Neil, start wielding that Axe.

[king canary 7,607]

I''d be really surprised if Naismith leaves- we paid quite a bit of money for him and I don''t see anyone looking to match that and we won''t be looking to make a big loss on someone who has only been here 6 months. Unless he has a relegation clause in his contract (may well do) in which case he might be attractive to a lower level Prem team.

[Indy 3,300]

Someone said he''s got a 6 million release fee. Great get him off the wages, no way even if we go up next year he''s not up for playing for us.

I''d rather see Maddison play this coming season, give him the game time.

[Capt. Pants 4,234]

We don''t need both Tettey and O''Neil for the Chump. Howson can play DM if need. What we need is creativity in midfield to create chances and set play up, not huff and puff players who can''t pass.

[king canary 7,607]

Howson can''t play DM.

I''m not totally sure what type of midfielder Thompson is though, maybe he can?

[Capt. Pants 4,234]

I''m sure Howson played that role from time to time under Hughton, albeit alongside Tettey.

[king canary 7,607]

He plays more of a box to box role- you couldn''t play him in a midfield without one of Tettey or O''Neil really.

[Nuff Said 5,141]

Can one of you who use the phrases "move on" or "let go" explain to me exactly how this works for players who are under contract but not subject to a bid from another team who will pay them a better wage than they currently get from NCFC? And given that the players you would

Iike to "move on" are those that you don''t want because of their performances last season, who will do that?

Even if a player is on, say £10K a week with us with a year left on their contract, why would they move to another club to get £5K a week unless we included £260K to make up the difference? In which case we could very quickly spend a lot of money just to ensure we have a smaller squad.

Not trying to start an argument, just curious whether there''s an aspect to this I don''t understand.

[dibbler 0]

Nuff,

As I see it if a player is on 10k/per (520k) maxing out the wage bill who you don''t want you pay them off 520k.

Then allows two younger player on 5k/week to fill an unwanted players wage and hopefully be better.

A lot is based on the wage buget, taken up by unwanted players can kill a club.

My view anyway.

[Move Klose 303]

Well when i said move on i meant be sold or loaned out. Im not one of these people who think you can just end a contract and we lose nothing. If your gonna terminate a contract then you pay up the remainder of the contract. Unless club and player make a deal for the player to only take a certain percentage of what he is owed.

[Nuff Said 5,141]

[quote user="dibbler"]Nuff,

As I see it if a player is on 10k/per (520k) maxing out the wage bill who you don''t want you pay them off 520k.

Then allows two younger player on 5k/week to fill an unwanted players wage and hopefully be better.

A lot is based on the wage buget, taken up by unwanted players can kill a club.

My view anyway.[/quote]

I don''t see the difference between £520K on wages and £520K to pay someone off, it''s still £520K.

Surely better to have the player on your books as backup?