| The Teddy Bishop debate 23:41 - Apr 4 with 7713 views | yungblue |
For me it is a no brainier, a young man of his age has so much potential and we shouldn’t be allowing him to leave because of a torrid time of injuries.
I believe a two year deal with an option, a proper pre season and we could see the best out of him in an attacking midfield role.
|  |
| |  |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 08:53 - Apr 5 with 2233 views | chicoazul |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 08:44 - Apr 5 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Ah, when you say recently you mean 3 years ago and on a previous contract. |
what, you really think that Chambers wages went up by more than x3 when he stayed here instead of joining Forest? Youre insane. No players at Ipswich are on 20k a week, we have the 18th lowest wage bill in the division. |  |
| |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 08:53 - Apr 5 with 2227 views | Radlett_blue |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 01:41 - Apr 5 by Luk38644 |
I'd offer him and McG another year so that the new manager can have a look at them.
Under a manager who plays through the midfield, Bishop could be a key player for us, although, so could Huws, Downes, Nydam, Dozzell and Adeyemi, but it would be a silly decision to give up on him knowing what he's capable of and with a new opinion about to enter the club. |
McGoldrick won't take a 1 year deal. At age 30, he'll be looking for a 2 year deal & someone else will take a chance on his fitness & also give him more money than we will. Good player at this level when fit, but not worth the risk for us. [Post edited 5 Apr 2018 9:00]
|  |
| |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 08:56 - Apr 5 with 2226 views | chicoazul |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 08:40 - Apr 5 by Herbivore |
I think eventually they can play in the same team, Dozzer is seen as a deep lying midfielder in the longer term whereas Bishop plays more advanced. I'd be really tempted to try a midfield diamond next season with Skuse at the base (Dozzer isn't ready for that just yet), Huws and Bishop rotating at the top, then two from Dozzer, Nydam, Downes, Adeyemi and Ward at the sides of the diamond. We've got full backs who can get up and down to give width, I think that's a midfield that could boss a game. |
I agree our midfield on paper with the players we have now looks good. Hopefully we can do a better job of getting them fit and keeping them fit. | |
| |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 08:57 - Apr 5 with 2218 views | Herbivore |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 08:56 - Apr 5 by chicoazul |
I agree our midfield on paper with the players we have now looks good. Hopefully we can do a better job of getting them fit and keeping them fit. |
We'll be fine, the injuries were all Mick's fault. |  |
| |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 08:58 - Apr 5 with 2213 views | chicoazul |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 08:57 - Apr 5 by Herbivore |
We'll be fine, the injuries were all Mick's fault. |
Ha! Maybe all those injuries and inability to rehab hard running central MFers were coincidence, maybe not. | |
| |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 09:00 - Apr 5 with 2212 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 08:53 - Apr 5 by chicoazul |
what, you really think that Chambers wages went up by more than x3 when he stayed here instead of joining Forest? Youre insane. No players at Ipswich are on 20k a week, we have the 18th lowest wage bill in the division. |
Interesting response.
Where did I say that Chambers was on £20k per week.
What I said was, he will be on considerably more than £6k per week (I specifically said 'double that', which I think is realistic). [Post edited 5 Apr 2018 9:01]
|  |
| |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 09:03 - Apr 5 with 2206 views | chicoazul |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 09:00 - Apr 5 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Interesting response.
Where did I say that Chambers was on £20k per week.
What I said was, he will be on considerably more than £6k per week (I specifically said 'double that', which I think is realistic). [Post edited 5 Apr 2018 9:01]
|
Given our wage bill I have no idea at all why you think that but hey, you do you. Real life football isnt like those computer games you lot are always hunched over. | |
| |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 09:08 - Apr 5 with 2194 views | Currie10 |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 08:53 - Apr 5 by chicoazul |
what, you really think that Chambers wages went up by more than x3 when he stayed here instead of joining Forest? Youre insane. No players at Ipswich are on 20k a week, we have the 18th lowest wage bill in the division. |
Lets get real.
We're clearly not paying key players £6k basic without doing 60/70% performance related pay / top ups ontop of. We're just not.
We all know our wage bill is over £15 mill - it's published.
So lets pretend for a second we're paying key players £6k per week - and I'll even be generous and say we're pay 30 this wage =
52 x 6000 x 30 = 9.360.000
Hmmmm - So that's a shortfall of over 5.5 mill............ |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 09:08 - Apr 5 with 2191 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 09:03 - Apr 5 by chicoazul |
Given our wage bill I have no idea at all why you think that but hey, you do you. Real life football isnt like those computer games you lot are always hunched over. |
Apology accepted.
What do you think our highest earner is paid? | |
| |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 09:10 - Apr 5 with 2190 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 09:08 - Apr 5 by Currie10 |
Lets get real.
We're clearly not paying key players £6k basic without doing 60/70% performance related pay / top ups ontop of. We're just not.
We all know our wage bill is over £15 mill - it's published.
So lets pretend for a second we're paying key players £6k per week - and I'll even be generous and say we're pay 30 this wage =
52 x 6000 x 30 = 9.360.000
Hmmmm - So that's a shortfall of over 5.5 mill............ |
Thats a generous assumption.
On the assumption Chambers is on c.£6k per week as one of our highest earners, that would suggest much of the squad are on say £2-4k per week.
Chico seems to be living in the late 90's. | |
| |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 09:11 - Apr 5 with 2191 views | chicoazul |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 09:08 - Apr 5 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Apology accepted.
What do you think our highest earner is paid? |
So sorry but I refuse to continue this pointless conversation as I have many many better things to do. | |
| |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 09:14 - Apr 5 with 2179 views | Currie10 |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 09:10 - Apr 5 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Thats a generous assumption.
On the assumption Chambers is on c.£6k per week as one of our highest earners, that would suggest much of the squad are on say £2-4k per week.
Chico seems to be living in the late 90's. |
Tried to be as generous as possible!
People before seem to think the likes of Bru / Hyam are on £2-£4k.
How come we've had mission impossible offloading Mr Bru - we wouldn't have had any bother if he was on that.
Some conference clubs play up to £2k!!! | | | |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 09:14 - Apr 5 with 2182 views | itfcjoe |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 08:14 - Apr 5 by maccyd9 |
Chambo and Didz are close to £20k.
As for Bishop, it has to be a basic with appearance related top up's. We paid probably near on £200k a month to nurse Bishop, Didz, Huwys and Adeyemi through a season in which they basically contributed nothing.
We've got to be ruthless. [Post edited 5 Apr 2018 8:14]
|
They won't be on that much - Chambers esepcially. I had sight of a senior players contract a year or two ago who you would expect to be one of our highest earners and his contract went from £7k, to £8k to £9k over the 3 year term of it.
Plenty of bonuses in there too, but can't see Chambers being closer to £20k than £10k |  |
| |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 09:16 - Apr 5 with 2174 views | itfcjoe |
I think you have to give him a new deal - if he goes elsewhere and stays fit he could turn into a £5m player quite easily.
A club like us can't afford to let someone like that walk out the door for £3-4k a week.
We know he has the ability, and it is just a case of getting him fit and keeping him fit - hopefully a new managers methods will help with that | |
| |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 09:16 - Apr 5 with 2173 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 09:11 - Apr 5 by chicoazul |
So sorry but I refuse to continue this pointless conversation as I have many many better things to do. |
Bizarre.
I would hope you do have better things to do than conjour up an argument to have with yourself while abusing others.
Good riddance. | |
| |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 09:23 - Apr 5 with 2161 views | Basuco |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 08:35 - Apr 5 by Marshalls_Mullet |
His skills are nearly as rare as his appearances in the first team!! |
Harsh but true, I really hope he can get a good run of games next season to show he can recover from his injuries. |  | | |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 09:24 - Apr 5 with 2163 views | Herbivore |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 09:08 - Apr 5 by Currie10 |
Lets get real.
We're clearly not paying key players £6k basic without doing 60/70% performance related pay / top ups ontop of. We're just not.
We all know our wage bill is over £15 mill - it's published.
So lets pretend for a second we're paying key players £6k per week - and I'll even be generous and say we're pay 30 this wage =
52 x 6000 x 30 = 9.360.000
Hmmmm - So that's a shortfall of over 5.5 mill............ |
Bear in mind the wage bill is for all club staff. Mick pulls in £1m a year, the rest of the coaching staff must add up to £2m plus, we have a number of backroom and admin staff to pay as well. I doubt our very top earners are on much over £10k basic. | |
| |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 09:24 - Apr 5 with 2159 views | Currie10 |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 09:14 - Apr 5 by itfcjoe |
They won't be on that much - Chambers esepcially. I had sight of a senior players contract a year or two ago who you would expect to be one of our highest earners and his contract went from £7k, to £8k to £9k over the 3 year term of it.
Plenty of bonuses in there too, but can't see Chambers being closer to £20k than £10k |
Perhaps the best explanation to date.
Lets assume £9k basic for Lukey boy.
Surely appearance fee would be quite high if that was the case - perhaps 2-3k? Otherwise it wouldn't make sense.
I was told before by someone in the club the players have a top 6 bonus for every week we're in the top 6 - no idea how much but that's very much a null and void one these days!
Back to Bishop, based on how little we can sadly get out of him, it's money poorly spent and reluctantly I'd rather he move on :( | | | |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 09:26 - Apr 5 with 2157 views | chicoazul |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 09:24 - Apr 5 by Herbivore |
Bear in mind the wage bill is for all club staff. Mick pulls in £1m a year, the rest of the coaching staff must add up to £2m plus, we have a number of backroom and admin staff to pay as well. I doubt our very top earners are on much over £10k basic. |
Some of those guys don't even understand what a wage bill *includes*. But I mustn't continue this argument. | |
| |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 09:32 - Apr 5 with 2149 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 09:24 - Apr 5 by Herbivore |
Bear in mind the wage bill is for all club staff. Mick pulls in £1m a year, the rest of the coaching staff must add up to £2m plus, we have a number of backroom and admin staff to pay as well. I doubt our very top earners are on much over £10k basic. |
Pretty much exactly where I was with my comment on Chambo. | |
| |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 09:36 - Apr 5 with 2146 views | maccyd9 |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 09:14 - Apr 5 by itfcjoe |
They won't be on that much - Chambers esepcially. I had sight of a senior players contract a year or two ago who you would expect to be one of our highest earners and his contract went from £7k, to £8k to £9k over the 3 year term of it.
Plenty of bonuses in there too, but can't see Chambers being closer to £20k than £10k |
I know for a fact Chambo is well over £10k and Didz too.
I really don't care anyway, but previous posts suggesting he's on £6k are laughable.
This all detracts from the original post anyway RE Bishop.
My take, plenty of ability, far more questions. Give him a year to prove himself on an appearance based salary and see what happens.
Some players bodies are just not meant for the rigours of football and that's what often sets average players apart from far more naturally talented players. | | | |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 09:39 - Apr 5 with 2137 views | itfcjoe |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 09:24 - Apr 5 by Currie10 |
Perhaps the best explanation to date.
Lets assume £9k basic for Lukey boy.
Surely appearance fee would be quite high if that was the case - perhaps 2-3k? Otherwise it wouldn't make sense.
I was told before by someone in the club the players have a top 6 bonus for every week we're in the top 6 - no idea how much but that's very much a null and void one these days!
Back to Bishop, based on how little we can sadly get out of him, it's money poorly spent and reluctantly I'd rather he move on :( |
Yeah, it was £2k a game appearance, and other bonuses for milestones - this player had £10k for 7 goals and a further £10k if he got to 10 goals.
Think it worked out about £100k bonus if we finished in top 6 and they had played 30 games too, etc. | |
| |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 10:04 - Apr 5 with 2104 views | billlm |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 06:48 - Apr 5 by christiand |
I'd keep Teddy Bishop, but move on Hyam and McGoldrick. [Post edited 5 Apr 2018 6:59]
|
Agree, bishop a year with the club an option of another one |  | | |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 10:04 - Apr 5 with 2104 views | yungblue |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 08:44 - Apr 5 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Ah, when you say recently you mean 3 years ago and on a previous contract. |
Only just changed contract though, he didn’t jump from 6k to 20k. Only the manager s around that figure. When Murph got his new deal after his goal scoring season, he got 17k, but was then sold to Newcastle a year later. | |
| |
| The Teddy Bishop debate on 10:16 - Apr 5 with 2089 views | JakeITFC |
Obviously keep him, he’s our best player when fit and firing. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
