31 Aug 2024 12:17:21
Sancho spells the end of mudryk. I quite like sancho again so I'm not going to complain about his signing though again, it doesn't make any sense banishing sterling, paying half his wages and then bringing in sancho.
However, we surely just have to cut our losses on mudryk. Was it seriously 80m pounds? How on earth did he cost that much. anyway, the mistake has been made and done and it is what it is.
Welcome sancho!
31 Aug 2024 13:04:48
Standard, are we paying half Sterlings wages? Has there been a loan fee?
I wouldn’t have a clue but to be honest I’m not that bothered. If our manager didn’t want him that’s good enough for me and beat for the player.
If he plays well at gooner land it’s a double edged sword. Helping the gooners against getting a future big transfer fee.
31 Aug 2024 22:58:01
You're not bothered that we're paying sterling half of his wages for him to contribute to a rival? Strange.
01 Sep 2024 04:34:18
I’ve not seen anything that’s said we’re paying half of Sterlings wages?
01 Sep 2024 07:05:52
Standard, they were just simple questions. Are we paying half of Sterlings wages? Was there a loan fee?
I personally haven’t seen the structure of his loan move to gooner land.
I’m only “guessing” but I would assume the gooners are paying something towards his salary? So I assume it could be argued that they are supporting a rival in reducing its wage bill.
Of course that is just me “guessing. ”.
01 Sep 2024 07:59:51
Just read an article in the athletic and they say we have received no loan fee and we are paying a substantial part of his wages. They also say the player turned down a lucrative move to Saudi.
As I have said already the manager didn’t want him and it’s better to get something rather than nothing with him not being involved in the managers plans.
I think he will do well for the gooners and if he does they, or another club can pay a transfer fee as it appears there is no obligation to buy.