Gilmour reducing fee the more he plays...........

[Greavsy 2,645]

 

This is from Michael Bailey / The Athletic, which I dont subscribe to. 

Would answer a few points though. 

Edited March 7, 2022 by Greavsy

[Nexus_Canary 1,206]

If this is the case then start him and as soon as the ball goes out sub him off!!

 

[Capt. Pants 5,008]

I heard a rumour it was a sliding scale loan fee. It still shouldn't dictate selection though

 

[Badger 2,745]

Just now, Capt. Pants said:

I heard a rumour it was a sliding scale loan fee. It still shouldn't dictate selection though

 

I very much doubt that it does. Staying up would be a far bigger financial gain than saving a few tens or even hundreds of thousands on a loan fee.

 

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

3 minutes ago, Badger said:

I very much doubt that it does. Staying up would be a far bigger financial gain than saving a few tens or even hundreds of thousands on a loan fee.

 

Yep we weren't bothered about the fee when Farke dropped him for roughly his last 5/6 games in charge. Not sure why Smith would be arsed. 

[Samwam27 606]

Tricky conundrum. So it sounds like we're playing him to save money, but if we didn't play him we look more effective in midfield (same goes for Mclean), and with that (hypothetically) there might be a slim chance to stay up generating considerably more revenue than p*ssing about with playing wee Billy

Surely if he was that good he should be starting to impress his talents in midfield whether it's for us in a relegation fight or Chelsea. If he can only look good with great players around him, he's never going to be recognised for being a good player. We do start every game 0-0 and he's had lots of game time to impress, yet on the whole has failed to

IMO we should drop him. I'd like to see Sorensen, Rupp, PLM given more game time. We can't do any worse, but we could do better 

[cambridgeshire canary 7,797]

If this was not so depressing it would be funny I mean jesus christ..

[Mackrel829 24]

Is this not just a joke?

I.e. the more he plays, the worse he looks, the more his fee goes down.

I assume the clipped sentence is from the linked article?

[Bovril 264]

Here is the full extract from the article with the reference about Gilmour:

"Gilmour’s loan deal from Chelsea does not come with a contractual obligation to play him, but Norwich’s fee reduces the more Gilmour plays.

Of Norwich’s four wins this season, one has come with Gilmour on the pitch. Of their 17 points, six have come with Gilmour’s contribution. On the flip side, only three times this season have Norwich taken points from a game that Pierre Lees-Melou has not started.

He has been unlucky to miss out in recent weeks and it would be interesting to see if the Frenchman alongside Rupp and Mathias Normann could make an impact against Chelsea. If it works, then the midfield to face Leeds may have picked itself."

[Petriix 3,219]

Should we run a croudfunder to raise the money to drop him for the rest of the season?

[Robert N. LiM 6,279]

It strikes me as very unlikely we're picking him to save money. As others have said, the sums involved will be tiny compared to avoiding relegation. 

I do wonder if we are trying to manage our reputation as a club worth loaning players to, though. 

[All the Germans 1,239]

This sounds like sound business for Chelsea and something I bet we do when loaning players out too. The last thing they want is to loan a player out and him not play, when he could stay with them and train with better players. He would be in a worse position coming on loan and not playing than just staying there. It makes sense to incentivise the loaning team to play them by offering them money off.

However, as stated above, I strongly do not believe that this is why we would choose to play him as the money would pale into insignificance against staying up. I can only assume we think he's good enough to play. (Note: when I say we, I mean the club, I wholeheartedly do not think he is good enough).

[Greavsy 2,645]

from the Q&A today
 

They agreed to pay a flat loan fee for BG this season which reduces in line with the amount of PL games he played for Norwich. There was a threshold of games which if he reached that number of games, that fee would be zero. 

[shefcanary 2,951]

4 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

from the Q&A today
 

They agreed to pay a flat loan fee for BG this season which reduces in line with the amount of PL games he played for Norwich. There was a threshold of games which if he reached that number of games, that fee would be zero. 

You missed the next sentence, where Paddy said that the threshold would not be reached confirming that presumably, apart from Thursday, every time he does not play it will cost us.

[Greavsy 2,645]

2 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

You missed the next sentence, where Paddy said that the threshold would not be reached confirming that presumably, apart from Thursday, every time he does not play it will cost us.

I dont subscribe - and someone else sent it to me, so I have quoted what I was sent. 

Thanks for providing the context thought. 

[Clint 221]

I’m not sure the problem is Gilmour, I think the problem is Gilmour and McLean together. I think it’s the combination of the two that kills us.

Of the matches that Gilmour has played and we’ve got points, was he in a midfield three with McLean and one other? I may be wrong but I recall Kenny having a spell out of the team, what was the points haul like in those games?