Topic: Mohamed Salah - Best in the World *

[scatman]

I understand modern football transfers and the state of the global game.

I just think the amounts of money involved are disgusting.

Well that’s your own problem, find something else to do rather than watching people who’ve dedicated their lives to a certain popular thing and are the best at it out of the 7 billion odd on this planet.

[lamad]

Yep, i did say unlikely and it's just speculation on my part, should have left Bayern out of it. Further reduces Mo's options. Infact  its Liverpool or oil clubs, thats why I think there will be a compromise and a deal worked out that suits both parties.

Should have noted that I realised you mentioned they were less likely to cough up such a sum, sorry if this came across differently. Just thought I'd clarify this position with some figures. 

[kasperoff]

What if he's not in 12 months?

What is he's scoring even more somewhere else and we are in the Europe League?

If my uncle. . .

[vivabobbygraham]

Thing is, Mo, Sadio and Naby won't come straight back from AFCOM and play. They'll be fooked. They'll need a break even if only a week. Jurgen will look after them. It's all part of the plan to sign him up. Who the fuck would love him more than us? Means a lot to Mo.

[Ghost Town]

No - you've missed the point by completely misunderstanding the role a "wage structure" has on a new player into the team, and what kind of wage they can negotiate - almost NONE.  You are pretending that if Salah was on, say 250k, instead of 200k, that Jota's demand would have been more - that is simply not the case, or if it were the club would have laughed at his agent pretending his client deserves more just because 1 player is paid more. 

There is, however, plenty of evidence that the pay of a new player, mostly, is dependant on 2 things - the size of the transfer fee (so the cheaper, the easier it is to get a higher wage) and their current wage (so if they are on a higher wage, it will be difficult to sign them on less); turnover/revenue of the club also can count.  Jota was on 40k at Wolves - he came to us on 80k.  So you might say "oh that's a big pay rise" and it was - but his fee was less than other (often bigger named players) were pulling in, so we could afford to add say 20k to what we would ordinarily pay (20k a week, across 5 years, is only 5m), and it's still less than comparable players in our squad and similar clubs'.  Milner on the other hand was on closer to 80k at City, but when we signed him we gave him a much larger raise up to 140k - because his transfer was absolutely free, despite being at a time when wages were about 25% less than when we bought Jota, and in a position where you don't earn as much in general (MF vs Attack).  If we had to buy him for the market value of about 20m, then he'd havbe probably been offered (and been happy with) closer to 100k

Let's be clear here - the agent's main pay day is NOT the contract renogotiation but at the point of transfer - so using the "greedy agent" logic, then they want a new player to arrive for more money in the form of the fee, and less wages (especially as then when they do re-negotiate 2-3 years down the line, the increase they get their client is larger, so more money again for them).  They would get far more money if they signed shorter 3-4 year contracts, and then moved their client after every 2, then do what the likes of Salah wants and sign a (bigger) contract and stay another 3-5 years (and possibly get another contract at that point).

Still seems like you've missed the point and have misunderstood what I was saying. And in particular the bolded bit is nothing whatsoever to do with the point I was making, nor with the subject that was being discussed, which was not a player going up from 200k to 250k, which is entirely normal during contract renegs, nor anything tame like that, but rather a player going from, for example, 200k to 500k or similar, which is the kind of thing being bandied about in all this 'pay him what he's worth' Mo contract talk (albent based on no known facts), and which would markedly shift the wages Overton window for the club and therefore lead to knock on effects which would have to be factored in before a decision was taken to award such a raise.

But in any case, I followed that up with the post:

True enough, and I'm aghast at myself for having added to that.

Back to 'Mo is boss' posts for me.

...which is my way of saying I'm done with this pointless, entirely speculative topic. I've avoided getting involved in the topic for months, so I'm not quite sure how I got dragged in this time; my bad,  but that's me done.

I'm going back to posting about the wonderful Mo Salah, the player, and the joy he brings us, not stuff about which we have no concrete information.

[Eeyore]

Thing is, Mo, Sadio and Naby won't come straight back from AFCOM and play. They'll be fooked. They'll need a break even if only a week. Jurgen will look after them. It's all part of the plan to sign him up. Who the fuck would love him more than us? Means a lot to Mo.

Why would they require a break, we have European aways that are much further than the AFCON.

[red1977]

Should have noted that I realised you mentioned they were less likely to cough up such a sum, sorry if this came across differently. Just thought I'd clarify this position with some figures. 

No worries at all mate, you made a good point. :-)

[Mister Flip Flop]

Thing is, Mo, Sadio and Naby won't come straight back from AFCOM and play. They'll be fooked. They'll need a break even if only a week. Jurgen will look after them. It's all part of the plan to sign him up. Who the fuck would love him more than us? Means a lot to Mo.

A break for what? He'd be playing as many matches for us if not at the tournament. It's the middle of the season and we are chasing trophies on all fronts. He can rest in the summer.

[Scottymuser]

Bayern allegedly pay Lewandowski close to 20 million Euro per season, aka 15 million GBP. That is not even 300,000 per week. Lewandowski arrived there aged 26 or 27 (hope I am getting all these numbers right, not a Bayern supporter here!). I cannot see them pay four or five hundred thousand a week for a 30 year old player unproven in their team. Bayern is a self sustaining club and they do have a wage structure in place. And although they have a huge income, they do not have a Saudi prince or anyone else randomly throwing money at them.

It depends - if he goes this summer, then sure - but if he doesn't sign another contract, and leaves on a free - then all the money saved on the transfer fee could be spent directly on increasing his wage.  Which has been my point all along - if he goes for free, the number of clubs who could afford him jump up thanks to the savings on a mega transfer

[rob1966]

Well that’s your own problem, find something else to do rather than watching people who’ve dedicated their lives to a certain popular thing and are the best at it out of the 7 billion odd on this planet.

Not easy to do when you have supported a club for 55 years and your parents and grandparents supported the club long before you were born

[El Lobo]

What is he's scoring even more somewhere else and we are in the Europe League?

If my uncle. . .

Thats the point isn't it. It really isn't just as simple as 'he's currently the best player in the world, so give him best player in the world wages for the next four years'. Again, you don't see how that might impact other players wages moving forward? Its the point Ghost Town seems to be pissing in the wind trying to make. If our top earner is on (for example) £500k a week, everyone elses wages (existing and new signings) will naturally gravitate towards that amount. You can't just go 'Right we'll make an exception for Mo, and thats it' if someone else then becomes equally impressive. What if Trent and Diogo carry on their upwards trajectory. Or we sign Nkunku and he's an absolute monster. Or Harvey Elliott rises rapidly once he's back in the team.

And again not to say we shouldnt necessarily pay Mo that amount, my opinion is if we can afford to we should because he's one of our greats. But they're all things to be taken into account and I suspect why its taking longer than anyone would like.

[Scottymuser]

Thats the point isn't it. It really isn't just as simple as 'he's currently the best player in the world, so give him best player in the world wages for the next four years'. Again, you don't see how that might impact other players wages moving forward? Its the point Ghost Town seems to be pissing in the wind trying to make. If our top earner is on (for example) £500k a week, everyone elses wages (existing and new signings) will naturally gravitate towards that amount. You can't just go 'Right we'll make an exception for Mo, and thats it' if someone else then becomes equally impressive. What if Trent and Diogo carry on their upwards trajectory. Or we sign Nkunku and he's an absolute monster. Or Harvey Elliott rises rapidly once he's back in the team.

And again not to say we shouldnt necessarily pay Mo that amount, my opinion is if we can afford to we should because he's one of our greats. But they're all things to be taken into account and I suspect why its taking longer than anyone would like.

Couple of things - nobody is saying 500k - not even the most click-bait of anti-Liverpool internet trolls are saying that is what he is asking for.  The rumours are all between 350k and 400k.   Secondly - this whole "everyone will gravitate towards his pay" - this is simply not true, at the vast majority of clubs worldwide - and if someone else does suddenly become the best player on the planet (so we'd have 2 and probably piss the league and CL) - then the additional cost of giving them, say, 100k extra a year (or 5m a year) is *EASILY* offset by the significantly larger sum of money we'd earn just for doing better, let alone all the additional sponsorship money.  Just looking at the first 4 clubs alphabetically in the league (Arsenal, Aston Villa, Brentford and Brighton) shows, in 3 of the cases, the best paid player being paid 25%/50%/65% more than the next highest member of the squad, and there are barely any rumours of players "demanding more" in those cases. 

[Gods_Left_Boot]

Couple of things - nobody is saying 500k - not even the most click-bait of anti-Liverpool internet trolls are saying that is what he is asking for.  The rumours are all between 350k and 400k.   Secondly - this whole "everyone will gravitate towards his pay" - this is simply not true, at the vast majority of clubs worldwide - and if someone else does suddenly become the best player on the planet (so we'd have 2 and probably piss the league and CL) - then the additional cost of giving them, say, 100k extra a year (or 5m a year) is *EASILY* offset by the significantly larger sum of money we'd earn just for doing better, let alone all the additional sponsorship money.  Just looking at the first 4 clubs alphabetically in the league (Arsenal, Aston Villa, Brentford and Brighton) shows, in 3 of the cases, the best paid player being paid 25%/50%/65% more than the next highest member of the squad, and there are barely any rumours of players "demanding more" in those cases.

That's not true though (at least for clubs that pay their players above board and not using front companies and "ambassadorships").

Look at how United's wages completely spiralled out of control and stopped making any sense after the Pogba and Sanchez signings and De Gea's new deal. That "gravitational pull" if there is a massive salary in the squad is absolutely there.

[El Lobo]

Couple of things - nobody is saying 500k - not even the most click-bait of anti-Liverpool internet trolls are saying that is what he is asking for.  The rumours are all between 350k and 400k.   Secondly - this whole "everyone will gravitate towards his pay" - this is simply not true, at the vast majority of clubs worldwide - and if someone else does suddenly become the best player on the planet (so we'd have 2 and probably piss the league and CL) - then the additional cost of giving them, say, 100k extra a year (or 5m a year) is *EASILY* offset by the significantly larger sum of money we'd earn just for doing better, let alone all the additional sponsorship money.  Just looking at the first 4 clubs alphabetically in the league (Arsenal, Aston Villa, Brentford and Brighton) shows, in 3 of the cases, the best paid player being paid 25%/50%/65% more than the next highest member of the squad, and there are barely any rumours of players "demanding more" in those cases.

I genuinely don't understand how you don't understand that. He would be a part of the wage structure, so of course it would impact everyone else. I'm honestly flabbergasted that people like yourself have suddenly developed this image of football agents just trying to get a half decent deal for their clients, and nothing more. The rodent at United is apparently moaning about his wages because he's on so much less than De Gea and Ronaldo. Silva at City is apparently doubling his wages in line with De Bruyne and Sterling. Its just common sense. If you were an Estate Agents and you doubled your best salesmans wages, you don't think you'd then get others asking for more?

But okay, lets say £400k a week. If Mo signs a new contract tomorrow for £400k a week, do you genuinely think that Sadio and Bobbys agents won't be mentioning it when it comes to them negotiating new contracts?

[Sheer Magnetism]

Yeah, that natural gravitational thing might be an issue at a team like Manchester United where the dressing room's in disarray and no one's won anything, but it's far less of an issue here. The size of a contract is largely decided on the desperation of the club, how much a player can get elsewhere and how much he wants to leave.

As for players demanding big pay rises for their next contracts, they're almost all signed up into their 30's so what difference does it make? Mane and Firmino probably won't be signing new contracts and aren't in a position to demand pay rises given their recent performances. The only issue would be with signing huge new players, and apparently we aren't interested in that anyway. There's your common sense.

[fowlermagic]

The accountants are going bonkers I guess based on some of the posts here

All I know is for the past 4 or 5 years we have had one of the best players in the world whose starting weekly wage was 120k when he signed. That was a bargain then considering he ripped up defenses all over Europe and when he agreed to a pay raise of 200k a week for the past 3 or so seasons it was still a bargain as he was key to bringing home the CL and league titles. If the owners sold the club tomorrow they make how much profit on their investment?? 500m, 600m even more so why worry about keeping your key staff happy as I tell you what I am tired of company owners chipping away at their staff overheads while having no issue collecting their share dividends. Its the same old shyte which you get at every company, any old donkey can do his job so feck him, get rid and get another cog in. Only then do the owners realise some cogs are a little more special than others.

[Henry Gale]

Yeah, that natural gravitational thing might be an issue at a team like Manchester United where the dressing room's in disarray and no one's won anything, but it's far less of an issue here. The size of a contract is largely decided on the desperation of the club, how much a player can get elsewhere and how much he wants to leave.

As for players demanding big pay rises for their next contracts, they're almost all signed up into their 30's so what difference does it make? Mane and Firmino probably won't be signing new contracts and aren't in a position to demand pay rises given their recent performances. The only issue would be with signing huge new players, and apparently we aren't interested in that anyway. There's your common sense.

Well considering Salah has scored roughly 10 goals a season more than Mane the past 5 years I'm afraid he's in no position to demand what Salah gets paid. And as amazing as Bobby is he's currently on £180k a week so when his contract comes to negotiation I highly doubt he will get any rise to be honest.

[Scottymuser]

I genuinely don't understand how you don't understand that. He would be a part of the wage structure, so of course it would impact everyone else. I'm honestly flabbergasted that people like yourself have suddenly developed this image of football agents just trying to get a half decent deal for their clients, and nothing more. The rodent at United is apparently moaning about his wages because he's on so much less than De Gea and Ronaldo. Silva at City is apparently doubling his wages in line with De Bruyne and Sterling. Its just common sense. If you were an Estate Agents and you doubled your best salesmans wages, you don't think you'd then get others asking for more?

But okay, lets say £400k a week. If Mo signs a new contract tomorrow for £400k a week, do you genuinely think that Sadio and Bobbys agents won't be mentioning it when it comes to them negotiating new contracts?

But this not a;ways the case -  I've already pointed you towards the various clubs where that is not the case.

Surely we should be a meritocracy and admit that better performing players (and just better in general)

Mo's agent can point to Bobby, who has stopped being first choice, has stopped being important to our team, has stopped scoring/assisting, and say "My client is earning only 10% more Bobby, who is not first choice, doesn't bring anything to your club's international marketing possibilities, etc.  Whereas my client is the best player (or top 3), is a year younger, has 40m social media followers, is easily your most valuable player with regards to marketing and sponsorship.  So why should he not be paid more"?

Would you then want the club to say "no, he might be the best player in the world, but he doesn't deserve more money than the others as we have decided to be some form of socialist workers utopia"?

If Bobby's agent then comes back and says, basically "my client has none of the benefits for you as Mo, isn't first choice, but is jealous and wants more money" - we'd be right to laugh him out the room.  Mo would get into almost any top team in the world - Bobby, on current (and last 18month form) struggles to play for the likes of Arsenal or Valencia.

Mane you have probably got a better argument - but again, although (unlike Bobby) he is still first choice, he is clearly performing levels below Mo currently, isn't as marketable, etc.  If Mane gets kicked up to what Bobby is earning (180k) which seems fair, then Mo's agent has the same argument with the club re: his player being more valuable.

[El Lobo]

But this not a;ways the case -  I've already pointed you towards the various clubs where that is not the case.

Surely we should be a meritocracy and admit that better performing players (and just better in general)

Mo's agent can point to Bobby, who has stopped being first choice, has stopped being important to our team, has stopped scoring/assisting, and say "My client is earning only 10% more Bobby, who is not first choice, doesn't bring anything to your club's international marketing possibilities, etc.  Whereas my client is the best player (or top 3), is a year younger, has 40m social media followers, is easily your most valuable player with regards to marketing and sponsorship.  So why should he not be paid more"?

Would you then want the club to say "no, he might be the best player in the world, but he doesn't deserve more money than the others as we have decided to be some form of socialist workers utopia"?

If Bobby's agent then comes back and says, basically "my client has none of the benefits for you as Mo, isn't first choice, but is jealous and wants more money" - we'd be right to laugh him out the room.  Mo would get into almost any top team in the world - Bobby, on current (and last 18month form) struggles to play for the likes of Arsenal or Valencia.

Mane you have probably got a better argument - but again, although (unlike Bobby) he is still first choice, he is clearly performing levels below Mo currently, isn't as marketable, etc.  If Mane gets kicked up to what Bobby is earning (180k) which seems fair, then Mo's agent has the same argument with the club re: his player being more valuable.

You haven't pointed me towards any club where that isn't the case, you've just found a few who have a high earner earning a fair whack more than their second highest paid player Arsenal, for example. Do you think Thomas Partey would have requested, and been given, his apparent £200k a week if Aubameyang was on £150k a week instead of £250k a week? Do you think Pepe would have become their highest earner on £140k a week if everyone else was on £100k max?

I'm gonna have to join Ghost Town here. If you genuinely don't think that football players agents will use a clubs highest paid players wage as a point during negotiations for their own client, then I really don't know what else to say. Its honestly one of the most obvious things being discussed here. We just gave VVD a new contract before he'd even returned from injury.  We are a meritocracy, rewarding players who have done amazingly well for us. Bobby and Sadio both signed their current contracts before we won the CL and PL.

You unfortunately seem unable to differentiate between people saying 'Sadio and Bobby will ask for parity with Mo Salah' (which absolutely no-one has) and 'Sadio and Bobby will naturally ask for a bit more if we go and double Mos wages right before we start talking to them'.

Oh and....

If Bobby's agent then comes back and says, basically "my client has none of the benefits for you as Mo, isn't first choice, but is jealous and wants more money"

Please dont give up your day job and become a football agent! I suspect Bobbys agent would actually come back and say 'Look at this from Jurgen Klopp, on how important Bobby is to the team. He's rarely injured, he's one of your most popular players, he's song gets sung more than anyone else, his stats have remained very consistent and he's not reliant on pace so could go well into his 30s. Plus everyone else has been 'rewarded' for winning the PL and CL and my client signed his current contract before you won either, so reward him too'.

I'd like to think its just people deliberately misunderstanding the point to suit, because if not its just amazing naivety (at best).

[Scottymuser]

You haven't pointed me towards any club where that isn't the case, you've just found a few who have a high earner earning a fair whack more than their second highest paid player Arsenal, for example. Do you think Thomas Partey would have requested, and been given, his apparent £200k a week if Aubameyang was on £150k a week instead of £250k a week? Do you think Pepe would have become their highest earner on £140k a week if everyone else was on £100k max?

I'm gonna have to join Ghost Town here. If you genuinely don't think that football players agents will use a clubs highest paid players wage as a point during negotiations for their own client, then I really don't know what else to say. Its honestly one of the most obvious things being discussed here. We just gave VVD a new contract before he'd even returned from injury.  We are a meritocracy, rewarding players who have done amazingly well for us. Bobby and Sadio both signed their current contracts before we won the CL and PL.

You unfortunately seem unable to differentiate between people saying 'Sadio and Bobby will ask for parity with Mo Salah' (which absolutely no-one has) and 'Sadio and Bobby will naturally ask for a bit more if we go and double Mos wages right before we start talking to them'.

Oh and....

Please dont give up your day job and become a football agent! I suspect Bobbys agent would actually come back and say 'Look at this from Jurgen Klopp, on how important Bobby is to the team. He's rarely injured, he's one of your most popular players, he's song gets sung more than anyone else, his stats have remained very consistent and he's not reliant on pace so could go well into his 30s. Plus everyone else has been 'rewarded' for winning the PL and CL and my client signed his current contract before you won either, so reward him too'.

I'd like to think its just people deliberately misunderstanding the point to suit, because if not its just amazing naivety (at best).

So on the first point - do you not think that Mo's agent, given all the factors I pointed out (first choice, best player in the world, biggest social media presence, biggest marketing, significantly more "sellable") should come to the club and say exactly what you are saying the likes of Bobby's agent would?  If so, how much more?  As it is clear to anyone with two eyes that he is carrying the club to the CL through his goals (where this season we have already earnt 65 million).  Mo's agent could easily threaten the club with the old "my player would walk into any club in the world" line - and for it to be TRUE.

And on the 2nd point, you had me laughing out loud there - Bobby has already been rewarded by the factor of being paid almost the same as the best player in the world at a time he sits out on the bench - and whilst he might be "popular" on the terraces as his song gets sung, that doesn't mean he is even on the same planet as Mo is re: actual marketability of the player (you know, the thing that makes the club money and more likely to spend some of that on a better contract).  And unlike Mo, I am struggling to name a CL team left in the competition who on lastg 18 months form, would want to sign Bobby without asking him to take a fair old pay cut - so that's another of the agent's ways of drumming up money out the window.

[El Lobo]

So on the first point - do you not think that Mo's agent, given all the factors I pointed out (first choice, best player in the world, biggest social media presence, biggest marketing, significantly more "sellable") should come to the club and say exactly what you are saying the likes of Bobby's agent would? If so, how much more?  As it is clear to anyone with two eyes that he is carrying the club to the CL through his goals (where this season we have already earnt 65 million).  Mo's agent could easily threaten the club with the old "my player would walk into any club in the world" line - and for it to be TRUE.

And on the 2nd point, you had me laughing out loud there - Bobby has already been rewarded by the factor of being paid almost the same as the best player in the world at a time he sits out on the bench - and whilst he might be "popular" on the terraces as his song gets sung, that doesn't mean he is even on the same planet as Mo is re: actual marketability of the player (you know, the thing that makes the club money and more likely to spend some of that on a better contract).  And unlike Mo, I am struggling to name a CL team left in the competition who on lastg 18 months form, would want to sign Bobby without asking him to take a fair old pay cut - so that's another of the agent's ways of drumming up money out the window.

Yes. Thats the whole point Scotty. We are talking about FOOTBALL AGENTS. They are there literally to get their client the best contract they can. That is what Salahs is doing, it is what Sadio and Bobbys will do, its what Trents did, its what Alissons did, its what Klopps will do if he signs. Its their job. And when someone in the same position and same age as their client, who has also been integral to our success, signs a new contract for double what he was on before do you honestly (and answer this one please) think that they'll just go 'Yeah you're right, just extend it with no pay rise. Don't care what Salahs agent got for him'.

Answer this one as well Scotty, and be honest

Arsenal, for example. Do you think Thomas Partey would have requested, and been given, his apparent £200k a week if Aubameyang was on £150k a week instead of £250k a week? Do you think Pepe would have become their highest earner on £140k a week if everyone else was on £100k max?

What you're showing that you don't understand, is how football agents work. And you're also showing an inability to make your point without slagging off our others players, which is sad. And thirdly, you're still working on this idea that people think Bobby and Sadio will ask for parity (that means the same amount). They wouldn't, obviously. Because Mo is better. But what they do demand, and may get, will gravitate towards what Mo may get if he signs because.....its just common sense. You can see it in the Arsenal example that you bought up. We can use the Villa example if you prefer. Do you think Buendia would have signed for £75k a week if their highest earner had been on £50k a week?

[Sheer Magnetism]

Arsenal, for example. Do you think Thomas Partey would have requested, and been given, his apparent £200k a week if Aubameyang was on £150k a week instead of £250k a week? Do you think Pepe would have become their highest earner on £140k a week if everyone else was on £100k max?

What you're showing that you don't understand, is how football agents work. And you're also showing an inability to make your point without slagging off our others players, which is sad. And thirdly, you're still working on this idea that people think Bobby and Sadio will ask for parity (that means the same amount). They wouldn't, obviously. Because Mo is better. But what they do demand, and may get, will gravitate towards what Mo may get if he signs because.....its just common sense. You can see it in the Arsenal example that you bought up. We can use the Villa example if you prefer. Do you think Buendia would have signed for £75k a week if their highest earner had been on £50k a week?

Lobo, you're all over the place here. According to your own logic agents always get aim to get the best deal possible for their clients, so what other players at the club are being paid is irrelevant because they'd be aiming for the highest number they can get anyway. The only issue is how much each club is willing to pay.

[newterp]

Lobo, you're all over the place here. According to your own logic agents always get aim to get the best deal possible for their clients, so what other players at the club are being paid is irrelevant because they'd be aiming for the highest number they can get anyway. The only issue is how much each club is willing to pay.

There simply is no way that this is true - what other players make is always relevant in negotiations. If you don't see/believe/understand/acknowledge that - then this whole discussion starts on a false premise.

[Sheer Magnetism]

That may have some truth in contract renegotiations but not in transfers. A player isn't going to take a lower wage than elsewhere because they'd rather get a higher proportion compared to the club's highest earner.

[El Lobo]

That may have some truth in contract renegotiations but not in transfers. A player isn't going to take a lower wage than elsewhere because they'd rather get a higher proportion compared to the club's highest earner.

Its got nothing to do with taking a lower wage than elsewhere. They're joining a new team with a new contract, which has to be negotiated. Quite obviously, particularly if its a big signing, the biggest earners already at the club are going to be a pretty focal point of negotiation. Quite why you dont seem to understand that I'm not sure, because you're not a donut.

[Sheer Magnetism]

Its got nothing to do with taking a lower wage than elsewhere. They're joining a new team with a new contract, which has to be negotiated. Quite obviously, particularly if its a big signing, the biggest earners already at the club are going to be a pretty focal point of negotiation. Quite why you dont seem to understand that I'm not sure, because you're not a donut.

Contracts are about leverage and there is only leverage if there's a competing offer that's as good or better. This is a very simple principle. If a club is offering £20,000 more than the competition, is the agent going to turn that down out of principle? The club may not know the specifics, but a well managed club (ie. not the Mancs) will have a budget for each new signing and will have a good idea of the going rate and what rival clubs will likely offer.

In a more specific sense, people have to take into account how heavily incentivised our contracts are. We can offer a lower base wage as well as the chance of glory as long as we're consistently winning things. Because of that, it's also impossible to say how reasonable or unreasonable Salah's contract requests are without knowing the details. It also makes it very credible that he'd want assurances FSG are willing to maintain the team's quality before resigning. All we can do is debate the merits or otherwise of a wider strategy.

[El Lobo]

Contracts are about leverage and there is only leverage if there's a competing offer that's as good or better. This is a very simple principle. If a club is offering £20,000 more than the competition, is the agent going to turn that down out of principle? The club may not know the specifics, but a well managed club will have a budget for each new signing and will have a good idea of the going rate and what rival clubs will likely offer.

In a more specific sense, people have to take into account how heavily incentivised our contracts are. We can offer a lower base wage as well as the chance of glory as long as we're consistently winning things. Because of that, it's also impossible to say how reasonable or unreasonable Salah's contract requests are without knowing the details. It also makes it very credible that he'd want assurances FSG are willing to maintain the team's quality before resigning. All we can do is debate the merits or otherwise of a wider strategy.

....or an existing contract that is already out there. It is a very simple principle. Quite why you're talking about competing offers is anyone's guess, because I highly doubt anyone was matching the bid for Partey (for example) or Buendia. So at that point, the only parties are Partey (sorry) and Arsenal.

[kasperoff]

Thats the point isn't it. It really isn't just as simple as 'he's currently the best player in the world, so give him best player in the world wages for the next four years'. Again, you don't see how that might impact other players wages moving forward? Its the point Ghost Town seems to be pissing in the wind trying to make. If our top earner is on (for example) £500k a week, everyone elses wages (existing and new signings) will naturally gravitate towards that amount. You can't just go 'Right we'll make an exception for Mo, and thats it' if someone else then becomes equally impressive. What if Trent and Diogo carry on their upwards trajectory. Or we sign Nkunku and he's an absolute monster. Or Harvey Elliott rises rapidly once he's back in the team.

And again not to say we shouldnt necessarily pay Mo that amount, my opinion is if we can afford to we should because he's one of our greats. But they're all things to be taken into account and I suspect why its taking longer than anyone would like.

Not pissing in the wind, but it is going round in circles. You can't be certain that what you say will happen with regards to wages. You are assuming. I can see why you would assume that, but it is an assumption, nonetheless. FSG have proven to be shrewd and cutthroat when they need to be. I can see a situation where they ring fence Salah and make it clear he's out on his own. Anyone else can leave if they feel they are underpaid.

I think the real argument is, can we actually afford what he is asking for, point-blank? I think the answer is yes, but there might then be a knock-on into who we can sign in the future, as he's sitting on a high proportion of the overall wage pot. So it's more down to strategy at that point, rather then being afraid of consequences.

I wouldn't be worried as much about incumbents all going for massive wage hikes, or new signings trying to take the piss. I expect FSG can manage this.

One thing is pretty certain. Salah will get his money somewhere, because it's essentially market rate for him.

[Scottymuser]

Yes. Thats the whole point Scotty. We are talking about FOOTBALL AGENTS. They are there literally to get their client the best contract they can. That is what Salahs is doing, it is what Sadio and Bobbys will do, its what Trents did, its what Alissons did, its what Klopps will do if he signs. Its their job. And when someone in the same position and same age as their client, who has also been integral to our success, signs a new contract for double what he was on before do you honestly (and answer this one please) think that they'll just go 'Yeah you're right, just extend it with no pay rise. Don't care what Salahs agent got for him'.

Answer this one as well Scotty, and be honest

Arsenal, for example. Do you think Thomas Partey would have requested, and been given, his apparent £200k a week if Aubameyang was on £150k a week instead of £250k a week? Do you think Pepe would have become their highest earner on £140k a week if everyone else was on £100k max?

What you're showing that you don't understand, is how football agents work. And you're also showing an inability to make your point without slagging off our others players, which is sad. And thirdly, you're still working on this idea that people think Bobby and Sadio will ask for parity (that means the same amount). They wouldn't, obviously. Because Mo is better. But what they do demand, and may get, will gravitate towards what Mo may get if he signs because.....its just common sense. You can see it in the Arsenal example that you bought up. We can use the Villa example if you prefer. Do you think Buendia would have signed for £75k a week if their highest earner had been on £50k a week?

Apologies for appearing abrasive - wasn't my intention.  ANd I'll answer your question:

Yes - I would expect them to *ask* for more money.  However, what I was trying to get across is two fold - they would ask for money regardless, and more importantly, there is nothing saying the club has to bow down to their demands.  In Mo Salah - the club would be both sportingly and financially poorer without him (as IMO we'd struggle to get consistent CL football, AND sponsorships would be down) - so the agent has more "cards up his sleeve" on top of the whole "there are many other teams who would be able to afford this and would want him" spiel.  In Bobbys case (definitely), and Mane's case (maybe) - none of that is true really. 

What happens if Bobby's agent asks for more money - i.e. to be on more than Virgil, the best CB in the league, so he can stay at Liverpool whilst not being automatic first choice (and you can't argue this one - he has been available for 11 games this season in the PL before AFCON happened - and he started *3*, is only getting older whilst his direct competitor for the starting XI position is younger, and scoring for fun).  Do you think the club will say yes?  Do you think they will say no - and if so what happens?  What other club, other than the nouveau-riche Newcastle United, would he go to and be rewarded with at least 200k a week - and would they afford him (and want him)?  Or do they come to a compromise (say a miniscule 20k increase to be parity with what Salah is on now), given he seems to love it here? 

[El Lobo]

Apologies for appearing abrasive - wasn't my intention.  ANd I'll answer your question:

Yes - I would expect them to *ask* for more money.  However, what I was trying to get across is two fold - they would ask for money regardless, and more importantly, there is nothing saying the club has to bow down to their demands.  In Mo Salah - the club would be both sportingly and financially poorer without him (as IMO we'd struggle to get consistent CL football, AND sponsorships would be down) - so the agent has more "cards up his sleeve" on top of the whole "there are many other teams who would be able to afford this and would want him" spiel.  In Bobbys case (definitely), and Mane's case (maybe) - none of that is true really. 

What happens if Bobby's agent asks for more money - i.e. to be on more than Virgil, the best CB in the league, so he can stay at Liverpool whilst not being automatic first choice (and you can't argue this one - he has been available for 11 games this season in the PL before AFCON happened - and he started *3*, is only getting older whilst his direct competitor for the starting XI position is younger, and scoring for fun).  Do you think the club will say yes?  Do you think they will say no - and if so what happens?  What other club, other than the nouveau-riche Newcastle United, would he go to and be rewarded with at least 200k a week - and would they afford him (and want him)?  Or do they come to a compromise (say a miniscule 20k increase to be parity with what Salah is on now), given he seems to love it here?

Then if we want to keep him (which I'd suggest we would if we were negotiating with his agent) then we'd probably pay it. I guess the flip side is probably that if we end up not renewing with Mo, both Sadio and Bobbys agents might feel emboldened to ask for more because we feel pressured to not lose another couple of important players. But thats football agents and thats the whole point, they'll use whatever they can to squeeze a bit more.

[lionel_messias]

Apologies for appearing abrasive - wasn't my intention.  ANd I'll answer your question:

Yes - I would expect them to *ask* for more money.  However, what I was trying to get across is two fold - they would ask for money regardless, and more importantly, there is nothing saying the club has to bow down to their demands.  In Mo Salah - the club would be both sportingly and financially poorer without him (as IMO we'd struggle to get consistent CL football, AND sponsorships would be down) - so the agent has more "cards up his sleeve" on top of the whole "there are many other teams who would be able to afford this and would want him" spiel.  In Bobbys case (definitely), and Mane's case (maybe) - none of that is true really. 

What happens if Bobby's agent asks for more money - i.e. to be on more than Virgil, the best CB in the league, so he can stay at Liverpool whilst not being automatic first choice (and you can't argue this one - he has been available for 11 games this season in the PL before AFCON happened - and he started *3*, is only getting older whilst his direct competitor for the starting XI position is younger, and scoring for fun).  Do you think the club will say yes?  Do you think they will say no - and if so what happens?  What other club, other than the nouveau-riche Newcastle United, would he go to and be rewarded with at least 200k a week - and would they afford him (and want him)?  Or do they come to a compromise (say a miniscule 20k increase to be parity with what Salah is on now), given he seems to love it here? 

I think all the VIP ones have signed extensions just recently; Trent, Ali, Fabinho etc.

Personally, I think Sadio Mané will not be offered very attractive terms if he asks, and the same goes to Bobby Firmino. What I'm really saying is; if the club finds the money for Salah, they will have calculated that Sadio and or Bobby can go, if the right offers come in. No way, does Sadio (who we all love mind you) get a huge deal taking him into the twilight years of his 30s.

In a hard-nosed strategic world, you sell a Mané and try and bring in one or two younger players.


After keeping Mo Salah until he's 34 that is. I actually believe the future of this team lies with Harvey Elliot, Curtis Jones, Trent, Konate and others, keeping Salah bridges us to get to that future...


*and Klopp's assistant Pep is a youth performance development guy, isn't he? Perfect.

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

I can see a situation where they ring fence Salah and make it clear he's out on his own. Anyone else can leave if they feel they are underpaid.

Would be an utterly ridiculous thing to do

[Sheer Magnetism]

....or an existing contract that is already out there. It is a very simple principle. Quite why you're talking about competing offers is anyone's guess, because I highly doubt anyone was matching the bid for Partey (for example) or Buendia. So at that point, the only parties are Partey (sorry) and Arsenal.

So Buendia wouldn't have left Norwich if he didn't receive a certain percentage of what Villa's top earner was getting? Partey wouldn't have moved to Arsenal even though it meant a big pay rise anyway? Is there even a shred of evidence for this apart from your suppositions? Arsenal matched Buendia's Villa salary offer incidentally, it's just that Villa's bid was higher and he had personal reasons for choosing them, which indicates exactly what I was saying: it's predominantly about options.

[lionel_messias]

Would be an utterly ridiculous thing to do

Not that ridiculous if you assume the likes of Alisson, Virgil and Trent are fully committed. They all know they are not scoring 35 goals a season. The only guy it eventually comes an issue for is Trent Alexander, whose potential is so ridiculous I can hardly imagine it. But let's worry about that another day.

[rawcusk8]

Salah in action against Sudan, 70 minutes gone Egypt 1-0 no idea who scored. Please take Mo off, these Sudanese lads must have aspirations to play for Burnley given some of their challenges.

[Fabulous_aurelio]

His agents being a dick again.

https://twitter.com/RamyCol/status/1484117843679526918?s=20

[El Lobo]

Its definitely just the club trying to short change him though, his agents always been very sensible and gives off the impression of being easy to negotiate with

[CraigDS]

His agents being a dick again.

https://twitter.com/RamyCol/status/1484117843679526918?s=20

Or is he saying Salah is happy because a deal is agreed?

Funny how you can spin things however you like...

[Barneylfc∗]

Or is he saying Salah is happy because a deal is agreed?

Funny how you can spin things however you like...

That's exactly how I'm seeing it. What else could it be?

[Dench57]

WHAT DOES IT MEAN??