Oxlade Chamberlain Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fist of Lehmann

It's worth remembering that if he is in line for a pay increase that this is probably a step-up clause in his original contract and not a new contract in and of itself.

One of the main reasons we are able to attract these sought after youngsters is the contracts we offer. The step-up clause may be triggered automatically by number of games played or even just after a certain time has elapsed.

So, before you starting jumping up and down, bear in mind that his signing in the first place was in some way smoothed by this auto-triggered pay rise.

Your face.

---

Top post FOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie the Gooner

Where did i defend him you prick show me.

---

Charlie :hug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syn

We don't know whether a new contract is being offered and, particularly, even if it is being offered - how much the contract is worth. If the touted figure of doubling his £25k salary is quoted, £50k a week is the going rate for Oxlade at any club. If he was a Man Utd player, that's how much he'd be on. If he was a Tottenham player, that's how much he'd be on. If he was a Chelsea player, he'd probably be on more.

I've already argued for performance-related pay and in an ideal world everyone would get paid based on how well they perform. But in absence of that, new contracts are offered on the basis of what they're likely to do rather than what they have done. That's the case everywhere. What makes people think we're pissing away a lot on youngsters is the age.

People think an 18 year old shouldn't be earning as much as a 30 year old - and that's the bottom line. But it just so happens that for our club, 18-21 year olds are important members of the squad whereas for most other clubs, this is not the case. Then your argument is that maybe this 18 year old won't turn out to be an important member of the squad...he is going to be a regular next season. There's no maybe about it..it's happening. If you want to account for risk of injuries, we shouldn't renew Van Persie's contract. What we pay them has nothing to do with age but more their role in the side.

I do think there is a mismanagement of wage handouts but not for these youngsters - more on the end of the squaddies that hardly ever play/4th choice; Djourou, Squillaci, Park, Diaby, Chamakh etc. If you think Oxlade is not going to play at least as big a role as Lennon or Downing or Valencia - in terms of how important they are for a top 4 side - then I'm sure you're in the minority.

---

I'm not saying he shouldn't get paid so much because he's 18, I'm saying it because he's still in the first year of his contract and only just started playing first team football with us. He's not a guaranteed first team starter yet and that in its self seems to break our policy on what a first team player should be earning. Also, I don't think these kids are focused on money at this stage of their career. It should be all about making it big and paying your dues on the field at this stage. Too much too soon can lead to all sorts of distractions off the pitch. It's not good.

The kid has hardly done a lap and Wenger is already calling him in for a pit stop for a fresh set of tyres. Excuse the bad comparison. Just saying we've making this sort of call too early. If we're comparing other teams, does anyone know how much Walker is earning for Spurs? Or if Hernandez was offered a new improved deal after his first year? Just seems like a bad policy to me. He did something similar with Wilshere but that was at least after a first team run for a season. I don't think this story is far fetched at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory

Or if Hernandez was offered a new improved deal after his first year?.

---

http://www.manutd.com/en/News-And-Fe...-contract.aspx:whistle:

I agree though, unless we only had him on a 3 year deal initially there's probably no need for a new contract at the present time.

Ideally players should have to do a lot more than play well in about 10 games to bump up their contact, but that's just the way it is. If Oxo is to get an improved deal I don't think it's going to be OTT in terms of the going rate.

Our problems with wages are well documented in that we pay squad players a lot more than our rivals do with theirs. Hence why we have so much deadwood in the squad. I'd be happy to see us pay our best players huge amounts as long as players who clearly have no use or future at the club aren't paid more than their worth as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cricketsi

http://www.manutd.com/en/News-And-Fe...-contract.aspx:whistle:

I agree though, unless we only had him on a 3 year deal initially there's probably no need for a new contract at the present time.

---

Hernandez helped them win a league title and scored 23 goals in 50 odd appearances. I can understand if a player racks up those sort of numbers. Ox has made 14 league appearances and 4 goals. We've seen players like Chamakh and Nasri have longer runs of good form and then fall off. He's an obvious talent but I think we're rushing things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory

Hernandez helped them win a league title and scored 23 goals in 50 odd appearances. I can understand if a player racks up those sort of numbers. Ox has made 14 league appearances and 4 goals. We've seen players like Chamakh and Nasri have longer runs of good form and then fall off. He's an obvious talent but I think we're rushing things.

---

:gp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syn

We don't know whether a new contract is being offered and, particularly, even if it is being offered - how much the contract is worth. If the touted figure of doubling his £25k salary is quoted, £50k a week is the going rate for Oxlade at any club. If he was a Man Utd player, that's how much he'd be on. If he was a Tottenham player, that's how much he'd be on. If he was a Chelsea player, he'd probably be on more.

I've already argued for performance-related pay and in an ideal world everyone would get paid based on how well they perform. But in absence of that, new contracts are offered on the basis of what they're likely to do rather than what they have done. That's the case everywhere. What makes people think we're pissing away a lot on youngsters is the age.

People think an 18 year old shouldn't be earning as much as a 30 year old - and that's the bottom line. But it just so happens that for our club, 18-21 year olds are important members of the squad whereas for most other clubs, this is not the case. Then your argument is that maybe this 18 year old won't turn out to be an important member of the squad...he is going to be a regular next season. There's no maybe about it..it's happening. If you want to account for risk of injuries, we shouldn't renew Van Persie's contract. What we pay them has nothing to do with age but more their role in the side.

I do think there is a mismanagement of wage handouts but not for these youngsters - more on the end of the squaddies that hardly ever play/4th choice; Djourou, Squillaci, Park, Diaby, Chamakh etc. If you think Oxlade is not going to play at least as big a role as Lennon or Downing or Valencia - in terms of how important they are for a top 4 side - then I'm sure you're in the minority.

---

Spot on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grimandi's Perm

Spot on.

---

I disagree with this. Most clubs don’t pay young players based on potential. Hernandez got his pay rise after 50 odd games, 23 goals and helping United win the title.

Paying based on potential is what leads to this over paid wages mess in the first place. Especially after a few months of good form.

Besides Squallaci and Park, players like Diaby, Djourou, Chamakh, Denilson, Bendy...etc all had months where they looked like solid players for us. We jumped the gun and offered them high wages and now we can’t move them on because they’re paid way too much. It’s not so much of a worry for Alex, because I think the kid is great but it’s a bad policy and we shouldn’t be paying based on potential because they still have to fulfil it. Wenger over commits to these players when he offers such a huge pay rise. Denilson was overplayed for seasons and a part of me thinks it was down to the wages. The same goes for playing Bendy out wide and the amount of times Chamakh gets called on as sub even though we know he’s never going to score. When you’re paying a player that much, it’s much harder to leave them out of the squad and not use them. You want to make it work because you’ve invested so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grimandi's Perm

Spot on.

---

:gp: