28 Nov 2024 00:52:43
Ed. Do you think that they are more interested in transferring salah wages onto treats contract as he's still has sell on potential.
Whereas even if they do extend his contract in 3 yrs he will still effectively leave for free and 20m a year won't be recovered. Even after 2 I doubt saudi would pay 40m.
{Ed001's Note - no.}
28 Nov 2024 05:29:17
If salah gives another 2-3 years of 25-30 goals and 10-15 assist i don't mind loosing him for 40m instead of say 100m right now.
{Ed025's Note - what makes you think you could get £100m for him now Liverbird?, he can go for free in the summer mate..
28 Nov 2024 06:25:37
I meant if his contract wasnt up and then bidding it mate. But ya right now our contracts are all messed up. fsg really need to sort out the guys who handle it.
29 Nov 2024 10:58:08
Presumably Riomazy sees us signing a Salah replacement who'll play for nothing.
29 Nov 2024 13:13:17
What? . that's my point entirely.
Are they thinking move salah on. Bump up trent another 100k and replace salah.
Marmoush eg. isn't going to command 350k. It won't be like for like wages and would allow flexibility,
Personally I think they can't afford all three in wages especially trent payrise and aren't sure which ones to keep
Salah should stay and invest replacement same time. 20m in 1 year salary won't break the bank. If you can recoup in a transfer. Not offering a contract makes no sense to me. The only risk is whether he goes downhill fast and sits it out rather than move on.
Ed. Your answer was a straight no, so explain why no one has a clue what's going on.
{Ed001's Note - why do I need to explain it? No one has a clue because they aren't involved in the club's finances directly to have a clue.}
29 Nov 2024 17:53:27
Nobody having a clue what's going on is the way it should be.
Comical demanding that an Ed explain why the club doesn't make it's private business public.