• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Christian Eriksen

SpurMeUp said:
@parklane1 we should aspire to sign players who are highly technical like Eriksen. Only saw Pulsic when he played against us, but strikes me as a cultured player. More about running with the ball than Eriksen, but his close control seemed excellent. Winks has phases where he's technically excellent. You get the impression though he's playing at his very best at those times, where Eriksen can be playing badly and still be crucial for us.

It wasn't that long ago that some on here were questioning if we should keep Eriksen!
Click to expand...

I can't dance with any of that, as for Eriksen you do know he is a pussy because he does not tackle like a tank or head the ball. ;)
 
StephenH said:
Worth double imho!
Irreplaceable!
Our Iniesta!
Click to expand...

Well as i have said before i believe he is our most important player, i know some would disagree and say Kane is but Kane needs players like Eriksen to provide him with chances, and he does that every game.

We all know Kane is special but like all forwards they need that special player behind them too provide and Eriksen does that better then anyone.
 
parklane1 said:
Well as i have said before i believe he is our most important player, i know some would disagree and say Kane is but Kane needs players like Eriksen to provide him with chances, and he does that every game.

We all know Kane is special but like all forwards they need that special player behind them too provide and Eriksen does that better then anyone.
Click to expand...

Our MVP for me.
Kane is wonderful but Eriksen just shades it!
 
BrainOfLevy said:
I think it does matter to be honest. Maybe not for each individual but I’d quite like us to start offering proper money to our players, at least compared to Arsenal and Liverpool, otherwise it isn’t fair on them frankly. They are expected to compete with those clubs, we have a new stadium that will generate good revenue, I don’t see why we need to spin them stories about wage structures when we should now be able to pay them. (I agree with a wage structure, just don’t think ours should be lower than theirs.)

To be fair, the article says in excess of 100k, and apparently we offered Toby 130k. So I’m hopeful Eriksen is at least at 130k but should really be higher.
Click to expand...

Even if it meant not being able to spend that money on other players like Pulsic? Why not givr all the players wage hikes to show we're as wasteful as the goon and sign no one!? Odd thing to say, as a contract has to be agreed by both parties, so clearly Eriksen is happy with it.
 
He's likely got some decent win bonuses in there still though. IIRC our contracts aren't great on basic but are very rewarding with bonuses.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Even if it meant not being able to spend that money on other players like Pulsic? Why not givr all the players wage hikes to show we're as wasteful as the goon and sign no one!? Odd thing to say, as a contract has to be agreed by both parties, so clearly Eriksen is happy with it.
Click to expand...

Of course I want to be able to continue to be sustainable and sign who we want, I’d just be a bit surprised / disappointed that, even with a new stadium and lots more revenue, we still tell our players that they can’t earn as much as their direct rivals. I see no reason why we should tell them that. I’m not saying we don’t have a structure, I’m just saying I would hope our structure puts us on a level of our closest rivals.

And to that end, I think we should give all of the players we want to keep wage hikes. It seems like that’s exactly what we are doing anyway. They should be paid like they are at a proper Champions League club, with one of the best stadiums in the richest league in the world, now that they have done 3 years of over performance and taking lower base salaries for belief in the project.
 
BrainOfLevy said:
I feel like 100k is low for Eriksen with new stadium revenue...would kinda hope we start offering money at least comparable with Liverpool and Arsenal.
Click to expand...

‘Over 100k plus bonuses ’ sounds a bit speculative. Could be £110k, £120k, £150k. I suspect the journalist doesn’t know. I’d guess in the £120k-£130k mark but maybe I am being optimistic.
Unless Poch met him for dinner in Denmark to tell him we are going to be brave and crazy and sell you to Barcelona :(
 
Glenda's Legs said:
‘Over 100k plus bonuses ’ sounds a bit speculative. Could be £110k, £120k, £150k. I suspect the journalist doesn’t know. I’d guess in the £120k-£130k mark but maybe I am being optimistic.
Unless Poch met him for dinner in Denmark to tell him we are going to be brave and crazy and sell you to Barcelona :(
Click to expand...

Good point.

I don’t think anyone on the playing staff can justify a higher salary than Eriksen, whatever our top tier is he should be on it, but I think the same for Kane, Verts, Lloris, Lamela and Alli.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
‘Over 100k plus bonuses ’ sounds a bit speculative. Could be £110k, £120k, £150k. I suspect the journalist doesn’t know. I’d guess in the £120k-£130k mark but maybe I am being optimistic.
Unless Poch met him for dinner in Denmark to tell him we are going to be brave and crazy and sell you to Barcelona :(
Click to expand...

I’m all fine with the bonuses, but I think the difference is, let’s say we’re competing with Liverpool for Mane - he goes there because they can offer him 125k a week, and we could offer him 90 at the time. I’d like to think now we wouldn’t lose out on good players in situations like that. We shouldn’t need the bonus thing as much anymore - as far as I saw it, it was a mechanism to reward the players appropriately for over achieving. Now we’re a top 3 club with a top 3 stadium, I’d expect us to be paying proper money in relation to our rivals.
 
BrainOfLevy said:
I’m all fine with the bonuses, but I think the difference is, let’s say we’re competing with Liverpool for Mane - he goes there because they can offer him 125k a week, and we could offer him 90 at the time. I’d like to think now we wouldn’t lose out on good players in situations like that. We shouldn’t need the bonus thing as much anymore - as far as I saw it, it was a mechanism to reward the players appropriately for over achieving. Now we’re a top 3 club with a top 3 stadium, I’d expect us to be paying proper money in relation to our rivals.
Click to expand...

We might be that with that but as long as clubs are willing to pay more than they can afford (or at least more than they should) we’ll lose out.

We won’t push our total wage bill over 50% of turnover, the new stadium makes that a bigger number but as long as other clubs are happy to hit 70/80%...
 
BrainOfLevy said:
I feel like 100k is low for Eriksen with new stadium revenue...would kinda hope we start offering money at least comparable with Liverpool and Arsenal.
Click to expand...

It's low.....he is earning less than Lovren for example:rolleyes: but hopefully the bonuses are big and he is happy overall.
 
SteveAWOL said:
£100K isn’t enough to make the league’s top 35 nowadays, even Milner and Fellaini are paid £120K a week o_O

View attachment 4530
Click to expand...

This is what I’m thinking. Bonuses don’t cut it anymore. I’m not sure a 50% wages to turnover ratio cuts it if it means we can only make Eriksen’s basic 100k a week. He should be on at least 150k and I’d be surprised if he isn’t.
 
BrainOfLevy said:
This is what I’m thinking. Bonuses don’t cut it anymore. I’m not sure a 50% wages to turnover ratio cuts it if it means we can only make Eriksen’s basic 100k a week. He should be on at least 150k and I’d be surprised if he isn’t.
Click to expand...

That really depends on the bonuses.

Did you see the breakdowns of Sanches and Aubameyangs contracts? Something like 50k bonus just for starting a game. With potentially 3 games a week that adds up fast....


VVD gets 20k per goal and 20k per assist. Imagine Eriksens £££ with the numbers he puts up there...
 
Also, honestly, Im quite happy with relatively low basic with high incentives, it makes the most amount of sense to me.

Both financially, where we dont pay maximum money on non performing players, and logically - it should keep players hungry to perform.

And, ultimately, while Eriksen might nominally be "ONLY" on 100k a week, I am very sure he will be taking home a hell of a lot more than that.
 
BrainOfLevy said:
This is what I’m thinking. Bonuses don’t cut it anymore. I’m not sure a 50% wages to turnover ratio cuts it if it means we can only make Eriksen’s basic 100k a week. He should be on at least 150k and I’d be surprised if he isn’t.
Click to expand...
We don't know it is £100k (says worth over +bonuses) and the bonus structure could contain easily achievable targets and some not so easy.

Due to the constant moaning that players 'dont try' 'dont turn up' an bonus scheme appears the perfect solution especially when married to the belief that all they care about is money.

And I'd also hazard a guess that Poch/Levy are very much aligned with this approach. From Pochs point of view, if money does help with motivation then let's dangle the pound note carrot and from Levy's point of view its less of a pay out if they under perform and we end up with EL money instead.

We'll still have a structure and it will be inflated massively for the ones who have earned it. And rightly so. We need to look after the nucleus of the side, a nucleus who incidentally have no qualms with putting a shift in.

FWIW if we have a similar season to last, it wouldn't surprise me if Eriksen takes home circa £160,000 a week next season.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back