• 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

I love contract extensions. It's a big fcuk you to all the clubs that are after our players.

That said, can anyone remember a summer or time when a player signed a contract to then fcuk off almost straight away?
 
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...
I love Eriksen but I think I have to disagree on the most important player question. Strictly on the basis that finding a forward who consistently bangs in 30 goals a season is the toughest recruitment job in football.

We have both though...so it's all good:)
 
billyiddo said:
I don't know why it's much of a concern if both the club and player are happy to sign it off
Click to expand...

It’s all fine and dandy until another club come along and we lose them potentially sooner than we needed to.

Also - injuries. Injured players have a habit of taking their stints out really badly with us, because clearly they’re taking home less money, as well as being injured.

I viewed us like a disruptive start up over the last 3 years. You take a hit on the base because of belief in the project, and you get rewarded if you do well by bonuses and equity. If we’re now maturing into an established company, I’d hope we are paying our players properly. And if the rumours of Kane getting 200k a week are true, I’d be surprised if Eriksen was 100.

This whole ‘it’s fine because of bonusses’ thing doesn’t wash with me as much anymore, because I don’t believe we should be asking our players to be taking punts on believing in a project anymore. They’ve done the hard yards in getting us where we are ahead of schedule. If Aubamayeng gets 50k per goal or whatever was stated above, his base is still going to be towards the top end of whatever our new scale is- that’s my point. If Eriksen gets 100 (I believe he would get more as a base, but for arguments sake) and bonuses make it up to a proper salary - he’s comparable players will already be on good basics and their bonuses would take them way beyond him. That isn’t a situation I would want for him or us as it pertains to keeping him for as long as we could. To be on less as a base than Liverpool’s centre back? Not cool.

I also viewed our bonusses an incentivising if they were more generous relatively speaking than our closest rivals. If they are all offering good bonusses as well, the fact that we offer them isn’t really that notable.

I get long term planning, I get financial stability, and I get that if Eriksen is happy, we may as well sign him up. I’m just thinking around the future, and frankly the idea that we should now still be offering less than our rivals in terms of guaranteed money. It makes us look smaller time for no reason - which is why I don’t believe we are doing it.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
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.
Click to expand...

I get all that. But Eriksen could probably take home a 130/140k base at Liverpool or Arsenal, with bonusses for goals, assists and wins taking him way beyond that. It’s not impressive to me that he ‘could’ get 160k, with bonusses for us. (This is all assuming what we ‘know’ of contracts at other clubs are correct and we are comparing them appropriately to our own players’ terms)
 
BrainOfLevy said:
I get all that. But Eriksen could probably take home a 130/140k base at Liverpool or Arsenal, with bonusses for goals, assists and wins taking him way beyond that. It’s not impressive to me that he ‘could’ get 160k, with bonusses for us. (This is all assuming what we ‘know’ of contracts at other clubs are correct and we are comparing them appropriately to our own players’ terms)
Click to expand...
I agree, but at this moment in time, that's where we are at. Even in just 12months we could be looking at a level playing field with Liverpool/Arsenal (whatever that is) especially if we satay in the CL. Just not now as the dust settles.
 
BrainOfLevy said:
It’s all fine and dandy until another club come along and we lose them potentially sooner than we needed to.

Also - injuries. Injured players have a habit of taking their stints out really badly with us, because clearly they’re taking home less money, as well as being injured.

I viewed us like a disruptive start up over the last 3 years. You take a hit on the base because of belief in the project, and you get rewarded if you do well by bonuses and equity. If we’re now maturing into an established company, I’d hope we are paying our players properly. And if the rumours of Kane getting 200k a week are true, I’d be surprised if Eriksen was 100.

This whole ‘it’s fine because of bonusses’ thing doesn’t wash with me as much anymore, because I don’t believe we should be asking our players to be taking punts on believing in a project anymore. They’ve done the hard yards in getting us where we are ahead of schedule. If Aubamayeng gets 50k per goal or whatever was stated above, his base is still going to be towards the top end of whatever our new scale is- that’s my point. If Eriksen gets 100 (I believe he would get more as a base, but for arguments sake) and bonuses make it up to a proper salary - he’s comparable players will already be on good basics and their bonuses would take them way beyond him. That isn’t a situation I would want for him or us as it pertains to keeping him for as long as we could. To be on less as a base than Liverpool’s centre back? Not cool.

I also viewed our bonusses an incentivising if they were more generous relatively speaking than our closest rivals. If they are all offering good bonusses as well, the fact that we offer them isn’t really that notable.

I get long term planning, I get financial stability, and I get that if Eriksen is happy, we may as well sign him up. I’m just thinking around the future, and frankly the idea that we should now still be offering less than our rivals in terms of guaranteed money. It makes us look smaller time for no reason - which is why I don’t believe we are doing it.
Click to expand...

Mate, I understand the idea, but truth is

- We are not City/United/Barca, if someone wants a boatload of cash for picking splinters out of their ass on the bench, we are not the club for them.
- We run a good business model, that is important for our long term sustainability and their is nothing wrong with that. Many clubs have built financial models that depend on never ending increases in tv revenue that may or may not happen over the next ten years (including huge clubs … see Barca)

So what do we offer

- London, with amazing training facilities, new stadium.
- Stability (new for us), and a fairly drama free environment with young upcoming talented players, and highly respected coach
- Consistent CL participation
- Good wages in a tiered manner, with regular contract upgrades based on merit.

Re the comments on bonuses, I disagree

- Most top end jobs in the world are heavily based on performance based incentives (from tech, to trading to CEO pay)
- Just because other clubs don't use it as much, doesn't mean it's the wrong model


Could Eriksen, Jan, Lloris, Dele, Kane, Son get more money elsewhere? absolutely and that's probably why TA is going to leave.

But his pay has to be looked at in the "total incentive compensation" model which includes base +bonus +perks (training ground, etc). We are not going to win a game of who pays more, some clubs simply have larger revenue streams, others are willing to take silly risks and disrupt morale to do it.
 
Raziel said:
Mate, I understand the idea, but truth is

- We are not City/United/Barca, if someone wants a boatload of cash for picking splinters out of their ass on the bench, we are not the club for them.
- We run a good business model, that is important for our long term sustainability and their is nothing wrong with that. Many clubs have built financial models that depend on never ending increases in tv revenue that may or may not happen over the next ten years (including huge clubs … see Barca)

So what do we offer

- London, with amazing training facilities, new stadium.
- Stability (new for us), and a fairly drama free environment with young upcoming talented players, and highly respected coach
- Consistent CL participation
- Good wages in a tiered manner, with regular contract upgrades based on merit.

Re the comments on bonuses, I disagree

- Most top end jobs in the world are heavily based on performance based incentives (from tech, to trading to CEO pay)
- Just because other clubs don't use it as much, doesn't mean it's the wrong model


Could Eriksen, Jan, Lloris, Dele, Kane, Son get more money elsewhere? absolutely and that's probably why TA is going to leave.

But his pay has to be looked at in the "total incentive compensation" model which includes base +bonus +perks (training ground, etc). We are not going to win a game of who pays more, some clubs simply have larger revenue streams, others are willing to take silly risks and disrupt morale to do it.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with anything you've said there. I get it all.

But you mention City, United, Barca. You don't mention Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea (a more sustainable Chelsea nowadays than they have been). I don't see any reason why we should be paying noticeably less than those clubs on the basic salaries. I don't see why Erisken et al could in theory go there and get paid more. Not with our new stadium and new found consistency.

I'm not arguing against the merits of bonuses, and I'm not arguing against the merits of strong long term planning. I'm simply saying that a base salary of 100k for someone of Eriksen's class is too low, in my opinion. He should absolutely have bonuses, but he should be paid like a proper top 4 player now, again in my opinion. But for what it's worth, I don't think that if we're going to pay Kane 200k a week as a base, we're going to be paying Eriksen 100k as a base. It just doesn't add up.

This is all assuming that there is consistency across the reported numbers, which probably isn't the case. It may well be that Kane is made up to 200k a week with bonuses. It may be that this Eriksen story is the reporter assuming we won't go higher than 100k because of what has gone previously. Or it may be that Spurs put lower numbers out there so we can drive harder bargains with new signings. All I'm saying is, whatever the reality of the situation, it doesn't sit right with me that we are paying less on basic salaries than Arsenal and Liverpool. We shouldn't have a situation where we lose out on a Mane in the future for example. Not with our stadium, and not with our more regular CL football. Those clubs can also pay bonuses too - but I always assumed we paid out way more on bonuses than they did to compensate.

I'm also not suggesting that that we pay players a boatload of cash to sit on the bench, but it is also the reality of the situation that we are more likely to be able to sign quality players who will be willing to be rotation players if we can give them higher base salaries - another reason moving into the new stadium will give us more chance of competing on multiple fronts. Let's say we get Martial or Pulisic, who would be competing directly with Son. Because there's going to be hot competition, neither Son or the new guy is going to be likely to accept a heavily incentivised contract if they know they will find it harder to start every game. But it won't be much of a problem if they have higher base salaries. (I also wouldn't be surprised if our fullbacks have high base salaries compared the rest of the squad for example, because they have up to this point needed to be the ones most comfortable with rotation). Or let's say we sign Bale - and maybe it means Dele will get less games. Dele may be more willing to stick around if he gets a higher base salary to compensate.

The reason City can get someone like Bernado Silva to sit on the bench for half a season is because they can pay good basic salaries. I'm not saying we are City level, but I am saying we are Arsenal and Liverpool level. And proper basic salaries will be important as we try and build a squad that can genuinely compete on all fronts. Heavily incentivised contracts for key players just won't help with that and frankly, I think it sends the wrong message.
 
BrainOfLevy said:
I don't disagree with anything you've said there. I get it all.

But you mention City, United, Barca. You don't mention Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea (a more sustainable Chelsea nowadays than they have been). I don't see any reason why we should be paying noticeably less than those clubs on the basic salaries. I don't see why Eriksen-sen-sen et al could in theory go there and get paid more. Not with our new stadium and new found consistency.

I'm not arguing against the merits of bonuses, and I'm not arguing against the merits of strong long term planning. I'm simply saying that a base salary of 100k for someone of Eriksen's class is too low, in my opinion. He should absolutely have bonuses, but he should be paid like a proper top 4 player now, again in my opinion. But for what it's worth, I don't think that if we're going to pay Kane 200k a week as a base, we're going to be paying Eriksen 100k as a base. It just doesn't add up.

This is all assuming that there is consistency across the reported numbers, which probably isn't the case. It may well be that Kane is made up to 200k a week with bonuses. It may be that this Eriksen story is the reporter assuming we won't go higher than 100k because of what has gone previously. Or it may be that Spurs put lower numbers out there so we can drive harder bargains with new signings. All I'm saying is, whatever the reality of the situation, it doesn't sit right with me that we are paying less on basic salaries than Arsenal and Liverpool. We shouldn't have a situation where we lose out on a Mane in the future for example. Not with our stadium, and not with our more regular CL football. Those clubs can also pay bonuses too - but I always assumed we paid out way more on bonuses than they did to compensate.

I'm also not suggesting that that we pay players a boatload of cash to sit on the bench, but it is also the reality of the situation that we are more likely to be able to sign quality players who will be willing to be rotation players if we can give them higher base salaries - another reason moving into the new stadium will give us more chance of competing on multiple fronts. Let's say we get Martial or Pulisic, who would be competing directly with Son. Because there's going to be hot competition, neither Son or the new guy is going to be likely to accept a heavily incentivised contract if they know they will find it harder to start every game. But it won't be much of a problem if they have higher base salaries. (I also wouldn't be surprised if our fullbacks have high base salaries compared the rest of the squad for example, because they have up to this point needed to be the ones most comfortable with rotation). Or let's say we sign Bale - and maybe it means Dele will get less games. Dele may be more willing to stick around if he gets a higher base salary to compensate.

The reason City can get someone like Bernado Silva to sit on the bench for half a season is because they can pay good basic salaries. I'm not saying we are City level, but I am saying we are Arsenal and Liverpool level. And proper basic salaries will be important as we try and build a squad that can genuinely compete on all fronts. Heavily incentivised contracts for key players just won't help with that and frankly, I think it sends the wrong message.
Click to expand...

The answer to that view lies here

2017 Income

United - 676M (just to show how much in their own league United are)
Arsenal - 487M
Chelsea - 428M
Pool - 424M
Spurs - 355M

So you compare us to Arsenal, but there is over a 100M gap in earning there

So the question is, does the new stadium make up over 70M +whatever is needed to cover repayment options?
 
Raziel said:
The answer to that view lies here

2017 Income

United - 676M (just to show how much in their own league United are)
Arsenal - 487M
Chelsea - 428M
Pool - 424M
Spurs - 355M

So you compare us to Arsenal, but there is over a 100M gap in earning there

So the question is, does the new stadium make up over 70M +whatever is needed to cover repayment options?
Click to expand...

I’m going to saaaaay.....hopefully it does?
 
Raziel said:
Mate, I understand the idea, but truth is

- We are not City/United/Barca, if someone wants a boatload of cash for picking splinters out of their ass on the bench, we are not the club for them.
- We run a good business model, that is important for our long term sustainability and their is nothing wrong with that. Many clubs have built financial models that depend on never ending increases in tv revenue that may or may not happen over the next ten years (including huge clubs … see Barca)

So what do we offer

- London, with amazing training facilities, new stadium.
- Stability (new for us), and a fairly drama free environment with young upcoming talented players, and highly respected coach
- Consistent CL participation
- Good wages in a tiered manner, with regular contract upgrades based on merit.

Re the comments on bonuses, I disagree

- Most top end jobs in the world are heavily based on performance based incentives (from tech, to trading to CEO pay)
- Just because other clubs don't use it as much, doesn't mean it's the wrong model


Could Eriksen, Jan, Lloris, Dele, Kane, Son get more money elsewhere? absolutely and that's probably why TA is going to leave.

But his pay has to be looked at in the "total incentive compensation" model which includes base +bonus +perks (training ground, etc). We are not going to win a game of who pays more, some clubs simply have larger revenue streams, others are willing to take silly risks and disrupt morale to do it.
Click to expand...
One of the best posts I've ever seen here. Contender for post of the year!
 
Raziel said:
The answer to that view lies here

2017 Income

United - 676M (just to show how much in their own league United are)
Arsenal - 487M
Chelsea - 428M
Pool - 424M
Spurs - 355M

So you compare us to Arsenal, but there is over a 100M gap in earning there

So the question is, does the new stadium make up over 70M +whatever is needed to cover repayment options?
Click to expand...

Having just read around some sites that have dealt with our revenue projections in the new stadium, it certainly sounds doable. Particularly if we add naming rights into the mix.

https://cartilagefreecaptain.sbnati...s-newest-financial-report-shows-their-rise-to

I don't know exactly how he's gotten to £400M projections in 18/19, but it doesn't appear like he is including naming rights in the mix (although I could be wrong and it's in the 'other commercial revenue piece). But let's say we're gonna get to £400M without the stadium, and let's say we get £25M per year with a good sponsor for the stadium, we're there. If we get Bale and end up on £40M a year for the stadium...we're pushing towards Arsenal.

Has to be said, how Arsenal have performed so badly the last couple of seasons is crazy to me.
 
BrainOfLevy said:
I don't disagree with anything you've said there. I get it all.

But you mention City, United, Barca. You don't mention Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea (a more sustainable Chelsea nowadays than they have been). I don't see any reason why we should be paying noticeably less than those clubs on the basic salaries. I don't see why Eriksen-sen-sen et al could in theory go there and get paid more. Not with our new stadium and new found consistency.

I'm not arguing against the merits of bonuses, and I'm not arguing against the merits of strong long term planning. I'm simply saying that a base salary of 100k for someone of Eriksen's class is too low, in my opinion. He should absolutely have bonuses, but he should be paid like a proper top 4 player now, again in my opinion. But for what it's worth, I don't think that if we're going to pay Kane 200k a week as a base, we're going to be paying Eriksen 100k as a base. It just doesn't add up.

This is all assuming that there is consistency across the reported numbers, which probably isn't the case. It may well be that Kane is made up to 200k a week with bonuses. It may be that this Eriksen story is the reporter assuming we won't go higher than 100k because of what has gone previously. Or it may be that Spurs put lower numbers out there so we can drive harder bargains with new signings. All I'm saying is, whatever the reality of the situation, it doesn't sit right with me that we are paying less on basic salaries than Arsenal and Liverpool. We shouldn't have a situation where we lose out on a Mane in the future for example. Not with our stadium, and not with our more regular CL football. Those clubs can also pay bonuses too - but I always assumed we paid out way more on bonuses than they did to compensate.

I'm also not suggesting that that we pay players a boatload of cash to sit on the bench, but it is also the reality of the situation that we are more likely to be able to sign quality players who will be willing to be rotation players if we can give them higher base salaries - another reason moving into the new stadium will give us more chance of competing on multiple fronts. Let's say we get Martial or Pulisic, who would be competing directly with Son. Because there's going to be hot competition, neither Son or the new guy is going to be likely to accept a heavily incentivised contract if they know they will find it harder to start every game. But it won't be much of a problem if they have higher base salaries. (I also wouldn't be surprised if our fullbacks have high base salaries compared the rest of the squad for example, because they have up to this point needed to be the ones most comfortable with rotation). Or let's say we sign Bale - and maybe it means Dele will get less games. Dele may be more willing to stick around if he gets a higher base salary to compensate.

The reason City can get someone like Bernado Silva to sit on the bench for half a season is because they can pay good basic salaries. I'm not saying we are City level, but I am saying we are Arsenal and Liverpool level. And proper basic salaries will be important as we try and build a squad that can genuinely compete on all fronts. Heavily incentivised contracts for key players just won't help with that and frankly, I think it sends the wrong message.
Click to expand...
So to summarise.....we are bumping but not bumping enough?

What we are bumping has probably been number crunched by Levy. Levy is probably not as confident as some of us that we are 'CL regulars' and that is probably because he (rightfully) considers CL qualification is a gift from Poch. No Poch and I would be sceptical (not impossible mind) that a newcomer would rack up 74pts that most likely gives you CL. So Levy is cautious.

It is an opportunity though. If you love your manager, you really have to get on board with him. I think Levy is gonna keep everyone happy who Poch says 'kerp happy' and although you think we're a bit below your desired level it's not like Eriksen (and others) can't sign another contract in 12 months.

Of course, if Levy is just being tight, then you may have a point. :D
 
BrainOfLevy said:
Having just read around some sites that have dealt with our revenue projections in the new stadium, it certainly sounds doable. Particularly if we add naming rights into the mix.

https://cartilagefreecaptain.sbnati...s-newest-financial-report-shows-their-rise-to

I don't know exactly how he's gotten to £400M projections in 18/19, but it doesn't appear like he is including naming rights in the mix (although I could be wrong and it's in the 'other commercial revenue piece). But let's say we're gonna get to £400M without the stadium, and let's say we get £25M per year with a good sponsor for the stadium, we're there. If we get Bale and end up on £40M a year for the stadium...we're pushing towards Arsenal.

Has to be said, how Arsenal have performed so badly the last couple of seasons is crazy to me.
Click to expand...

Mainly because they haven’t sold any assets and brought in more of the same style to what the had... and of course auntie Wenger wouldn’t change
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
So to summarise.....we are bumping but not bumping enough?

What we are bumping has probably been number crunched by Levy. Levy is probably not as confident as some of us that we are 'CL regulars' and that is probably because he (rightfully) considers CL qualification is a gift from Poch. No Poch and I would be sceptical (not impossible mind) that a newcomer would rack up 74pts that most likely gives you CL. So Levy is cautious.

It is an opportunity though. If you love your manager, you really have to get on board with him. I think Levy is gonna keep everyone happy who Poch says 'kerp happy' and although you think we're a bit below your desired level it's not like Eriksen (and others) can't sign another contract in 12 months.

Of course, if Levy is just being tight, then you may have a point. :D
Click to expand...

And to be honest, I just don't know. All I'm saying is that for me, paying Eriksen a basic of 100k a week just feels low. Especially if Mane is on 125 for example. But this all assumes that we know everything, that Mane and Eriksen's contracts are reported in a similar way.

I completely trust Levy, so I'm more inclined to believe that the 100k number is incorrect. Particularly if the rumors of Kane getting 200k are true. I'm sure Levy will handle it well - it's just 100k a week for someone like Eriksen, with the stadium we now have, it just feels low.
 
parklane1 said:
Well i rarely believe anything in the Daily Fail but it surprises me that there has seemed to be very little interest in him from the major clubs ( thank GHod), he IS good enough to play for any club anywhere.
Click to expand...
Indeed he is. It is actually Marca who are reporting it (not making it anymore reliable i know)....
 
harr1984 said:
Indeed he is. It is actually Marca who are reporting it (not making it anymore reliable i know)....
Click to expand...

Indeed, as i say its bound to happen sooner then later, 26 and he is up there already with the best of them. Lets hope we can start to win things soon and keep him happy here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back