| Bart and new contract 11:28 - Jul 15 with 7653 views | RobTheSnob |
I don't want Bart to leave, but if paying him 20K a week upsets the rest of the squads equilibrium then we should let him go.
|  | | |  |
| Bart and new contract on 12:45 - Jul 15 with 2326 views | longtimefan |
| Bart and new contract on 12:38 - Jul 15 by PhilTWTD |
McGoldrick was on something not far off, I believe. |
My understanding from academy parents’ whispers is that McGoldrick was highest earner at ~17k, while Bart was only on 5K on his old contract! | | | |
| Bart and new contract on 12:45 - Jul 15 with 2315 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Bart and new contract on 12:24 - Jul 15 by Darth_Koont |
Agreed. Also both McGoldrick and Bart show the rest of the squad that they can develop their career and earning power at Town — even if they don't get sold.
Not a bad carrot to come here and put your head down. |
A very good point, hadn't thought of that. |  |
| |
| Bart and new contract on 12:47 - Jul 15 with 2325 views | PhilTWTD |
| Bart and new contract on 12:45 - Jul 15 by longtimefan |
My understanding from academy parents’ whispers is that McGoldrick was highest earner at ~17k, while Bart was only on 5K on his old contract! |
McGoldrick figure is the level I'd previously heard. Not sure on Bart, he came from Notts County but he was on big money for them having come from Southampton, which was why they were prepared to do the deal they did where he joined us on a free. Doesn't sound unlikely at all though. |  | | |
| Bart and new contract on 12:49 - Jul 15 with 2300 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Bart and new contract on 12:31 - Jul 15 by RobTheSnob |
Perhaps just perhaps that's why it was a poor performance yesterday. I remember all the team spirit we had before Finidi signed just seemed to evaporate overnight |
Wow, way to put 2+2 together! | |
| |
| Bart and new contract on 13:00 - Jul 15 with 2281 views | MrTown |
Shouldn’t upset the squad. Should be used as example how hard work consistently reaps its rewards.
No one can argue that he deserves his rewards, remember he came here on a free from aborts County at the mature age of 27. The work he has done to become a L2 player, to a number 2 champ keeper to the best championship goalkeeper deserves its rewards. |  |
| |
| Bart and new contract on 13:08 - Jul 15 with 2271 views | tractorshark |
I have no issue with Bart getting the deal, he thoroughly deserves it and we need to keep him.
But I would just question how this leaves the rest of the budget.
If it seriously eats into that, then you have to weigh it up.
Goalkeepers and defenders will stop you getting relegated, they don’t generally get you promoted.
This squad desperately needs creativity.
We have some quality players but a lot are injury prone.
And living in the Crawley area, I can assure you I’m not doing cartwheels at the prospect of Roberts and Edwards.
Edwards has talent but lacks consistency and Roberts is a low-cost gamble.
Like I say, good luck to Bart. Him and Waghorn are the two I would pull out the stops to keep but we do need surgery elsewhere. | | | |
| Bart and new contract on 13:14 - Jul 15 with 2253 views | Darth_Koont |
| Bart and new contract on 13:08 - Jul 15 by tractorshark |
I have no issue with Bart getting the deal, he thoroughly deserves it and we need to keep him.
But I would just question how this leaves the rest of the budget.
If it seriously eats into that, then you have to weigh it up.
Goalkeepers and defenders will stop you getting relegated, they don’t generally get you promoted.
This squad desperately needs creativity.
We have some quality players but a lot are injury prone.
And living in the Crawley area, I can assure you I’m not doing cartwheels at the prospect of Roberts and Edwards.
Edwards has talent but lacks consistency and Roberts is a low-cost gamble.
Like I say, good luck to Bart. Him and Waghorn are the two I would pull out the stops to keep but we do need surgery elsewhere. |
I imagine it's an investment too.
Keeps Bart in place and happy as our number one plus with a a year or two more on his contract. So if and when a Prem club comes in we can get far more for him than we would have got from Birmingham or another Championship club.
No guarantee that a Prem club (or overseas club) will come in for him of course, but looks a decent calculated risk. |  |
| |
| Bart and new contract on 13:14 - Jul 15 with 2251 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Bart and new contract on 13:08 - Jul 15 by tractorshark |
I have no issue with Bart getting the deal, he thoroughly deserves it and we need to keep him.
But I would just question how this leaves the rest of the budget.
If it seriously eats into that, then you have to weigh it up.
Goalkeepers and defenders will stop you getting relegated, they don’t generally get you promoted.
This squad desperately needs creativity.
We have some quality players but a lot are injury prone.
And living in the Crawley area, I can assure you I’m not doing cartwheels at the prospect of Roberts and Edwards.
Edwards has talent but lacks consistency and Roberts is a low-cost gamble.
Like I say, good luck to Bart. Him and Waghorn are the two I would pull out the stops to keep but we do need surgery elsewhere. |
You rather undermine your argument with your last sentence.
I would also argue that the sentence, "Goalkeepers and defenders will stop you getting relegated, they don’t generally get you promoted" is nonsense too.
I really don't think Bart getting a wage increase is going to stop us getting in creative players. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Bart and new contract on 13:50 - Jul 15 with 2220 views | Bluebell |
| Bart and new contract on 13:14 - Jul 15 by BrixtonBlue |
You rather undermine your argument with your last sentence.
I would also argue that the sentence, "Goalkeepers and defenders will stop you getting relegated, they don’t generally get you promoted" is nonsense too.
I really don't think Bart getting a wage increase is going to stop us getting in creative players. |
And if Phil is correct about McGoldrick’s wages, Bart will be receiving what Didz would have been paid.
So the budget remains the same! |  | | |
| Bart and new contract on 14:04 - Jul 15 with 2205 views | jas0999 |
| Bart and new contract on 11:33 - Jul 15 by tractorboy1978 |
Your best players get paid the most money. That is how it works. |
Not just our best player, but best keeper in the championship. If you want the best you pay for it. Completely agree with you. | | | |
| Bart and new contract on 14:07 - Jul 15 with 2202 views | jas0999 |
| Bart and new contract on 11:47 - Jul 15 by J2BLUE |
Which key senior players are on 5k? I doubt there are many. Maybe the likes of Knudsen is on that sort of money but anyone with a genuine claim to a big wage like Waghorn, Chambers, Huws etc are probably already getting it.
Either way, we can point to Bart's consistent performances. I just can't see it being an issue. If it was seen as unfair it would be but clearly it has been earned. |
Quite. McGoldrick would have been on a considerable amount. £15K potentially. His saved wages will go towards Barts. Still with some in the bank.
If we can keep Bart then it’s money well spent. | | | |
| Bart and new contract on 14:08 - Jul 15 with 2196 views | J2BLUE |
| Bart and new contract on 12:31 - Jul 15 by RobTheSnob |
Perhaps just perhaps that's why it was a poor performance yesterday. I remember all the team spirit we had before Finidi signed just seemed to evaporate overnight |
Bless. You're really trying to make this into a negative aren't you. |  |
| |
| Bart and new contract on 14:11 - Jul 15 with 2196 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Bart and new contract on 13:50 - Jul 15 by Bluebell |
And if Phil is correct about McGoldrick’s wages, Bart will be receiving what Didz would have been paid.
So the budget remains the same! |
Indeed! Good point Bellers! | |
| |
| Bart and new contract on 14:14 - Jul 15 with 2191 views | factual_blue |
| Bart and new contract on 13:50 - Jul 15 by Bluebell |
And if Phil is correct about McGoldrick’s wages, Bart will be receiving what Didz would have been paid.
So the budget remains the same! |
There's still a saving on the budget as I presume Bart was getting paid last year. There is a wage bill saving (based solely on the Bart & Didzy situation).
If Bart were on (say) £15k a week last year, and we've saved £20k with McG's departure, then we've made a net saving of £15k a week.
Various other arrivals/departures excluded from this calculation. |  |
| |
| Bart and new contract on 14:19 - Jul 15 with 2181 views | HennikerBlu |
| Bart and new contract on 14:14 - Jul 15 by factual_blue |
There's still a saving on the budget as I presume Bart was getting paid last year. There is a wage bill saving (based solely on the Bart & Didzy situation).
If Bart were on (say) £15k a week last year, and we've saved £20k with McG's departure, then we've made a net saving of £15k a week.
Various other arrivals/departures excluded from this calculation. |
The financial benefit is much greater when you consider a comparison of appearances and performances. It would be mad not to keep him. | | | |
| Bart and new contract on 17:00 - Jul 15 with 2132 views | tractorshark |
| Bart and new contract on 13:14 - Jul 15 by BrixtonBlue |
You rather undermine your argument with your last sentence.
I would also argue that the sentence, "Goalkeepers and defenders will stop you getting relegated, they don’t generally get you promoted" is nonsense too.
I really don't think Bart getting a wage increase is going to stop us getting in creative players. |
No argument from me. As I originally said, I have no issue with Bart becoming our highest-paid player in order to keep him.
My only question was how it would affect the budget. If it doesn't, then cool. If it does, then you have to weigh it up if it's worth sacrificing other additions to keep him.
As for my comment about goalkeepers not winning you promotion, please find me an example if I'm talking nonsense.
Bart has been outstanding over the past few seasons but we've not once looked like getting promoted.
He earns us points by saving games but if you want to get promoted you need quality strikers and creative midfielders.
It's no coincidence that people pay way more for those players than they would for a goalkeeper or centre-back.
Like I say, there's no argument over the decision, I was merely raising a question. | | | |
| Bart and new contract on 18:46 - Jul 15 with 2110 views | brazil1982 |
It's a ridiculous amount of money for a player at this level. | | | |
| Bart and new contract on 20:10 - Jul 15 with 2070 views | casanovacrow |
Maybe it will will do the opposite and stop anyone else getting more than 20k a week? Could end up being useful for Evans to say "Oh so you want a pay rise? I don't think it would be right for you to have over 20k a week until you've won 3 player of the season awards and had as much of an impact as Bart"
Considering Boltons Ben Amos, who we apparently saw as a possible replacement, is on 17k a week i see Bart is a bargain. |  | | |
| Bart and new contract on 23:08 - Jul 15 with 2012 views | tractorboy1978 |
| Bart and new contract on 17:00 - Jul 15 by tractorshark |
No argument from me. As I originally said, I have no issue with Bart becoming our highest-paid player in order to keep him.
My only question was how it would affect the budget. If it doesn't, then cool. If it does, then you have to weigh it up if it's worth sacrificing other additions to keep him.
As for my comment about goalkeepers not winning you promotion, please find me an example if I'm talking nonsense.
Bart has been outstanding over the past few seasons but we've not once looked like getting promoted.
He earns us points by saving games but if you want to get promoted you need quality strikers and creative midfielders.
It's no coincidence that people pay way more for those players than they would for a goalkeeper or centre-back.
Like I say, there's no argument over the decision, I was merely raising a question. |
Cardiff scored less goals last season than Hull did when finishing in 18th.
The top two teams conceded the least goals in the division.
You aren't getting promoted if you have a duff keeper and duff defenders. | | | |
| Bart and new contract on 00:54 - Jul 16 with 1983 views | tractorshark |
| Bart and new contract on 23:08 - Jul 15 by tractorboy1978 |
Cardiff scored less goals last season than Hull did when finishing in 18th.
The top two teams conceded the least goals in the division.
You aren't getting promoted if you have a duff keeper and duff defenders. |
I don’t disagree with that. I’m just saying if you don’t score, you won’t win games, no matter how good your goalkeeper or defenders are.
As Ipswich fans, we know that only too well.
Cardiff didn’t win every game 1-0 last season, they were still the sixth top scorers in the division. Apart from Hull, the other four were either promoted or in the playoffs.
It’s a balance but if I’m wrong, why do midfielders and strikers cost more than keepers and defenders?
Surely someone in the game would have changed that if keepers were the most pivotal part of a successful team. | | | |
| Bart and new contract on 10:00 - Jul 16 with 1936 views | GeoffSentence |
| Bart and new contract on 11:35 - Jul 15 by homer_123 |
Not to the detriment of the wider squad. This is one of the reasons why Mick was able to keep the squad togetherness. |
McGoldrick was on 18K wasn't he? So this isn't way out of range.
Edit: If I had read the whole thread first I would have seen that this point has been made several times already. [Post edited 16 Jul 2018 10:02]
|  |
| |
| Bart and new contract on 10:09 - Jul 16 with 1930 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Bart and new contract on 00:54 - Jul 16 by tractorshark |
I don’t disagree with that. I’m just saying if you don’t score, you won’t win games, no matter how good your goalkeeper or defenders are.
As Ipswich fans, we know that only too well.
Cardiff didn’t win every game 1-0 last season, they were still the sixth top scorers in the division. Apart from Hull, the other four were either promoted or in the playoffs.
It’s a balance but if I’m wrong, why do midfielders and strikers cost more than keepers and defenders?
Surely someone in the game would have changed that if keepers were the most pivotal part of a successful team. |
See what you’ve just said there is that their attacking play was only good enough to make the playoffs, whereas their defensive record was good enough for promotion
So quite literally their defensive players were the reason they got promoted... 🙈 |  |
| |
| Bart and new contract on 10:50 - Jul 16 with 1915 views | tractorshark |
| Bart and new contract on 10:09 - Jul 16 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
See what you’ve just said there is that their attacking play was only good enough to make the playoffs, whereas their defensive record was good enough for promotion
So quite literally their defensive players were the reason they got promoted... 🙈 |
Or it could be that Cardiff's forward players took the heat off the defence. Or maybe Fulham, who scored buckets, would have been promoted instead had the club not been unsettled at the start of the season. Ifs, buts and maybes.
I agree you need a balance but, twist it any way you like, we are nowhere near the playoffs or promotion with the best goalkeeper in the division.
Which is the point I was making from the off. If I had to sacrifice the addition of players to accommodate the wage demands of our goalkeeper, no matter how good he is, I'd have to weigh it up.
Hopefully, this isn't the case because, at Ipswich, we do need decent signings if we are to threaten the promotion picture.
Last season, we relied on two or three quality players, including Bart who deserves the pay rise in my opinion, and a lot of heart.
But we are an injury-prone squad with good kids potentially coming through.
That won't get us promoted. Most people on this site would probably concede that.
We need new signings, Evans needs to dip into his pocket or we need to generate cash through sales like Webster.
As for my point about strikers/creative midfielders being pivotal to promotion, perhaps you can answer the question I set.
Why do supposedly intelligent football managers and chairman pay more for them if it is goalkeepers and defenders who win you promotion? | | | |
| Bart and new contract on 11:44 - Jul 16 with 1889 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Bart and new contract on 10:50 - Jul 16 by tractorshark |
Or it could be that Cardiff's forward players took the heat off the defence. Or maybe Fulham, who scored buckets, would have been promoted instead had the club not been unsettled at the start of the season. Ifs, buts and maybes.
I agree you need a balance but, twist it any way you like, we are nowhere near the playoffs or promotion with the best goalkeeper in the division.
Which is the point I was making from the off. If I had to sacrifice the addition of players to accommodate the wage demands of our goalkeeper, no matter how good he is, I'd have to weigh it up.
Hopefully, this isn't the case because, at Ipswich, we do need decent signings if we are to threaten the promotion picture.
Last season, we relied on two or three quality players, including Bart who deserves the pay rise in my opinion, and a lot of heart.
But we are an injury-prone squad with good kids potentially coming through.
That won't get us promoted. Most people on this site would probably concede that.
We need new signings, Evans needs to dip into his pocket or we need to generate cash through sales like Webster.
As for my point about strikers/creative midfielders being pivotal to promotion, perhaps you can answer the question I set.
Why do supposedly intelligent football managers and chairman pay more for them if it is goalkeepers and defenders who win you promotion? |
I guess scoring is the hardest task in football and goal scorers and creators are at a premium.
Going back to the original point, pretty much every team that's been promoted has been based on a solid defence. You need quality creative players as well.
It's no good selling Bart to get creative players and then leak goals like a sieve.
Most promoted teams have a good spine and that starts with a good keeper. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
