be lessened as there isn't a big transfer fee involved.
But to clarify: lavers said he won't be on a free due to the signing fee and wages (which are still there for a player you 'buy'). Which if you want to be really picky is correct. But other than paying the player for his services, there's no larger outlay to a club or third party, which is why many see it as a free.
Anyway, whether I'm wrong or right, hopefully that at least makes a little bit of sense.
18 Feb 2015 16:08:01
A player's signing-on fee doesn't come out of the transfer fee we pay to their club, that wouldn't make any sense. It's always an extra expense.
It is true that free transfers generally command significant signing-on fees, but that's not money you wouldn't give to a player worth the same amount.
In fact, the administrative fees involved in free transfers are often significantly lower, mostly due to the reduced role of the agent (who negotiates with only the buying club rather than both the buying and selling clubs).
Players on a free are the most expensive, thatns to none other than Jean Marc Bosman, the Belgian player who made players as rich as they are today (wonder what has become of him?). Why do you think players let their contracts whind down? It is so they can get the sign on bonus, negotiate their on wages and get a huge sign on fee. IMO, you cannot get all that if you extend our contract. The Ed`s can correct me any second now.
So you're telling me that over the course of 2 years, the signing of sakho has cost more than toure? in terms of cashflow?