Dwight Gayle move blocked by Gibbo

M

Morton94

Well-known member
According to Football Insider, Gibbo doesn't want to sign players over 30 and has blocked any deal to sign Gayle.
Have a feeling his wages had a say to 😂
 
Think I'll take the over 30 thing with a pinch of salt. As you say, it'll be wages/length of the deal etc.

It's not just his age, but the lack of football he's played the last few years. Any contract should reflect that, but he's been sat on a fortune at Newcastle so probably unwilling to take a significant pay cut.

Let some other mug take the gamble if that's the case.
 
What does gibbo blocked the move mean? Surely there will have been discussions on the type/age of players we target before we get too far down the line. I doubt we have wasted time talking with the player and club for gibson to block the move. Sounds like BS

Maybe he has turned us down
 
I get signing 30+ players on moderate contracts who will be bit part players but don't want to see us blowing the budget on huge wages for older players.

I guess Gibbo is rightly sick of seeing his money go down the drain as players b***r off for little value at the end of their contracts so is now only wanting to spend it on players with a potential resale value.
 
TheWolfman said:
What does gibbo blocked the move mean? Surely there will have been discussions on the type/age of players we target before we get too far down the line. I doubt we have wasted time talking with the player and club for gibson to block the move. Sounds like BS

Maybe he has turned us down
Click to expand...
I'm sure if Gibson has the final say on any transfer then he would be sounded out early on in any potential deal. It's not like he would wait until the last minute to say no and waste everyone's time.

That would be a quick way to lose good staff.
 
I'm not having that. It's only a loan for a start. I fully understand if we were after him on a perm as zero resale value etc (something we've woefully done in the last).

I imagine the 50k a week and recent injury record that's the 'issue'. They wanted the whole wage paid last year hence no fecker loaned him.

I keep reading Boro fans having a pop how we are failing on signings. Yet I'm frankly OK on missing out on Gayle / Mcgoldrick and Rhodes. All 32 and half the players they were 5-6 ago.

We've frankly come a long way since sp*nking millions on Britt / Fletcher / Braithwaite or 2mil to loan Hugill. It's refreshing. Although it's hard to believe it's the same chairman who actually signed off on paying 7mil for Fletcher and Flint/Saville etc😂.
 
I can understand the hesitation towards sanctioning the loan if Newcastle were wanting us to shoulder the majority of his wages.
He's on a decent wedge and there's absolutely no guarantee he can perform as he did 3-4 years ago, he'll be 33 in October and hasn't played consistently in years.
 
What if Newcastle want rid, sale not loan? Nominal fee - or even free - but he's still on £50k week which Gibson said "No f*cking chance".
He would need to drop his wages to £20k ish to fit into our wage structure - losing £1.5m a year??
This sounds like an inquiry and either Newcastle have moved the goalposts or its one call and "thanks but no thanks".
No big deal, certainly looks like his best days are behind him anyway.
 
It won't be his age in general that's the problem, it'll be his age and the contract length / wages he wants.

He'll be 33 a few months into the season (October)...
If he's going to sign a 1 year deal on lower wages to "prove himself" (with a guaranteed performance based contract extension) then I'd take him all day long....
But as any other player in his position would, he'll be wanting his final payday.
 
I think it's primarily down to wages and the last few years of the career, Gibbo wanting bang for his buck.

To many times in previous seasons has his money been spunked up the wall, Saville, Flint, Britt, Fletcher ect ect.

Our buisness this summer thus far has been clever, I expect it will continue in the same fashion throughout the window
 
fassy said:
How old is Tommy Smith then?

Born 14 April 1992
Click to expand...

The difference is contact length/wage. Tommy Smith was on 20k at Stoke, I'd assume he'll be taking a slight pay cut on a 1 year deal.
Gayle is on 40k at Newcastle, I doubt he'll want to more than half his wages.
 
Ash88 said:
The difference is contact length/wage. Tommy Smith was on 20k at Stoke, I'd assume he'll be taking a slight pay cut on a 1 year deal.
Gayle is on 40k at Newcastle, I doubt he'll want to more than half his wages.
Click to expand...
I was merely pouring scorn on the article’s reasoning.
 
I posted recently that Gayle will get his £50k (or whatever) per week for the next 2 contracted years whoever pays it.
So we either loan him (if Ncle will agree) and pay a fee and significant contribution/all of his wages, or we pay a transfer fee and match his wages for 2 years at the ned of which he will be 35 and worthless.
Personally I don't think he is worth it, given his age, fitness, and fact he last scored goals 4 seasons ago for West Brom (on loan because Newcastle didn't want him in the PL).
Whoever has ended this link has done the right thing in my opinion.
 
If thats true its fantastic news, clubs like us shouldn't be signing players over 30 on big contracts with no sell on value. Its cost us time after time
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top