Why Wolves gave Albion target Ward that surprise outing

Stephen Ward

Stephen Ward

First published in Sport by , Chief sports reporter

Albion could still re-sign Stephen Ward, despite a surprise appearance for his parent club Wolverhampton Wanderers.

Wolves boss Kenny Jackett has reiterated Ward’s future is away from Molineux after he played a full 90 minutes in Tuesday night’s 1-0 win at Oxford United.

Albion’s interest in signing the Republic of Ireland left-back permanently following his loan spell at the Amex last season has been undermined for financial reasons.

Wolves want around £100,000 for Ward but the main stumbling block has been his £13,000-a-week wages. The Seagulls paid £10,000-a-week in the loan deal.

Jackett said: “He’s looking for his next move – we all know that – and he had a successful last season.

“To get some match fitness and show a good attitude on Tuesday night will only help him in whatever he wants to do next.

“I don’t know if there was anyone there to watch him, that wasn’t the reason why I played him.

“If I hadn’t have played him, it would have left the team too young against Oxford, who are a good side and a big club.”

Youngster Adam Chicksen continues at left-back in Albion’s final pre-season friendly at home to Southampton tonight.

Midfielder Andrew Crofts makes his first appearance at the Amex since rupturing a knee ligament against Birmingham in January after playing part of the last two friendlies at Peterborough and Crawley.

Comments (39)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:20am Thu 31 Jul 14

Havok82 says...

Surely the extra 3000 a month is manageable considering what the transfer fee would be if going for another target of his quality. Albion would pay 156,000 in his wages for the year making his transfer for a year including the transfer fee only 256000. As I say I'm sure they would pay more for another left back of his quality.
Surely the extra 3000 a month is manageable considering what the transfer fee would be if going for another target of his quality. Albion would pay 156,000 in his wages for the year making his transfer for a year including the transfer fee only 256000. As I say I'm sure they would pay more for another left back of his quality. Havok82
  • Score: 14

10:34am Thu 31 Jul 14

TheWerewolf says...

Havok82 wrote:
Surely the extra 3000 a month is manageable considering what the transfer fee would be if going for another target of his quality. Albion would pay 156,000 in his wages for the year making his transfer for a year including the transfer fee only 256000. As I say I'm sure they would pay more for another left back of his quality.
I agree. Think we are playing a dangerous game, and its hard to know how well an alternative, apparently similar level, might fit into the squad. In FIFA speak....would the chemistry be as good. I can only assume we have other better alternatives on the radar. You would think that quality, aspiring defenders would value working under Hyypia. UTA
[quote][p][bold]Havok82[/bold] wrote: Surely the extra 3000 a month is manageable considering what the transfer fee would be if going for another target of his quality. Albion would pay 156,000 in his wages for the year making his transfer for a year including the transfer fee only 256000. As I say I'm sure they would pay more for another left back of his quality.[/p][/quote]I agree. Think we are playing a dangerous game, and its hard to know how well an alternative, apparently similar level, might fit into the squad. In FIFA speak....would the chemistry be as good. I can only assume we have other better alternatives on the radar. You would think that quality, aspiring defenders would value working under Hyypia. UTA TheWerewolf
  • Score: 4

10:41am Thu 31 Jul 14

MHubbs says...

Can they not meet in the middle. I run my own business and am used to a little give and take. Surely they can agree on £11,500 or 12k? Its pretty poor to still be arguing over this in public IMO.

Gives the impression the board is not prepared to back the manager.

To hear we are still chasing old targets suggest board is driving transfers and not the new manager. This too concerns me.
Can they not meet in the middle. I run my own business and am used to a little give and take. Surely they can agree on £11,500 or 12k? Its pretty poor to still be arguing over this in public IMO. Gives the impression the board is not prepared to back the manager. To hear we are still chasing old targets suggest board is driving transfers and not the new manager. This too concerns me. MHubbs
  • Score: -2

10:46am Thu 31 Jul 14

seagullsays says...

Interesting that the Argus still use the phrase 'youngster' re Chicksen. He'll be 23 in September, has been with us for a while without getting much of a look in, and if I remember correctly cost about £200k, so far more than Ward would in signing on for us. Wages would be different I realise, but isn't it about time Chicken was given a chance with us? How long can someone be 'one for the future'? If he's not considered ready, surely at his age, a loan would be sensible to get him playing, not sitting on the bench, and if not ready, then lets get SW in. The maths don't seem that far adrift, surely a deal can be done to land SW.
Interesting that the Argus still use the phrase 'youngster' re Chicksen. He'll be 23 in September, has been with us for a while without getting much of a look in, and if I remember correctly cost about £200k, so far more than Ward would in signing on for us. Wages would be different I realise, but isn't it about time Chicken was given a chance with us? How long can someone be 'one for the future'? If he's not considered ready, surely at his age, a loan would be sensible to get him playing, not sitting on the bench, and if not ready, then lets get SW in. The maths don't seem that far adrift, surely a deal can be done to land SW. seagullsays
  • Score: 6

10:49am Thu 31 Jul 14

Quiterie says...

I still think the best way of resolving this is if we take Ward on a 2 year deal on £10,000 a week, but with no transfer fee.

Wolves get him of their books. Ward gets an extra year on his contact (it currently runs out next summer with Wolves). And the Albion get their man. Everyone's happy!
I still think the best way of resolving this is if we take Ward on a 2 year deal on £10,000 a week, but with no transfer fee. Wolves get him of their books. Ward gets an extra year on his contact (it currently runs out next summer with Wolves). And the Albion get their man. Everyone's happy! Quiterie
  • Score: -5

10:59am Thu 31 Jul 14

Singing Seagull, Indonesia says...

I wonder just how much of the Argus article is fact and how much is Andy Naylor's conjecture or assumption. As I posted on the last Ward thread (albeit very late) when AlfieT said he was losing his love for Ward as he believes he is being greedy...

...I don't really see the problem here. If we want Ward (and my guess is we very much do) it COULD just be that the Albion are the ones being smart here. My guess is it's as good as a done deal between SW and BHA with all the figures agreed, subject to fitness being proven (hopefully this box being ticked last night). Every week through the closed season that he is being paid in full by Wolves is another saving for us. Let's not forget that this is a player who knows the set up at Brighton inside out - except Hyypia's specifics - and he shouldn't therefore need long to settle back in. I reckon no other club is involved because a gentlemen's agreement is in place between SW, Wolves and us.

My expectation is that he is already an Albion player bar the formalities. He had his run out yesterday which we will have watched and the signature and announcement will follow any time now.

No need for worries, and certainly no need to fall out of love with Wardy!

UTA!!
I wonder just how much of the Argus article is fact and how much is Andy Naylor's conjecture or assumption. As I posted on the last Ward thread (albeit very late) when AlfieT said he was losing his love for Ward as he believes he is being greedy... ...I don't really see the problem here. If we want Ward (and my guess is we very much do) it COULD just be that the Albion are the ones being smart here. My guess is it's as good as a done deal between SW and BHA with all the figures agreed, subject to fitness being proven (hopefully this box being ticked last night). Every week through the closed season that he is being paid in full by Wolves is another saving for us. Let's not forget that this is a player who knows the set up at Brighton inside out - except Hyypia's specifics - and he shouldn't therefore need long to settle back in. I reckon no other club is involved because a gentlemen's agreement is in place between SW, Wolves and us. My expectation is that he is already an Albion player bar the formalities. He had his run out yesterday which we will have watched and the signature and announcement will follow any time now. No need for worries, and certainly no need to fall out of love with Wardy! UTA!! Singing Seagull, Indonesia
  • Score: 7

10:59am Thu 31 Jul 14

brightonfan34 says...

come on brighton sign him up
come on brighton sign him up brightonfan34
  • Score: 6

11:01am Thu 31 Jul 14

taylord1977 says...

Wage structure is there for a reason, whether we agree with it or not. What happens is player x,y and z's agent goes into the club, says; Ward is getting more than the structure you put in place, so my player now wants an extra 3k a week, all of a sudden your structure has gone, and you are paying double the salaries out you were originally budgeted for. So it's not quite as black and white as 100k fee and 13k a week salary in reality.
Wage structure is there for a reason, whether we agree with it or not. What happens is player x,y and z's agent goes into the club, says; Ward is getting more than the structure you put in place, so my player now wants an extra 3k a week, all of a sudden your structure has gone, and you are paying double the salaries out you were originally budgeted for. So it's not quite as black and white as 100k fee and 13k a week salary in reality. taylord1977
  • Score: 22

11:34am Thu 31 Jul 14

the taffster says...

Paddy McCourt is available after being released from Barnsley.....he was the best player on the park at the amex when we played them....he's class. Why can't we sign him?
Paddy McCourt is available after being released from Barnsley.....he was the best player on the park at the amex when we played them....he's class. Why can't we sign him? the taffster
  • Score: -1

11:41am Thu 31 Jul 14

tug509 says...

taylord1977 wrote:
Wage structure is there for a reason, whether we agree with it or not. What happens is player x,y and z's agent goes into the club, says; Ward is getting more than the structure you put in place, so my player now wants an extra 3k a week, all of a sudden your structure has gone, and you are paying double the salaries out you were originally budgeted for. So it's not quite as black and white as 100k fee and 13k a week salary in reality.
Unless two players share the same agent ,I would be extremely surprised if wages were a topic of chat in the dressing room ,if we did meet SW £13k a week ,I would imagine it would be on the condition he didn`t impart that information .
[quote][p][bold]taylord1977[/bold] wrote: Wage structure is there for a reason, whether we agree with it or not. What happens is player x,y and z's agent goes into the club, says; Ward is getting more than the structure you put in place, so my player now wants an extra 3k a week, all of a sudden your structure has gone, and you are paying double the salaries out you were originally budgeted for. So it's not quite as black and white as 100k fee and 13k a week salary in reality.[/p][/quote]Unless two players share the same agent ,I would be extremely surprised if wages were a topic of chat in the dressing room ,if we did meet SW £13k a week ,I would imagine it would be on the condition he didn`t impart that information . tug509
  • Score: -4

11:52am Thu 31 Jul 14

AlanDuffy says...

the taffster wrote:
Paddy McCourt is available after being released from Barnsley.....he was the best player on the park at the amex when we played them....he's class. Why can't we sign him?
Agreed, he was top class against us, but apparently his performances are inconsistent....besi
des, I don't think midfield is our priority right now.
[quote][p][bold]the taffster[/bold] wrote: Paddy McCourt is available after being released from Barnsley.....he was the best player on the park at the amex when we played them....he's class. Why can't we sign him?[/p][/quote]Agreed, he was top class against us, but apparently his performances are inconsistent....besi des, I don't think midfield is our priority right now. AlanDuffy
  • Score: -2

11:52am Thu 31 Jul 14

tug509 says...

tug509 wrote:
taylord1977 wrote:
Wage structure is there for a reason, whether we agree with it or not. What happens is player x,y and z's agent goes into the club, says; Ward is getting more than the structure you put in place, so my player now wants an extra 3k a week, all of a sudden your structure has gone, and you are paying double the salaries out you were originally budgeted for. So it's not quite as black and white as 100k fee and 13k a week salary in reality.
Unless two players share the same agent ,I would be extremely surprised if wages were a topic of chat in the dressing room ,if we did meet SW £13k a week ,I would imagine it would be on the condition he didn`t impart that information .
Plus each player receives the wages their contracted to ,everyone at Man Utd knows shrek gets £250,000 pw ,but they don't all run to Gaal and demand the same .
[quote][p][bold]tug509[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]taylord1977[/bold] wrote: Wage structure is there for a reason, whether we agree with it or not. What happens is player x,y and z's agent goes into the club, says; Ward is getting more than the structure you put in place, so my player now wants an extra 3k a week, all of a sudden your structure has gone, and you are paying double the salaries out you were originally budgeted for. So it's not quite as black and white as 100k fee and 13k a week salary in reality.[/p][/quote]Unless two players share the same agent ,I would be extremely surprised if wages were a topic of chat in the dressing room ,if we did meet SW £13k a week ,I would imagine it would be on the condition he didn`t impart that information .[/p][/quote]Plus each player receives the wages their contracted to ,everyone at Man Utd knows shrek gets £250,000 pw ,but they don't all run to Gaal and demand the same . tug509
  • Score: -1

11:54am Thu 31 Jul 14

GermanSeagull says...

Havok82 wrote:
Surely the extra 3000 a month is manageable considering what the transfer fee would be if going for another target of his quality. Albion would pay 156,000 in his wages for the year making his transfer for a year including the transfer fee only 256000. As I say I'm sure they would pay more for another left back of his quality.
3000 a week, so that's more then 12000 extra each month.

And the annual wage would be 676000 + 100000 transfer fee brings it up to a total of 776000, 3 time more then your figure.
[quote][p][bold]Havok82[/bold] wrote: Surely the extra 3000 a month is manageable considering what the transfer fee would be if going for another target of his quality. Albion would pay 156,000 in his wages for the year making his transfer for a year including the transfer fee only 256000. As I say I'm sure they would pay more for another left back of his quality.[/p][/quote]3000 a week, so that's more then 12000 extra each month. And the annual wage would be 676000 + 100000 transfer fee brings it up to a total of 776000, 3 time more then your figure. GermanSeagull
  • Score: 4

12:11pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Neville says...

Agree with the taffster
Paddy McCourt by far best player seen at Amex,was with Celtic for 8yearsprior to Barnsley,worth considering.
Agree with the taffster Paddy McCourt by far best player seen at Amex,was with Celtic for 8yearsprior to Barnsley,worth considering. Neville
  • Score: -2

12:15pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Havok82 says...

GermanSeagull wrote:
Havok82 wrote:
Surely the extra 3000 a month is manageable considering what the transfer fee would be if going for another target of his quality. Albion would pay 156,000 in his wages for the year making his transfer for a year including the transfer fee only 256000. As I say I'm sure they would pay more for another left back of his quality.
3000 a week, so that's more then 12000 extra each month.

And the annual wage would be 676000 + 100000 transfer fee brings it up to a total of 776000, 3 time more then your figure.
Sorry you're right and I'm wrong. I calculated the extra 3k a week as per month. My mistake. However on a different aspect of this I've seen on a Brighton fans forum that konchesky from Leicester is on the radar........ Thoughts
[quote][p][bold]GermanSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Havok82[/bold] wrote: Surely the extra 3000 a month is manageable considering what the transfer fee would be if going for another target of his quality. Albion would pay 156,000 in his wages for the year making his transfer for a year including the transfer fee only 256000. As I say I'm sure they would pay more for another left back of his quality.[/p][/quote]3000 a week, so that's more then 12000 extra each month. And the annual wage would be 676000 + 100000 transfer fee brings it up to a total of 776000, 3 time more then your figure.[/p][/quote]Sorry you're right and I'm wrong. I calculated the extra 3k a week as per month. My mistake. However on a different aspect of this I've seen on a Brighton fans forum that konchesky from Leicester is on the radar........ Thoughts Havok82
  • Score: 2

12:21pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Jules boy says...

seagullsays wrote:
Interesting that the Argus still use the phrase 'youngster' re Chicksen. He'll be 23 in September, has been with us for a while without getting much of a look in, and if I remember correctly cost about £200k, so far more than Ward would in signing on for us. Wages would be different I realise, but isn't it about time Chicken was given a chance with us? How long can someone be 'one for the future'? If he's not considered ready, surely at his age, a loan would be sensible to get him playing, not sitting on the bench, and if not ready, then lets get SW in. The maths don't seem that far adrift, surely a deal can be done to land SW.
Spot on, unwrap the cotton wool, he's a big boy now
[quote][p][bold]seagullsays[/bold] wrote: Interesting that the Argus still use the phrase 'youngster' re Chicksen. He'll be 23 in September, has been with us for a while without getting much of a look in, and if I remember correctly cost about £200k, so far more than Ward would in signing on for us. Wages would be different I realise, but isn't it about time Chicken was given a chance with us? How long can someone be 'one for the future'? If he's not considered ready, surely at his age, a loan would be sensible to get him playing, not sitting on the bench, and if not ready, then lets get SW in. The maths don't seem that far adrift, surely a deal can be done to land SW.[/p][/quote]Spot on, unwrap the cotton wool, he's a big boy now Jules boy
  • Score: 2

12:30pm Thu 31 Jul 14

VegasSeagull says...

We all talk about the difference only being 3K a week, but what if we don't want to pay him 10K, perhaps 8K is the sum the club are offering.

When we borrowed him we were told what it would cost, we didn't have much choice, but now we do. At 13K we might offer a one year deal with a one year option, at 8K we might offer a three year deal.
We all talk about the difference only being 3K a week, but what if we don't want to pay him 10K, perhaps 8K is the sum the club are offering. When we borrowed him we were told what it would cost, we didn't have much choice, but now we do. At 13K we might offer a one year deal with a one year option, at 8K we might offer a three year deal. VegasSeagull
  • Score: 2

12:47pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Plutomania says...

taylord1977 wrote:
Wage structure is there for a reason, whether we agree with it or not. What happens is player x,y and z's agent goes into the club, says; Ward is getting more than the structure you put in place, so my player now wants an extra 3k a week, all of a sudden your structure has gone, and you are paying double the salaries out you were originally budgeted for. So it's not quite as black and white as 100k fee and 13k a week salary in reality.
Oh! what a sensible post, someone with a bit more grey matter than others.
[quote][p][bold]taylord1977[/bold] wrote: Wage structure is there for a reason, whether we agree with it or not. What happens is player x,y and z's agent goes into the club, says; Ward is getting more than the structure you put in place, so my player now wants an extra 3k a week, all of a sudden your structure has gone, and you are paying double the salaries out you were originally budgeted for. So it's not quite as black and white as 100k fee and 13k a week salary in reality.[/p][/quote]Oh! what a sensible post, someone with a bit more grey matter than others. Plutomania
  • Score: 0

12:49pm Thu 31 Jul 14

albionfan33 says...

Quiterie wrote:
I still think the best way of resolving this is if we take Ward on a 2 year deal on £10,000 a week, but with no transfer fee.

Wolves get him of their books. Ward gets an extra year on his contact (it currently runs out next summer with Wolves). And the Albion get their man. Everyone's happy!
The best way Would be To pay him 10k and give the 3k extra AS a signing on fee 150k odd simples
[quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: I still think the best way of resolving this is if we take Ward on a 2 year deal on £10,000 a week, but with no transfer fee. Wolves get him of their books. Ward gets an extra year on his contact (it currently runs out next summer with Wolves). And the Albion get their man. Everyone's happy![/p][/quote]The best way Would be To pay him 10k and give the 3k extra AS a signing on fee 150k odd simples albionfan33
  • Score: -2

12:50pm Thu 31 Jul 14

the taffster says...

AlanDuffy wrote:
the taffster wrote:
Paddy McCourt is available after being released from Barnsley.....he was the best player on the park at the amex when we played them....he's class. Why can't we sign him?
Agreed, he was top class against us, but apparently his performances are inconsistent....besi

des, I don't think midfield is our priority right now.
We need a playmaker like Vicente....paddy McCourt has the pedigree. Played at Celtic and stood out at Barnsley...I'm sure he wouldn't cost more than 10k a week and is available.....I could run this team better than b and b.
[quote][p][bold]AlanDuffy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the taffster[/bold] wrote: Paddy McCourt is available after being released from Barnsley.....he was the best player on the park at the amex when we played them....he's class. Why can't we sign him?[/p][/quote]Agreed, he was top class against us, but apparently his performances are inconsistent....besi des, I don't think midfield is our priority right now.[/p][/quote]We need a playmaker like Vicente....paddy McCourt has the pedigree. Played at Celtic and stood out at Barnsley...I'm sure he wouldn't cost more than 10k a week and is available.....I could run this team better than b and b. the taffster
  • Score: 0

1:00pm Thu 31 Jul 14

arc12 says...

It might just be that Ward wants to come to us and will accept a lower wage but is holding out most of the summero continue to bank his £13k a week. Makes sense from his point of view. Grab the £13 k a week over the close season banking as much as he can and then join us on maybe a 2 year deal for a lower weekly wage. A bit of business acumen from him if he is sure the albion will come back in for him, and if they don't then he still picks up another year of £13k a week but doesn't get to play.
It might just be that Ward wants to come to us and will accept a lower wage but is holding out most of the summero continue to bank his £13k a week. Makes sense from his point of view. Grab the £13 k a week over the close season banking as much as he can and then join us on maybe a 2 year deal for a lower weekly wage. A bit of business acumen from him if he is sure the albion will come back in for him, and if they don't then he still picks up another year of £13k a week but doesn't get to play. arc12
  • Score: 3

1:13pm Thu 31 Jul 14

JeffLomer says...

taylord1977 wrote:
Wage structure is there for a reason, whether we agree with it or not. What happens is player x,y and z's agent goes into the club, says; Ward is getting more than the structure you put in place, so my player now wants an extra 3k a week, all of a sudden your structure has gone, and you are paying double the salaries out you were originally budgeted for. So it's not quite as black and white as 100k fee and 13k a week salary in reality.
Totally agree with your post, why should we give in to his demands for 13k a week, unless he drops to 10k he won't be back which is his choice, I've not heard anyone else interested in him, I bet Chickensen is on about a quarter off Wards wages, what's saying he won't do the business this season he's looked alright when called upon,
Up the Albion!!
[quote][p][bold]taylord1977[/bold] wrote: Wage structure is there for a reason, whether we agree with it or not. What happens is player x,y and z's agent goes into the club, says; Ward is getting more than the structure you put in place, so my player now wants an extra 3k a week, all of a sudden your structure has gone, and you are paying double the salaries out you were originally budgeted for. So it's not quite as black and white as 100k fee and 13k a week salary in reality.[/p][/quote]Totally agree with your post, why should we give in to his demands for 13k a week, unless he drops to 10k he won't be back which is his choice, I've not heard anyone else interested in him, I bet Chickensen is on about a quarter off Wards wages, what's saying he won't do the business this season he's looked alright when called upon, Up the Albion!! JeffLomer
  • Score: -2

1:31pm Thu 31 Jul 14

JeffLomer says...

Havok82 wrote:
Surely the extra 3000 a month is manageable considering what the transfer fee would be if going for another target of his quality. Albion would pay 156,000 in his wages for the year making his transfer for a year including the transfer fee only 256000. As I say I'm sure they would pay more for another left back of his quality.
Would you get a 3k a month/year rise from your boss, I think you no the answer don't slam the door on your way out,

Wards on 13k with Wolves totally different contract than he would get with us I've not seen anyone else biting his hand off to sign for them, quality or not we want players to wear the shirt because they want too, not greedy gits who want to hold the club to ransom,
Up the Albion!!
[quote][p][bold]Havok82[/bold] wrote: Surely the extra 3000 a month is manageable considering what the transfer fee would be if going for another target of his quality. Albion would pay 156,000 in his wages for the year making his transfer for a year including the transfer fee only 256000. As I say I'm sure they would pay more for another left back of his quality.[/p][/quote]Would you get a 3k a month/year rise from your boss, I think you no the answer don't slam the door on your way out, Wards on 13k with Wolves totally different contract than he would get with us I've not seen anyone else biting his hand off to sign for them, quality or not we want players to wear the shirt because they want too, not greedy gits who want to hold the club to ransom, Up the Albion!! JeffLomer
  • Score: -4

1:51pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Beale32 says...

Offer wolves the same deal as last year. That wont break our wage structure, gets ward here, saves wolves alot of money and then hopefully sign him for free when his contract runs out. Wolves get rid of a guy they don't want and we get the guy we do want.
Offer wolves the same deal as last year. That wont break our wage structure, gets ward here, saves wolves alot of money and then hopefully sign him for free when his contract runs out. Wolves get rid of a guy they don't want and we get the guy we do want. Beale32
  • Score: -2

1:59pm Thu 31 Jul 14

VegasSeagull says...

Beale32 wrote:
Offer wolves the same deal as last year. That wont break our wage structure, gets ward here, saves wolves alot of money and then hopefully sign him for free when his contract runs out. Wolves get rid of a guy they don't want and we get the guy we do want.
always assuming that we are happy to pay the same as last year, maybe we are not.
[quote][p][bold]Beale32[/bold] wrote: Offer wolves the same deal as last year. That wont break our wage structure, gets ward here, saves wolves alot of money and then hopefully sign him for free when his contract runs out. Wolves get rid of a guy they don't want and we get the guy we do want.[/p][/quote]always assuming that we are happy to pay the same as last year, maybe we are not. VegasSeagull
  • Score: -4

2:04pm Thu 31 Jul 14

portugal35 says...

What about increasing the season ticket prices to help pay for transfer fee and wages.
What about increasing the season ticket prices to help pay for transfer fee and wages. portugal35
  • Score: -3

2:24pm Thu 31 Jul 14

JeffLomer says...

portugal35 wrote:
What about increasing the season ticket prices to help pay for transfer fee and wages.
What about talking some sense!!
[quote][p][bold]portugal35[/bold] wrote: What about increasing the season ticket prices to help pay for transfer fee and wages.[/p][/quote]What about talking some sense!! JeffLomer
  • Score: 1

2:29pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Beale32 says...

VegasSeagull wrote:
Beale32 wrote:
Offer wolves the same deal as last year. That wont break our wage structure, gets ward here, saves wolves alot of money and then hopefully sign him for free when his contract runs out. Wolves get rid of a guy they don't want and we get the guy we do want.
always assuming that we are happy to pay the same as last year, maybe we are not.
There is no reason not to pay the same. They want him back so therefore should be able to pay the same. He knows the club/players now. Was alot of supports player of the season. We get a top rate left back for 10k a week and wolves will save 10k a week. Win win all round. Then at the end of season offer contract that less than 13k a week.
[quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Beale32[/bold] wrote: Offer wolves the same deal as last year. That wont break our wage structure, gets ward here, saves wolves alot of money and then hopefully sign him for free when his contract runs out. Wolves get rid of a guy they don't want and we get the guy we do want.[/p][/quote]always assuming that we are happy to pay the same as last year, maybe we are not.[/p][/quote]There is no reason not to pay the same. They want him back so therefore should be able to pay the same. He knows the club/players now. Was alot of supports player of the season. We get a top rate left back for 10k a week and wolves will save 10k a week. Win win all round. Then at the end of season offer contract that less than 13k a week. Beale32
  • Score: 1

2:46pm Thu 31 Jul 14

VegasSeagull says...

Beale32 wrote:
VegasSeagull wrote:
Beale32 wrote:
Offer wolves the same deal as last year. That wont break our wage structure, gets ward here, saves wolves alot of money and then hopefully sign him for free when his contract runs out. Wolves get rid of a guy they don't want and we get the guy we do want.
always assuming that we are happy to pay the same as last year, maybe we are not.
There is no reason not to pay the same. They want him back so therefore should be able to pay the same. He knows the club/players now. Was alot of supports player of the season. We get a top rate left back for 10k a week and wolves will save 10k a week. Win win all round. Then at the end of season offer contract that less than 13k a week.
I hear what you are saying but, when we agreed to the loan deal we might have paid the 10k a week, we didn't have much choice, but that doesn't mean that we wanted to. At the time that deal was struck we were in trouble, Chicksen was down and Maksi was our only real back up. Today that is not the case, today we have options.
I am not saying that we shouldn't sign Ward, he would be good recruit, but when doing a loan deal, as opposed to a purchase, the playing field levels out, we are not up against the wall needing a player and needing him quickly.

There are other options out there, and if we do a deal for Ward the negotiations should reflect the fact that we do have options.
[quote][p][bold]Beale32[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Beale32[/bold] wrote: Offer wolves the same deal as last year. That wont break our wage structure, gets ward here, saves wolves alot of money and then hopefully sign him for free when his contract runs out. Wolves get rid of a guy they don't want and we get the guy we do want.[/p][/quote]always assuming that we are happy to pay the same as last year, maybe we are not.[/p][/quote]There is no reason not to pay the same. They want him back so therefore should be able to pay the same. He knows the club/players now. Was alot of supports player of the season. We get a top rate left back for 10k a week and wolves will save 10k a week. Win win all round. Then at the end of season offer contract that less than 13k a week.[/p][/quote]I hear what you are saying but, when we agreed to the loan deal we might have paid the 10k a week, we didn't have much choice, but that doesn't mean that we wanted to. At the time that deal was struck we were in trouble, Chicksen was down and Maksi was our only real back up. Today that is not the case, today we have options. I am not saying that we shouldn't sign Ward, he would be good recruit, but when doing a loan deal, as opposed to a purchase, the playing field levels out, we are not up against the wall needing a player and needing him quickly. There are other options out there, and if we do a deal for Ward the negotiations should reflect the fact that we do have options. VegasSeagull
  • Score: -1

3:07pm Thu 31 Jul 14

JeffLomer says...

Talk sport are at the Amex tonight, not sure if it's full commentary!!
Talk sport are at the Amex tonight, not sure if it's full commentary!! JeffLomer
  • Score: 1

3:16pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Baldseagull says...

VegasSeagull wrote:
Beale32 wrote:
VegasSeagull wrote:
Beale32 wrote:
Offer wolves the same deal as last year. That wont break our wage structure, gets ward here, saves wolves alot of money and then hopefully sign him for free when his contract runs out. Wolves get rid of a guy they don't want and we get the guy we do want.
always assuming that we are happy to pay the same as last year, maybe we are not.
There is no reason not to pay the same. They want him back so therefore should be able to pay the same. He knows the club/players now. Was alot of supports player of the season. We get a top rate left back for 10k a week and wolves will save 10k a week. Win win all round. Then at the end of season offer contract that less than 13k a week.
I hear what you are saying but, when we agreed to the loan deal we might have paid the 10k a week, we didn't have much choice, but that doesn't mean that we wanted to. At the time that deal was struck we were in trouble, Chicksen was down and Maksi was our only real back up. Today that is not the case, today we have options.
I am not saying that we shouldn't sign Ward, he would be good recruit, but when doing a loan deal, as opposed to a purchase, the playing field levels out, we are not up against the wall needing a player and needing him quickly.

There are other options out there, and if we do a deal for Ward the negotiations should reflect the fact that we do have options.
The reports are that we have offered 10k per week, this was what we paid last season, Wolves topped him up.
Mexican standoff.
We are sticking to 10k per week.
Ward is sticking to his current 13k per week.
Wolves are sticking to offloading him and not subsidising a loan.

Eventually someone will end up compromising, my bet is Wolves end up loaning out after the transfer window has closed.
[quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Beale32[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Beale32[/bold] wrote: Offer wolves the same deal as last year. That wont break our wage structure, gets ward here, saves wolves alot of money and then hopefully sign him for free when his contract runs out. Wolves get rid of a guy they don't want and we get the guy we do want.[/p][/quote]always assuming that we are happy to pay the same as last year, maybe we are not.[/p][/quote]There is no reason not to pay the same. They want him back so therefore should be able to pay the same. He knows the club/players now. Was alot of supports player of the season. We get a top rate left back for 10k a week and wolves will save 10k a week. Win win all round. Then at the end of season offer contract that less than 13k a week.[/p][/quote]I hear what you are saying but, when we agreed to the loan deal we might have paid the 10k a week, we didn't have much choice, but that doesn't mean that we wanted to. At the time that deal was struck we were in trouble, Chicksen was down and Maksi was our only real back up. Today that is not the case, today we have options. I am not saying that we shouldn't sign Ward, he would be good recruit, but when doing a loan deal, as opposed to a purchase, the playing field levels out, we are not up against the wall needing a player and needing him quickly. There are other options out there, and if we do a deal for Ward the negotiations should reflect the fact that we do have options.[/p][/quote]The reports are that we have offered 10k per week, this was what we paid last season, Wolves topped him up. Mexican standoff. We are sticking to 10k per week. Ward is sticking to his current 13k per week. Wolves are sticking to offloading him and not subsidising a loan. Eventually someone will end up compromising, my bet is Wolves end up loaning out after the transfer window has closed. Baldseagull
  • Score: 2

3:18pm Thu 31 Jul 14

VegasSeagull says...

Baldseagull wrote:
VegasSeagull wrote:
Beale32 wrote:
VegasSeagull wrote:
Beale32 wrote:
Offer wolves the same deal as last year. That wont break our wage structure, gets ward here, saves wolves alot of money and then hopefully sign him for free when his contract runs out. Wolves get rid of a guy they don't want and we get the guy we do want.
always assuming that we are happy to pay the same as last year, maybe we are not.
There is no reason not to pay the same. They want him back so therefore should be able to pay the same. He knows the club/players now. Was alot of supports player of the season. We get a top rate left back for 10k a week and wolves will save 10k a week. Win win all round. Then at the end of season offer contract that less than 13k a week.
I hear what you are saying but, when we agreed to the loan deal we might have paid the 10k a week, we didn't have much choice, but that doesn't mean that we wanted to. At the time that deal was struck we were in trouble, Chicksen was down and Maksi was our only real back up. Today that is not the case, today we have options.
I am not saying that we shouldn't sign Ward, he would be good recruit, but when doing a loan deal, as opposed to a purchase, the playing field levels out, we are not up against the wall needing a player and needing him quickly.

There are other options out there, and if we do a deal for Ward the negotiations should reflect the fact that we do have options.
The reports are that we have offered 10k per week, this was what we paid last season, Wolves topped him up.
Mexican standoff.
We are sticking to 10k per week.
Ward is sticking to his current 13k per week.
Wolves are sticking to offloading him and not subsidising a loan.

Eventually someone will end up compromising, my bet is Wolves end up loaning out after the transfer window has closed.
and he could end up joining Orlandi at Balckpool.
[quote][p][bold]Baldseagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Beale32[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Beale32[/bold] wrote: Offer wolves the same deal as last year. That wont break our wage structure, gets ward here, saves wolves alot of money and then hopefully sign him for free when his contract runs out. Wolves get rid of a guy they don't want and we get the guy we do want.[/p][/quote]always assuming that we are happy to pay the same as last year, maybe we are not.[/p][/quote]There is no reason not to pay the same. They want him back so therefore should be able to pay the same. He knows the club/players now. Was alot of supports player of the season. We get a top rate left back for 10k a week and wolves will save 10k a week. Win win all round. Then at the end of season offer contract that less than 13k a week.[/p][/quote]I hear what you are saying but, when we agreed to the loan deal we might have paid the 10k a week, we didn't have much choice, but that doesn't mean that we wanted to. At the time that deal was struck we were in trouble, Chicksen was down and Maksi was our only real back up. Today that is not the case, today we have options. I am not saying that we shouldn't sign Ward, he would be good recruit, but when doing a loan deal, as opposed to a purchase, the playing field levels out, we are not up against the wall needing a player and needing him quickly. There are other options out there, and if we do a deal for Ward the negotiations should reflect the fact that we do have options.[/p][/quote]The reports are that we have offered 10k per week, this was what we paid last season, Wolves topped him up. Mexican standoff. We are sticking to 10k per week. Ward is sticking to his current 13k per week. Wolves are sticking to offloading him and not subsidising a loan. Eventually someone will end up compromising, my bet is Wolves end up loaning out after the transfer window has closed.[/p][/quote]and he could end up joining Orlandi at Balckpool. VegasSeagull
  • Score: 0

3:38pm Thu 31 Jul 14

VegasSeagull says...

If our reported interest in getting Konchesky from Leicester is correct, that is a deal that could happen, especially if Leicester are paying us for Ulloa by installments. It would turn the Ulloa deal into a, 'cash plus player,' arrangement.

This report will also add pressure on Ward to come to terms with Brighton, or walk away.
If our reported interest in getting Konchesky from Leicester is correct, that is a deal that could happen, especially if Leicester are paying us for Ulloa by installments. It would turn the Ulloa deal into a, 'cash plus player,' arrangement. This report will also add pressure on Ward to come to terms with Brighton, or walk away. VegasSeagull
  • Score: 2

3:52pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Max Ripple says...

Havok82 wrote:
Surely the extra 3000 a month is manageable considering what the transfer fee would be if going for another target of his quality. Albion would pay 156,000 in his wages for the year making his transfer for a year including the transfer fee only 256000. As I say I'm sure they would pay more for another left back of his quality.
£3000 per week - not month. That's £12,000 per month. A years wages for some people.
[quote][p][bold]Havok82[/bold] wrote: Surely the extra 3000 a month is manageable considering what the transfer fee would be if going for another target of his quality. Albion would pay 156,000 in his wages for the year making his transfer for a year including the transfer fee only 256000. As I say I'm sure they would pay more for another left back of his quality.[/p][/quote]£3000 per week - not month. That's £12,000 per month. A years wages for some people. Max Ripple
  • Score: -1

3:55pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Max Ripple says...

VegasSeagull wrote:
We all talk about the difference only being 3K a week, but what if we don't want to pay him 10K, perhaps 8K is the sum the club are offering.

When we borrowed him we were told what it would cost, we didn't have much choice, but now we do. At 13K we might offer a one year deal with a one year option, at 8K we might offer a three year deal.
Good point Vegas.
[quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: We all talk about the difference only being 3K a week, but what if we don't want to pay him 10K, perhaps 8K is the sum the club are offering. When we borrowed him we were told what it would cost, we didn't have much choice, but now we do. At 13K we might offer a one year deal with a one year option, at 8K we might offer a three year deal.[/p][/quote]Good point Vegas. Max Ripple
  • Score: -2

4:00pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Captain Haddock says...

the taffster wrote:
Paddy McCourt is available after being released from Barnsley.....he was the best player on the park at the amex when we played them....he's class. Why can't we sign him?
He was indeed, Taffster, but on reading the Barnsley forums as we signed COG, I noticed they don't rate Paddy McCourt at all! He must have played unusually well against us!

That plus the fact The Tykes have now released him tells me we should steer clear!
[quote][p][bold]the taffster[/bold] wrote: Paddy McCourt is available after being released from Barnsley.....he was the best player on the park at the amex when we played them....he's class. Why can't we sign him?[/p][/quote]He was indeed, Taffster, but on reading the Barnsley forums as we signed COG, I noticed they don't rate Paddy McCourt at all! He must have played unusually well against us! That plus the fact The Tykes have now released him tells me we should steer clear! Captain Haddock
  • Score: -1

4:02pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Captain Haddock says...

arc12 wrote:
It might just be that Ward wants to come to us and will accept a lower wage but is holding out most of the summero continue to bank his £13k a week. Makes sense from his point of view. Grab the £13 k a week over the close season banking as much as he can and then join us on maybe a 2 year deal for a lower weekly wage. A bit of business acumen from him if he is sure the albion will come back in for him, and if they don't then he still picks up another year of £13k a week but doesn't get to play.
A shrewd move if true and is a possibility.
[quote][p][bold]arc12[/bold] wrote: It might just be that Ward wants to come to us and will accept a lower wage but is holding out most of the summero continue to bank his £13k a week. Makes sense from his point of view. Grab the £13 k a week over the close season banking as much as he can and then join us on maybe a 2 year deal for a lower weekly wage. A bit of business acumen from him if he is sure the albion will come back in for him, and if they don't then he still picks up another year of £13k a week but doesn't get to play.[/p][/quote]A shrewd move if true and is a possibility. Captain Haddock
  • Score: -1

4:28pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Conelli98 says...

Sky reporting on transfer centre, kenny Jackett has said any players wanting deals away from club will have to wait until season has started!!!
Sky reporting on transfer centre, kenny Jackett has said any players wanting deals away from club will have to wait until season has started!!! Conelli98
  • Score: 0

10:24pm Thu 31 Jul 14

tinker111 says...

Havok82 wrote:
Surely the extra 3000 a month is manageable considering what the transfer fee would be if going for another target of his quality. Albion would pay 156,000 in his wages for the year making his transfer for a year including the transfer fee only 256000. As I say I'm sure they would pay more for another left back of his quality.
would break the £10,000 top club wage and have other's asking for more
[quote][p][bold]Havok82[/bold] wrote: Surely the extra 3000 a month is manageable considering what the transfer fee would be if going for another target of his quality. Albion would pay 156,000 in his wages for the year making his transfer for a year including the transfer fee only 256000. As I say I'm sure they would pay more for another left back of his quality.[/p][/quote]would break the £10,000 top club wage and have other's asking for more tinker111
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree