Jump to content
hepphep

Pukki's extension is for £50k per week?

Recommended Posts

Read from one news site that The Athletic (cannot confirm this from Athletic due to paywall) has article claiming that club's option to extend Pukki's contract comes with £50k / week salary, even if we play Championship.

That sure makes decision bit harder than originally thought. 

So, if the claim is correct, do you think we should still keep Pukki? And do you think club will use the extension option?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hepphep said:

Read from one news site that The Athletic (cannot confirm this from Athletic due to paywall) has article claiming that club's option to extend Pukki's contract comes with £50k / week salary, even if we play Championship.

That sure makes decision bit harder than originally thought. 

So, if the claim is correct, do you think we should still keep Pukki? And do you think club will use the extension option?

I did see this question on Twitter, but even for £50k a week its surely a no brainer to keep him! £2.5mil to keep a proven quality champs (even lower league prem) player around for another season - yes please.

 

 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Davidlingfield said:

Except there isn’t any money…..

I'm sure if we try hard enough we will find the 💰 money to fund him. Just need to Climb every ⛰️ Mountain to make it happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

I did see this question on Twitter, but even for £50k a week its surely a no brainer to keep him! £2.5mil to keep a proven quality champs (even lower league prem) player around for another season - yes please.

Exactly this imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Davidlingfield said:

Except there isn’t any money…..

I think that there will be between 70 and 80 million even if we don't sell any players. I'm sure we could afford the £2.5 million on Pukki's wages if we wanted to. I think a lot depends on how Smith wants to play.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The figures mentioned are slightly incorrect, he’s actually on 60k p/w.
 

If the option is triggered he will remain on this money in the championship but other top earners will have there wages halved which would cause some unrest despite his goal scoring heroics. 
 

Pukki has interest from some PL clubs, the main one being Wolves and also foreign interest but he is content in Norfolk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we being softened up here for a non-renewal of his contract by this being drip fed to the Athletic.

Its a one year outlay. Not really acceptable to just let our only proven goalscorer walk away. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Are we being softened up here for a non-renewal of his contract by this being drip fed to the Athletic.

Its a one year outlay. Not really acceptable to just let our only proven goalscorer walk away. 

Canary Fan Dictionary. "To Jim Smith". Definition: to draw the most pessimistic conclusion possible from  a seemingly neutral statement or event and then proceed on the assumption the conclusion is correct.😍

  • Haha 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "there isn't any money" related to this season. Next season there'll be parachute payments, and with a budget for Smith & Webber to sort through the dross, along with any sales we make

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like complete fantasy numbers to me. If we're really paying that sort of money then it begs the question of why we didn't sign a whole bunch of better players. I strongly suspect it's simply not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Petriix said:

Sounds like complete fantasy numbers to me. If we're really paying that sort of money then it begs the question of why we didn't sign a whole bunch of better players. I strongly suspect it's simply not true.

1. Well if we have a wage budget of £90+ million, which is likely, we have to be paying someone a lot! There always was a load of rot spoken about our wage ceiling! I'm sure we have one, but some of the numbers quoted were silly!

2. Players that are "definitely better" will have offers from stablished ELP teams, so why go to a newly-promoted club with the probability of being relegated (as the majority of promoted teams are)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, YellowSubmarine said:

The figures mentioned are slightly incorrect, he’s actually on 60k p/w.

Do you have a source for this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Davidlingfield said:

Except there isn’t any money…..

Sounds like the Tories.. Until the magic money tree shows up 😉

 

Seriously, 50 a grand a week sounds a lot and well, is. Would probably be our highest wage of all time. But for Pukki? God knows we will need him next season.. Do we really want to sell another one of our best players? Would very much be like selling Emi all over again. Much as some people like to rag on pukki (god knows why..) fair to say we will need him next season. Our best striker by a country mile and I do feel that next season will be much tougher than many think and I dread to think what it would be like without Pukkis help

Edited by cambridgeshire canary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought such scenarios were exactly what parachute payments were originally  intended for.

They were certainly not intended to maintain the financial viability of a club's 'model' or even finance ventures into the transfer market.

Not that I am accusing NCFC of such tactics.

Losing Pukki would surely put another dent in our hopes of success next season.

Drip, drip, drip. It's like Chinese water torture supporting City these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will Pukki want another season in the Chumps? He is reaching the twilight of his career and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if he decided to seek a final payday. And if so, good luck and thanks for everything. Whatever happens, he will be a club legend

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50k for our talismanic top scorer over consecutive seasons isn't actually even that much by top Championship terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Losing Pukki would surely put another dent in our hopes of success next season.

 

I think that a large part of it depends upon how Smith wants to play. The article does quite a lot of analysis on the type of goals/ shots etc that Pukki specialises in and he may feel that this is not the type of chance that we are aiming to create next year.

I've got the impression that he is looking to play a more direct style, crosses into the box rather than the patient build up with threaded balls a la Buendia. I certainly feel that we may need to review our playing style if we were to get another crack at the EPL in the next couple of years.

I can't claim to be a tactical expert but it seems to me that Farke developed a system that made us nearly unplayable in the Championship through ball domination but against better players in the EPL just didn't work. Teams that stay up tend to be more direct and aggressive rather than silky and cultured.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The exact quote from The Athletic is:

"However, Pukki’s option comes with the continuation of his Premier League wages; significantly north of £50,000 per week and far in excess of what the club would want anyone to believe they would pay a player when operating outside the top flight."

'Significantly north' makes me think the £60k figure quoted earlier in this thread is more accurate.

But even £60k is less than what Mitrovic, for example, is earning and is probably worth it for someone of Pukki's track record. 

Even if we didn't want to keep him, triggering the option and then selling him for a couple of million would be better than letting him go.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Petriix said:

Sounds like complete fantasy numbers to me. If we're really paying that sort of money then it begs the question of why we didn't sign a whole bunch of better players. I strongly suspect it's simply not true.

Krul is the highest earner on 70k a week, Pukki second. Had Hugill had been registered in the PL squad he would have been earning 50k which was one of the reasons to get him out on loan and save on wages. 
 

Whilst some of these figures may seem high, they are for us but not for PL teams. A recent study said that the average PL players wages is between 70-80k per week, an example was Kouyate at Palace on 80k a week. Eye watering really. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

Canary Fan Dictionary. "To Jim Smith". Definition: to draw the most pessimistic conclusion possible from  a seemingly neutral statement or event and then proceed on the assumption the conclusion is correct.😍

I  think that you are in danger of upsetting Dean Coney's Boots who guards this crown jealously from any pretenders.

I am sure that he could come up with a far more pessimistic (and usually bizarre) conclusion.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Don’t be Krul said:

Whatever happens, he will be a club legend

Yes definitely!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, YellowSubmarine said:

Krul is the highest earner on 70k a week, Pukki second. Had Hugill had been registered in the PL squad he would have been earning 50k which was one of the reasons to get him out on loan and save on wages. 
 

Whilst some of these figures may seem high, they are for us but not for PL teams. A recent study said that the average PL players wages is between 70-80k per week, an example was Kouyate at Palace on 80k a week. Eye watering really. 

I don't find these figures surprising but wondered what your source was?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Sounds like the Tories.. Until the magic money tree shows up 😉

 

Seriously, 50 a grand a week sounds a lot and well, is. Would probably be our highest wage of all time. But for Pukki? God knows we will need him next season.. Do we really want to sell another one of our best players? Would very much be like selling Emi all over again. Much as some people like to rag on pukki (god knows why..) fair to say we will need him next season.Our best striker by a country mile and I do feel that next season will be much tougher than many think and I dread to think what it would be like without Pukkis help

But that's not exactly a high bar to clear is it!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

The exact quote from The Athletic is:

"However, Pukki’s option comes with the continuation of his Premier League wages; significantly north of £50,000 per week and far in excess of what the club would want anyone to believe they would pay a player when operating outside the top flight."

'Significantly north' makes me think the £60k figure quoted earlier in this thread is more accurate.

But even £60k is less than what Mitrovic, for example, is earning and is probably worth it for someone of Pukki's track record. 

Even if we didn't want to keep him, triggering the option and then selling him for a couple of million would be better than letting him go.

I would be amazed if we paid anyone £50k per week in the Chumpionship whilst the rest of the squad (presumably) have far less attractive relegation 'clauses' in their contracts (or so the club have always delighted to tell us). If this is true I would envisage a scenario whereby club and Pukki 'parted company'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, yellowrider120 said:

I would be amazed if we paid anyone £50k per week in the Chumpionship whilst the rest of the squad (presumably) have far less attractive relegation 'clauses' in their contracts (or so the club have always delighted to tell us). If this is true I would envisage a scenario whereby club and Pukki 'parted company'.

We spent £66.6 million last year on wages last year! Allowing for non playing staff and promotion bonuses, there are still some very well paid players there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if that's what he wants then that's what we'll have to pay! Unfortunately we have no-one remotely banging on the door to take his place, with Idah injured and Sargent preferred as some of right winger/pseudo addtional midfielder.

I would have though collectively our current loanees are being paid a fair old wack, so there will be funds available there.

Still think we need a Pukki MkII or a striker with different attributes but if we are to persist with Teemu he needs the right service from midfield.

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

×
×
  • Create New...