england1966 0 Posted May 12, 2009 was marshall sold to pay doncaster off?? or to pay a creditor??were we close to administration?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JuanVelasco 27 Posted May 12, 2009 [quote user="england1966"]was marshall sold to pay doncaster off?? or to pay a creditor??were we close to administration??[/quote]Or maybe he was sold because hes a passionless and overated keeper, who makes a lot of mistakes, and is probably on enough money to sign three players this summer.He has come out and pretty much stated that he doesnt want to play in league one. Good riddance.Theres your answer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grif 0 Posted May 12, 2009 Absolutely 100% spot on there ryan, nail on the head moment. Some people like to bring conspiracy theories into everything. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Clever Farke 64 Posted May 12, 2009 Agree with that. He is as passionate as a wet lettuce. His post match interviews were like watching Neil from the Young Ones. Good in one on ones though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chicken 0 Posted May 12, 2009 Actually to be fair I think it has more to do with being a high wage earner. We need to cut our wage bill and it seems that Grant not only blasted a hefty transfer kitty by paying over the odds for players but that he also paid over the odds in wages for them.Top earner was Fotheringham and he had played for a few reletively unheard of teams in Europe before us - I can''t imagine someone as tried and tested as Marshall would have been on a lot less. I am guessing that Fotheringham being made captain made him well paid but never the less I should imagine Marshall was on that higher tier of wages at the club.I doubt that it has much to do with his desire to play for us in all honesty. If he had been a low wage earner then we may have seen a different story in terms of the money we tried to get for him but I should imagine we took the offer because of the money we would save in the long run.If he was on £5k a week before any bonuses etc then he cost us £260k a year. I should imagine he was on more than that with possible bonuses for clean sheets not that he would have many for that . . . . . So if we sold him for £600k then in theory you have shaved £260k off the wage bill and also provided another £600k to cover anything else we may need to throw money at - with any luck new players.If my maths is right if we payed around £3k a week on average for a squad of 16 players you would be looking at a wage bill of £2 1/2 million. So throw in four more players and some on more and some on less and I think we should be aiming for a wage bill of around £4million and not a penny more.I can''t imagine that all of those youngsters are on as much as that including MacDonald so it will be down to the others now. The likes of Patty and Cureton who must be on a fair bit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
