Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nutty nigel

Steven Naismith

Recommended Posts

I think if you factor in player wages with their transfer costs most sound poor value. The fact is players are paid a lot of money, especially in the Premier League.

Whether Norwich will be liable for the entire £8 fee quoted at the time is unlikely as I''m sure there will have been clauses regarding appearances, goals and Premier League survival tied into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A free transfer might be the best we can hope for, as we are seemingly obligated to pay him £5m in the next two years.

If we transferred him, I''m sure he would be entitled to a part of the wage as stated in his contract (disruption for his family, schooling changes, moving costs etc).

Giving him a free transfer means we free up £5m (presumably meaning don''t have to pay any of that salary), he is more likely to get a higher wage as there will be no initial fee to a potential employer.

I refuse to believe there are not better players than him available at a fraction of the £5m it would cost for the next two years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now there''s a challenge - care to name some? Bear in mind that they will need to be:

a) an established international,

b) have spent the vast majority of their career in the top division of their country, and of course,

c) be willing to come to NCFC in the Championship on the ''pittance'' of £30k a week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Almost no transfers don''t include various clauses and performance related fees - it is an industry standard.

Incredibly rare to see an fee based on full payment up front. Although I was told the Redmond one was pretty much cash upfront with a small percentage of profit clause - which is why the deal was accepted and concluded very quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Woodman"]Now there''s a challenge - care to name some? Bear in mind that they will need to be:

a) an established international,

b) have spent the vast majority of their career in the top division of their country, and of course,

c) be willing to come to NCFC in the Championship on the ''pittance'' of £30k a week.[/quote]

Naismith''s potential replacement needs to offer more to us at this point than he currently does, at a lower expenditure for the club.

I can''t see what difference having been a bit-part player for ''top league'' side or regular for a very poor international side has to do with it whatsoever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair I''d say we are already pretty well stocked with players that play behind a main striker...

Pritchard, Hoolahan, Maddison

I''d personally be looking to offload him and strengthen elsewhere as a priority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We''ve probably got an eye watering amount of wages sunk into attacking midfielders/wingers. Naismith and Jarvis both very well paid, Pritchard, Wildschut and Wes won''t be on the cheap and both Murphy''s will have got significant rises in their new contract.

Our squad and our resources seem exceptionally imbalanced at times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our squad is even more imbalanced now that we have hardly any defenders left, lol!

One issue with the defence is is that while we have got shot of most of the second string, I''m not sure (m)any of the u23s are really ready to step up, so it does seem we will need to make a large number of purchases in order to have any depth - hopefully we have some in mind/lined up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mashiter saying that Naismith won''t go on a free.

He might go but not on a free.

Mashiter appears to have a hotline to the boss at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mike "]A free transfer might be the best we can hope for, as we are seemingly obligated to pay him £5m in the next two years.

If we transferred him, I''m sure he would be entitled to a part of the wage as stated in his contract (disruption for his family, schooling changes, moving costs etc).

Giving him a free transfer means we free up £5m (presumably meaning don''t have to pay any of that salary), he is more likely to get a higher wage as there will be no initial fee to a potential employer.

I refuse to believe there are not better players than him available at a fraction of the £5m it would cost for the next two years.[/quote]Naismith has a contract with us. That can be bought out by another club for part or the full amount. If part, then we are obliged to make up the difference. The cost of buying out a player''s contract is often confused with a transfer fee.If Naismith was on £50k a week then taking that contract on plus signing and agent fees would most likely be the £8m originally quoted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Carrow89"][quote user="Mike "]A free transfer might be the best we can hope for, as we are seemingly obligated to pay him £5m in the next two years.

If we transferred him, I''m sure he would be entitled to a part of the wage as stated in his contract (disruption for his family, schooling changes, moving costs etc).

Giving him a free transfer means we free up £5m (presumably meaning don''t have to pay any of that salary), he is more likely to get a higher wage as there will be no initial fee to a potential employer.

I refuse to believe there are not better players than him available at a fraction of the £5m it would cost for the next two years.[/quote]Naismith has a contract with us. That can be bought out by another club for part or the full amount. If part, then we are obliged to make up the difference. The cost of buying out a player''s contract is often confused with a transfer fee.If Naismith was on £50k a week then taking that contract on plus signing and agent fees would most likely be the £8m originally quoted.[/quote]

The transfer fee is the cost of transfering the players registration. It is independent of what the player and his agent gets paid.

If a player gets transferred to a club and he hasn''t asked for a transfer then the rest of his signing on fee gets paid up. Thats why some clubs insist on a player asking for a transfer so that they can avoid paying up the rest of the signing on fee.

What a player gets paid at another club depends on the circumstances. The selling club MAY top up the wages at the new club in order to offload the player and avoid paying the full wages that would be paid to the player if he didnt move.

Alternatively the player may agree to take the lower wages at a new club in return for a longer contract (e.g., if a player has one year left with us they may switch clubs in order to secure say a three year contract).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="KeiranShikari"]Surprised people were so quick to believe the Sun.[/quote]I think you might have predicted that those who did, would [:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Donkey dangler"][quote user="Carrow89"][quote user="Mike "]A free transfer might be the best we can hope for, as we are seemingly obligated to pay him £5m in the next two years.

If we transferred him, I''m sure he would be entitled to a part of the wage as stated in his contract (disruption for his family, schooling changes, moving costs etc).

Giving him a free transfer means we free up £5m (presumably meaning don''t have to pay any of that salary), he is more likely to get a higher wage as there will be no initial fee to a potential employer.

I refuse to believe there are not better players than him available at a fraction of the £5m it would cost for the next two years.[/quote]Naismith has a contract with us. That can be bought out by another club for part or the full amount. If part, then we are obliged to make up the difference. The cost of buying out a player''s contract is often confused with a transfer fee.If Naismith was on £50k a week then taking that contract on plus signing and agent fees would most likely be the £8m originally quoted.[/quote]

The transfer fee is the cost of transfering the players registration. It is independent of what the player and his agent gets paid.

If a player gets transferred to a club and he hasn''t asked for a transfer then the rest of his signing on fee gets paid up. Thats why some clubs insist on a player asking for a transfer so that they can avoid paying up the rest of the signing on fee.

What a player gets paid at another club depends on the circumstances. The selling club MAY top up the wages at the new club in order to offload the player and avoid paying the full wages that would be paid to the player if he didnt move.

Alternatively the player may agree to take the lower wages at a new club in return for a longer contract (e.g., if a player has one year left with us they may switch clubs in order to secure say a three year contract).[/quote]I''m afraid you are a bit out there. There is no MAY about topping up. Naismith has a contract with us for X per week. We are liable for that full amount. Any offer from another club would mean paying up that contract. Which sometimes is mistakenly referred to as a transfer fee, when it often is not. Clubs will often accept a lower offer for that contract so as to move a player on. They will then HAVE to make up any difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn''t quite work like that but yes it does have a direct impact on the transfer fee. On the face of it, a player on £3k a week in his final year is going to be more appealing to buy than a player of the same ability on £30k a week with 3 years remaining with many other factors come into it.

If the offer eawas from a bigger club then they would be getting more wages so would forego the current deal they are on. someone like Kyle lafferty would probably dig in and say he won''t move unless we pay him the rest of the contract or the vast majority of it. some players do take paycuts in order to get on with their careers though. this is why you see a few loan deals of older players happen to smaller clubs.

As for Naismith, I wouldn''t be in a rush to get rid of him. whilst he is on prem money and we spent good money on him, he is a positive contributor to the side. As long as we have enough there to get a new keeper, dijks or another lb, a cb and a dm then I''d rather not gamble trying to get better than naismith inevitably for less than he would sell for.

That being said, if we can get a side from the prem to take a punt on him and pay us a good fee and agree to take on his wages then it would make sense to offload. we have got rid of most of the real money drainers though. It is hard to know where his best position is however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The s*n (yeah I know) seem to think we are gonna release Naismith! Apparently he is on £50k a week!

I think even if he is, we would be daft to just release him personally. Sunderland were willing to pay £5m for him just 4 months ago and he''s been a regular fixture in the first team for us as well as being very versatile. Hope it''s bollocks they are spouting as usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With a natural turnover of probably less than £30m, other expenses of around £12m last season, this implies the club''s ability to pay wages is something south of £18m from 18/19. With a 16/17 wage bill probably north of £50m, presumably only the wholesale fire sale of any player assets that can be realised plus a dismantling of other expensive structural arrangements, such as running a category one academy, is inevitable. Naismith''s departure is simply a recognition of our decline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Carrow89"]I''m afraid you are a bit out there. There is no MAY about topping up. Naismith has a contract with us for X per week. We are liable for that full amount. Any offer from another club would mean paying up that contract. Which sometimes is mistakenly referred to as a transfer fee, when it often is not. Clubs will often accept a lower offer for that contract so as to move a player on. They will then HAVE to make up any difference.[/quote]
You''re wrong there, it doesn''t quite work like that. If we give him a free tfr a club wanting to sign Naismith wont have to pay us a fee, The other club can then negotiate to give that fee or part of it to Naismith as a signing on fee which in turn means he might take less wages with them & move, once he signs for another club his contract with us is cancelled and we don''t pay him anymore. If we just released him or cancd his contract then yes we''d have to pay his last 2 years up.
I really hope he stays, if we can afford to keep him of course

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Possibly off the Rangers? Really hope this doesn''t happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a legal case last year between Spurs and HMRC which sets out how this all works, dealing with the payment to Peter Crouch made by Spurs when he moved to Stoke.

 

A player is on a fixed-term contract and the club is obliged to pay him wages & benefits for the rest of that contract, or it can terminate the contract by paying the balance of the wages etc for the rest of the contract period and he''s then free to do what he wants.  Obviously that''s not a great option for the club because the player can pocket his full wages for the rest of the contract and then go to another club and get paid by them too, but these are the only choices the club can force on the player.


Everything else must be by agreement between the player and the club.  If another club is willing to pay higher wages and the player wants to go there, the current club can require a transfer fee in return for releasing him from his current contract.  If the current club doesn''t want him, but other clubs are only willing to pay lower wages, then it makes sense to do a deal where the current club and the player agree he''ll be released, getting a reduced payment from the current club, and then moves to the other club which will pay him lower wages, so in total he''s no worse off.  E.g. if he''s paid £2.5m pa with 2 years to go, and another club is willing to pay £1.5m pa wages, it makes sense for the current club to pay him £2m to get him to agree to move to that other club.  Obviously this only makes sense if the current club would prefer to pay £2m to get rid of him, rather than pay £5m to have him as a player for 2 years (using up a place in the squad and possibly being a negative influence etc) which at least saves the £3m.  But the player does have to agree to what''s happening.

 

That was basically what happened when Crouch moved from Spurs to Stoke - Stoke were paying lower wages so Spurs paid him enough to make it worthwhile for him to move.


This is why people are naïve when they suggest we should have extended the contracts for people like Ruddy etc to get a transfer fee - we''re obviously paying them wages that are high enough that we just wouldn''t get any transfer fee, and in reality we''d be more likely ending up with a liability on our hands.

 

With Naismith, I''m not convinced about the benefit he brings to the side.  Maybe if we get in a new head coach who he respects and vice versa, he could become the sort of leader on the field that we need.  But I don''t think "having a go" at other players = being a leader, especially when I think of that time when he had a go at one of the Murphys when it was actually his own mistake.  For some reason, AN was desperate to sign him and we obviously agreed a contract which was pretty generous even after relegation.  I think if we can offload him for any sort of transfer fee, we should, but I suspect it''s too late for that now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you genuinely believe that we are not trying to move on a player who''s 30+ picking up £50k a week who isn''t even a guaranteed starter despite Webber saying we''ve gotta get wage bill and age of the squad down then that''s your choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I''ve never understood why AN thought it was so important to sign him and in the Prem I never thought he fitted into the team formation .  It was no coincidence that after he joined, our awful run of defeats started.  This season the expectation was that he''d shine by being a better calibre player in a lower division, but instead it''s only now at the end of the season that he''s produced anything to even justify a place in the starting lineup, never mind looking like a Prem quality player.


A real millstone that AN has left us.  [:@] 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He looked good surrounded by players like Barkley & Lukaku. It''s all well and good paying someone £50k a week if they dictating a game like Shelvey or chipping in with 10 goals and 10 assists etc like a Cainey or Johansen at Fulham.

Barring about 5 decent Half''s he been pretty bang average. Who honestly thinks we miss him like we do a Wes or a Howson. Probably no one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A player on 50K a week at this level has to be star of the show. I dont dislike Naismith and dont doubt he''ll contribute next season if here, but if the club has trouble covering the wages i''d rather see those resources used elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...