| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. 10:56 - Jan 5 with 4200 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
Darling is leaving. Precedent suggests there is no chance of signing a new deal.
If Swansea can get even £1m for him that would be good business.
For his remaining 20 weeks that would work out at £50k a week. Add his wages of say £5-6k that is £55k a week saved.
Bring in Low and money for a quality loan striker like Barry from Villa if the plan is to go for top 6. |  |
| |  |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 11:02 - Jan 5 with 2046 views | jack247 |
What about the precedent from a few weeks ago when Ben Cabango signed a new contract from a similar position? I’d agree he’s more likely to go, but ‘no chance’ is nonsense.
Harry Darling would have to agree to go now and almost certainly waive a decent chunk of his signing on fee.
We’re in a tough spot on this one and we have the previous regime to thank for that. |  | | |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 11:49 - Jan 5 with 1933 views | vetchonian |
Why would clubs pay a fee for him now when they can pick him up for "free" in the summer. | |
| |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 12:14 - Jan 5 with 1887 views | Whiterockin |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 11:49 - Jan 5 by vetchonian |
Why would clubs pay a fee for him now when they can pick him up for "free" in the summer. |
Exactly and why would he go when he can pick up over £1M signing on fee on top of the same wages in 6 months. He knows what is on offer he will wait. |  | | |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 12:19 - Jan 5 with 1865 views | KeithHaynes |
Clubs paying fee’s for players happens all the time. We have to remember if any club does then he goes this month. Not at the end of the season. In a way it does make economic sense, but it will again affect those who follow the club as they will lose more heart.
Economics v Economics. |  |
| |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 12:40 - Jan 5 with 1819 views | andrew |
If he’s on 5/6k then I think we should be offering him treble what he’s on. He still won’t be the highest paid player we have. | |
| |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 12:47 - Jan 5 with 1802 views | nantywatcher |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 11:49 - Jan 5 by vetchonian |
Why would clubs pay a fee for him now when they can pick him up for "free" in the summer. |
Is that a serious question? Because they are a club with ambition, and a good 4 moths performance could change the history of their club? Just a thought. | | | |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 13:25 - Jan 5 with 1708 views | vetchonian |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 12:47 - Jan 5 by nantywatcher |
Is that a serious question? Because they are a club with ambition, and a good 4 moths performance could change the history of their club? Just a thought. |
As Keith says its a balance...if he goes for a fee he goes this month..that leaves us in a precarious position at centre back we are thin enough there now hopefully we will see Low join which will bolster us and I'd prefer to have Cabango Darling and Low allowing rotation and good cover for injury or suspension.
What if we sell Darling and don't get Low or any other half decent centre back?
It will start tto turn more supporters off | |
| |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 13:27 - Jan 5 with 1697 views | Landore_Jack |
The fact that we are in this position is a disgrace. It's clear the club has not learnt its lessons from Piroe, Obafemi and Ntcham. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 13:30 - Jan 5 with 1687 views | vetchonian |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 13:27 - Jan 5 by Landore_Jack |
The fact that we are in this position is a disgrace. It's clear the club has not learnt its lessons from Piroe, Obafemi and Ntcham. |
It's a shame the "takeover" couldn't have taken place before the summer I'm sure we might find ourselves in a different position | |
| |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 13:34 - Jan 5 with 1663 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 11:49 - Jan 5 by vetchonian |
Why would clubs pay a fee for him now when they can pick him up for "free" in the summer. |
Another outstanding performance for the record. Clubs will want him for sure especially if he is cheap.
Consider for arguments sake clubs have been talking to his agent. Bristol city,, WBA, Leeds, Blackburn. All push ing for the PL..
Darling is happy to wait. Bristol offer £250k and £15k a week. Leeds if they want him will have to make a move and will £1m and £16k a week. Take it or leave it. They cannot let the player they want go to Bristol for a song. Any person with an offer in the table will be loathe to tell r the new employer to wait. They will go elsewhere if he does a hamstring in the meantime.
Anything can happen in the next 6 months. What Darling wants is there right now with one or two signatures. He would be wiser to take the bird in the hand.
Williams tells Darling Low will be first choice. Is Darling going to go fishing for 5 months?
Leeds will pay the money those "cheapskates" at Swansea want.
. [Post edited 5 Jan 13:42]
| |
| |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 13:40 - Jan 5 with 1610 views | onehunglow |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 12:40 - Jan 5 by andrew |
If he’s on 5/6k then I think we should be offering him treble what he’s on. He still won’t be the highest paid player we have. |
Indeed
That would be captain Omnipotent | |
| |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 14:03 - Jan 5 with 1546 views | KeithHaynes |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 12:40 - Jan 5 by andrew |
If he’s on 5/6k then I think we should be offering him treble what he’s on. He still won’t be the highest paid player we have. |
There are indeed a few others, Grimes and Fulton obviously. Larry and Pedersen aren’t earning peanuts either. | |
| |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 14:27 - Jan 5 with 1473 views | johnlangy |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 14:03 - Jan 5 by KeithHaynes |
There are indeed a few others, Grimes and Fulton obviously. Larry and Pedersen aren’t earning peanuts either. |
Joe will almost certainly be gone in the summer. 22K a week I believe ? | | | |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 14:52 - Jan 5 with 1418 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 14:27 - Jan 5 by johnlangy |
Joe will almost certainly be gone in the summer. 22K a week I believe ? |
The club need to concentrate on football and not worry about what the fans think. Paying Joey £1m per season was madness. Fans would be more enthused by an up and coming talent. | |
| |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 15:08 - Jan 5 with 1386 views | GVJack |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 13:27 - Jan 5 by Landore_Jack |
The fact that we are in this position is a disgrace. It's clear the club has not learnt its lessons from Piroe, Obafemi and Ntcham. |
I agree. I've said in another thread that if a club values and wants to retain a player contract extensions should be done from 2 years out of the expiry. Not let it rundown to 12/6 months which fairly puts the pendulum of power towards the player.
We're not the first or last club to fall victim of this approach though. Imagine being a Liverpool fan with the prospect of losing all of Virgil, Trent and Salah for free this summer! The stark difference is they have the power to recruit world class replacements but still goes to show the Swans aren't the only club who manages contracts in this way. | | | |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 15:12 - Jan 5 with 1372 views | GVJack |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 11:49 - Jan 5 by vetchonian |
Why would clubs pay a fee for him now when they can pick him up for "free" in the summer. |
Simply because to win the race of completing his signature and not face stiffer competition in 6 moths time.
Come June Darling will have a host if Championship clubs all trying to recruit him on a free. Some of those may be newly promoted to the Premiership and would be even more attractive to Darling. May even get some existing Premiership clubs looking to take him on as backup for their first team. So a club may bid now to try and guarantee his services are secured.
As for Darling... For all the reasons and options mentioned above he's likely to wait to see what's offered in the summer and rebuke any approaches (unless the offer is too good to turn down). | | | |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 15:34 - Jan 5 with 1301 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 15:12 - Jan 5 by GVJack |
Simply because to win the race of completing his signature and not face stiffer competition in 6 moths time.
Come June Darling will have a host if Championship clubs all trying to recruit him on a free. Some of those may be newly promoted to the Premiership and would be even more attractive to Darling. May even get some existing Premiership clubs looking to take him on as backup for their first team. So a club may bid now to try and guarantee his services are secured.
As for Darling... For all the reasons and options mentioned above he's likely to wait to see what's offered in the summer and rebuke any approaches (unless the offer is too good to turn down). |
If Darling h wants to go somewhere in particular and they offer him a good package he will be minded to accept it immediately. It is human nature.
Say for or example Leeds. Highly likely to go up. He if turns them down and decides to wait there is no guarantee Leeds will not have gone elsewhere. Offers are yes/ no and nay not be repeated.
Darling might look back having signed for Bristol city in the Championship and muse to his partner. "We could have gone to Leeds last winter." [Post edited 5 Jan 15:35]
| |
| |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 15:42 - Jan 5 with 1257 views | jack247 |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 14:27 - Jan 5 by johnlangy |
Joe will almost certainly be gone in the summer. 22K a week I believe ? |
Absolutely no way he’s on anything like that. He signed a one year contract in the summer after two years of hardly being fit.
We had to get players out to sign Franco and Eom. No chance at all Levein and Kaplan would have given him a contract as one of our top earners. | | | |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 15:52 - Jan 5 with 1221 views | RichardO |
We would have a choice of buying him ourselves at the end of the season, if we find a good replacement we may not want to.
He might end up thinking he is in a good place at the Swans by the end of the season, hedging his bets yes of course but some one should remind him of the like of Alfie Mawson and even the struggles Joe Rodon has had establishing himself in teams. The money must be nice but Rodin only now seems to have got to grips in the lower Championship level playing in a Leeds team.
Sure he would want a Premiership team to be knocking on the door.
Would he have been better of in a footballing sense to have stayed with the Swans for a while longer. | | | |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 15:57 - Jan 5 with 1192 views | jack247 |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 15:34 - Jan 5 by ReslovenSwan1 |
If Darling h wants to go somewhere in particular and they offer him a good package he will be minded to accept it immediately. It is human nature.
Say for or example Leeds. Highly likely to go up. He if turns them down and decides to wait there is no guarantee Leeds will not have gone elsewhere. Offers are yes/ no and nay not be repeated.
Darling might look back having signed for Bristol city in the Championship and muse to his partner. "We could have gone to Leeds last winter." [Post edited 5 Jan 15:35]
|
He will have better options than Bristol City if he sits his contract out. We will be one of them.
Using the Leeds example, he won’t play for them much if they go up. He’ll be Nathan Wood at best. | | | |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 15:59 - Jan 5 with 1177 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 15:52 - Jan 5 by RichardO |
We would have a choice of buying him ourselves at the end of the season, if we find a good replacement we may not want to.
He might end up thinking he is in a good place at the Swans by the end of the season, hedging his bets yes of course but some one should remind him of the like of Alfie Mawson and even the struggles Joe Rodon has had establishing himself in teams. The money must be nice but Rodin only now seems to have got to grips in the lower Championship level playing in a Leeds team.
Sure he would want a Premiership team to be knocking on the door.
Would he have been better of in a footballing sense to have stayed with the Swans for a while longer. |
Delaying until the summer only means one thing. The club should have sold him last Summer. He then was buying time for himself by falsely claiming there had been no talks or offers. There is no good faith her. Move him on | |
| |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 16:06 - Jan 5 with 1164 views | RichardO |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 15:59 - Jan 5 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Delaying until the summer only means one thing. The club should have sold him last Summer. He then was buying time for himself by falsely claiming there had been no talks or offers. There is no good faith her. Move him on |
Sold him last summer and only have one centre half of proven worth?
Similar position this xfer window, unless we have long term replacements sorted, sell hi? no unless the price is right, no point selling him now. | | | |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 16:27 - Jan 5 with 1125 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 16:06 - Jan 5 by RichardO |
Sold him last summer and only have one centre half of proven worth?
Similar position this xfer window, unless we have long term replacements sorted, sell hi? no unless the price is right, no point selling him now. |
The club have a beefed up recruitment team not sitting on their hands. They do now.. yours is a particularly passive position.
In my opinion Darling has been kidding the club that re-signing was a possibility. I suspect it never was.
I have given you the economic basics for a minimal £1m fee. That is £56,000 a week write down. Selling him puts the club back in control of their finances.
It is my bet if Low is signed and he is told he has played his last game for Swansea he will go. Players have 24 half seasons in the game . He cannot afford to waste a half season doing nothing on low wages while turning down good money. [Post edited 5 Jan 16:31]
| |
| |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 16:40 - Jan 5 with 1085 views | Whiterockin |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 16:27 - Jan 5 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The club have a beefed up recruitment team not sitting on their hands. They do now.. yours is a particularly passive position.
In my opinion Darling has been kidding the club that re-signing was a possibility. I suspect it never was.
I have given you the economic basics for a minimal £1m fee. That is £56,000 a week write down. Selling him puts the club back in control of their finances.
It is my bet if Low is signed and he is told he has played his last game for Swansea he will go. Players have 24 half seasons in the game . He cannot afford to waste a half season doing nothing on low wages while turning down good money. [Post edited 5 Jan 16:31]
|
Low wages, how much do you think Darling is currently earning, you will be surprised. [Post edited 5 Jan 16:44]
| | | |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 16:51 - Jan 5 with 1047 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| There is no economic logic in keeping Darling. on 16:40 - Jan 5 by Whiterockin |
Low wages, how much do you think Darling is currently earning, you will be surprised. [Post edited 5 Jan 16:44]
|
Why waste time and just tell me. As potential poster of the year you should give value to the forum and not fiddle about.
He can earn more elsewhere which is why he has not re signed. He can have his new monthly salary next month if he wants. If he is as very low wages relatively then he has an incentive to move this January. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
