Sibierski

[bigbear 0]

I heard this today.  Yet again, I don''t know exactly how accurate it is, but anyway.  From what I can gather, Sibierski''s wages are rather extreme to say the least.  Apparently, he is being paid £25k a week by us and £10k a week by Wigan.  If that is true then the amount we will have spent on him is ridiculous.  He has til after Christmas before his loan deal runs out.  If what they say is true and nowadays you have to pay teams (sometimes a hefty amount) cash to take a player on loan.  From his wages and also the signing fee, then it could easily end up totalling somewhere in the region of £500k for a loan player who has been dreadful. 

Couldn''t and shouldn''t this money have been spent wiser by actually bringing in someone who would actually want to play for us and put in some effort, and would god forbid, still be with us at the end of the season without having to go back to his parent club.

Are we not meant to be being prudent?  How can that be when we have wasted so much money on loans.  After Christmas, when the 3 month loans have gone back, what are we going to do?  If Roeder is still in charge, the only thing would be to get more loans in.  Maybe we could loan in a ball-boy or 2.  I saw a bit on youtube where a ball-boy was retrieving a ball and threw it hard into an opposition players knackers.  Myabe that could work, if our ball boys did that to all the other team during the game.

[lucky green trainers 0]

how much - can''t be right can it??? for a 34 year old??? i''d be very surprised - given the turners had walked and left a black hole in the accounts...

[newyorkcanary 14]

I can''t see us paying any more than 15k-18k a week for him. Maybe 15k from us and 10k from Wigan giving him 25k a week total... that makes more sense....

[cuckoo in the nest 0]

He is poor, no very poor

[Old Boy 0]

[quote user="newyorkcanary"]I can''t see us paying any more than 15k-18k a week for him. Maybe 15k from us and 10k from Wigan giving him 25k a week total... that makes more sense....[/quote]

Sorry - no, that makes no sense at all. If we''re paying more than £8k it''s a disastrous piece of business. In truth, though, we have no idea how much any of our players are on.

[Roger Hansbury 0]

[quote user="Old Boy"]

[quote user="newyorkcanary"]I can''t see us paying any more than 15k-18k a week for him. Maybe 15k from us and 10k from Wigan giving him 25k a week total... that makes more sense....[/quote]

Sorry - no, that makes no sense at all. If we''re paying more than £8k it''s a disastrous piece of business. In truth, though, we have no idea how much any of our players are on.

[/quote]

Come on think about it. 8,000 for an premiership striker. Im not saying hes been a hit but you wont get anything for under 20,000 a week for a player with premiership experience.

 

[Blofield Canary 11]

Just think about it. We have spent next to nothing on players and Roeder had a very generous playing budget this season and the pot is empty.

It is widely rumoured that SiIbierski has cost us £500,000 for the loan so it all adds up.  Lipoli will have cost us just as much as this and most of the others will be on very good money as well.

Face facts. Roeder has wasted a very large amount of money.

[komakino 272]

Norwich are notorious for paying over the odds on loan fees, but sometimes that''s the way, as few players want to come here, mainly due to location.

[ca 1]

[quote user="bigbear"]

I heard this today.  Yet again, I don''t know exactly how accurate it is, but anyway.  From what I can gather, Sibierski''s wages are rather extreme to say the least.  Apparently, he is being paid £25k a week by us and £10k a week by Wigan.  If that is true then the amount we will have spent on him is ridiculous. 

[/quote]

£35k a week is the figure I heard too when he first came.What a waste of money!

[Lenny-boy 0]

you are joking, he gets his wigan wages and Norwich put him up in a hotel. Dont worry he will be gone soon.

 

[Hairy Canary 696]

Thats a huge amount of cash for three months!

It does go some way to answering the "where has all the money gone" question though. I''ve been thinking that this close season was pretty nuetral in terns of cash spent on players when all the time we have probably paid millions for the loanees.

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="bigbear"]

. 

Couldn''t and shouldn''t this money have been spent wiser by actually bringing in someone who would actually want to play for us

[/quote]

dont let Shack attack see that.. dare to question the commitment of the loans and he says its simplistic rubbish!

if true Re Shittierski''s wages then i agree.. its a shocking amount of money to waste on a player who has been poor thus far.. and could of been used to sign a player permanently, if the player had been no good we could of sold him and recouped some of the cash.. we might as well of just taken the 500,000 paid and flushed it down the bog!

jas :)

[Grando 260]

Yes, if true the figures are shocking. I can''t believe there isn''t a decent lower-divison striker out there available for 500k who would add something to our forward line and actually be our player. Clearly our scouts no longer look for such players though (if indeed we have any scouts)...