[Offers] Jessie Lingard

Hugo Rune · Jul 20, 2022

dwayne said:
Why ?

2 year contract at £20m salary + zero fee is dirt cheap for an established top half epl player

Sent from my SM-G986B using Tapatalk

How about all the other Forest players on under £40k pw? This will destroy their dressing room. A totally bizarre and unsustainable salary policy if true. You just need to look at our club to see how to do it right.

If they sign Lingard on the £180k pw, they are going down, mark my words.

Kalimantan Gull · Jul 20, 2022

Green Cross Code Man said:
Potentially, it will destabilise player cohesion.

Left Footer said:
Surely it would cause problems in the dressing room?
If he`s getting that amount of money the other players will want more.
If Forest can afford to pay him that, why can`t i have more?

If I was playing for Forest having just been promoted, lost stars like Spence, and nervous about being thumped every week, I'd happily welcome a potential superstar into the team.

It's a very different situation to a club like Brighton where the likes of Cucu and Trossard and Mac Allister would reckon they're just as good or better than Lingard and would reject him earning significantly more.

Kalimantan Gull · Jul 20, 2022

Green Cross Code Man said:
Potentially, it will destabilise player cohesion.

Hugo Rune said:
How about all the other Forest players on under £40k pw? This will destroy their dressing room. A totally bizarre and unsustainable salary policy if true. You just need to look at our club to see how to do it right.

If they sign Lingard on the £180k pw, they are going down, mark my words.

The under £40k players want to stay up, that's their route to a bigger salary. If they're just going to resent the players being brought in to help them do that, they'll be back as no marks in the championship very soon

Beanstalk · Jul 20, 2022

keaton said:
How is it the going rate if Lingaard is being paid almost twice as much as Trippier and Ings?

Danny Ings has a tenth of the number of international caps. Lingard has an absolute wealth of playing at the top level (149 PL appearances for United and 42 continental appearances) vs Ings (14 PL appearances for Liverpool and 6 continental appearances). They are the same age, Lingard has a stunningly better injury record and therefore represents a better value to the signing club. Ings also cost Villa £25m - that covers the difference between the two in wages for for 8 years.

Trippier is two years older than Lingard, cost £12m+ in January and played just 31% of games since signing. He has a similar profile to Lingard but is older, more injury prone and the upfront cost would fund the difference in wages for 3 years.

Lingard is a free transfer and there is therefore a clear saving of money from the buying club that can then be transferred to wages. Overall Lingard on £180k is a probable saving over an Ings or Trippier.

Kalimantan Gull · Jul 20, 2022

The Wizard said:
You’re forgetting the one key thing, the sign on fee.

That’s why lots of players run their contracts down because teams offer staggering sign on fees as lump sums, Lingard wouldn’t even consider forest if they didn’t offer him a very substantial sign on fee.

Regardless, the overall sums will still add up in the way i suggest. Make it a 17m transfer fee and 50k per week, that's a good deal, vs a 10m signing on fee and 180k a week, a terrible deal.. for the same outlay over 12 months.

Swansman · Jul 20, 2022

Hugo Rune said:
How about all the other Forest players on under £40k pw? This will destroy their dressing room. A totally bizarre and unsustainable salary policy if true. You just need to look at our club to see how to do it right.

If they sign Lingard on the £180k pw, they are going down, mark my words.

Nottingham are doing a surprisingly good transfer window IMO. They have a thin squad and need to sign a lot of players and some "guaranteed" quality (not a big fan of Lingard but he will undoubtedly improve Forest squad) and that is going to cost money

The Wizard · Jul 20, 2022

Kalimantan Gull said:
Regardless, the overall sums will still add up in the way i suggest. Make it a 17m transfer fee and 50k per week, that's a good deal, vs a 10m signing on fee and 180k a week, a terrible deal.. for the same outlay over 12 months.

Based on what? Lingard had one good season at West Ham, before that he’s always been a very average bit part player, the very idea you’ve referred to Lingard as a superstar a few posts up makes me shudder, in the previous 3 seasons before his loan to West Ham he scored 11 goals in 85 games for United, the season at West Ham was the real anomaly.

I can’t agree that a 10m sign on fee and 180k p/w is good value for Lingard.

WhingForPresident · Jul 20, 2022

Quite funny that a guy who peaked at 24 and has had about six or seven good games since has managed to make himself the 'transfer story of the summer'. Obviously has good publicity people.

He'll still end up at WHU, he's just dragging it out to keep himself in the spotlight.

Harry Wilson's tackle · Jul 20, 2022

Beanstalk said:
Danny Ings has a tenth of the number of international caps. Lingard has an absolute wealth of playing at the top level (149 PL appearances for United and 42 continental appearances) vs Ings (14 PL appearances for Liverpool and 6 continental appearances). They are the same age, Lingard has a stunningly better injury record and therefore represents a better value to the signing club. Ings also cost Villa £25m - that covers the difference between the two in wages for for 8 years.

Trippier is two years older than Lingard, cost £12m+ in January and played just 31% of games since signing. He has a similar profile to Lingard but is older, more injury prone and the upfront cost would fund the difference in wages for 3 years.

Lingard is a free transfer and there is therefore a clear saving of money from the buying club that can then be transferred to wages. Overall Lingard on £180k is a probable saving over an Ings or Trippier.

I don't get the Lingard hate. Just because he celebated our goal in a fast-unravelling playoff game. The fact he tried to stay at his home town club and make it there, even though Wet Sham were keen to extend his successful period there, where he was loved, is commendable. The fact his home town club is who it is, is hardly the lad's fault. Innit.

albionalex · Jul 20, 2022

The Wizard said:
Based on what? Lingard had one good season at West Ham, before that he’s always been a very average bit part player, the very idea you’ve referred to Lingard as a superstar a few posts up makes me shudder, in the previous 3 seasons before his loan to West Ham he scored 11 goals in 85 games for United, the season at West Ham was the real anomaly.

I can’t agree that a 10m sign on fee and 180k p/w is good value for Lingard.

It was actually only half a season! He went on loan there in the January.

beardy gull · Jul 20, 2022

Swansman said:
Nottingham are doing a surprisingly good transfer window IMO. They have a thin squad and need to sign a lot of players and some "guaranteed" quality (not a big fan of Lingard but he will undoubtedly improve Forest squad) and that is going to cost money

No one knows if it’s a good transfer window just yet. See Fulham two years ago.

The Wookiee · Jul 21, 2022

Signs for Forest

Icy Gull · Jul 21, 2022

The Wookiee said:
Signs for Forest

Going to end in tears imo and quite possibly relegation.

Oh no hang on they have a better manager than us so no relegation

Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo · Jul 21, 2022

Icy Gull said:
Going to end in tears imo and quite possibly relegation.

Oh no hang on they have a better manager than us so no relegation

Lingard won’t care how the season ends, he’s singed a 1 year deal, for 200k a week (if press reports are to be believed). Absolutely ridiculous money for a newly promoted side to be paying anyone. If it does end in tears Lingard can walk away with £5.5 million in the bank and is a free agent ready to convince another club to pay him a sizeable signing on fee and huge wages, and you know someone will be silly enough to do just that.

Justice · Jul 21, 2022

Good player

PILTDOWN MAN · Jul 21, 2022

Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo said:
Lingard won’t care how the season ends, he’s singed a 1 year deal, for 200k a week (if press reports are to be believed). Absolutely ridiculous money for a newly promoted side to be paying anyone. If it does end in tears Lingard can walk away with £5.5 million in the bank and is a free agent ready to convince another club to pay him a sizeable signing on fee and huge wages, and you know someone will be silly enough to do just that.

Cheap deal in reality for a good player.

Springal · Jul 21, 2022

Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo said:
Lingard won’t care how the season ends, he’s singed a 1 year deal, for 200k a week (if press reports are to be believed). Absolutely ridiculous money for a newly promoted side to be paying anyone. If it does end in tears Lingard can walk away with £5.5 million in the bank and is a free agent ready to convince another club to pay him a sizeable signing on fee and huge wages, and you know someone will be silly enough to do just that.

I can see that point - but the flip side is a deal like Maupay got - say £20M fee to Brentford + £10.4M in wages. So £34M outlay for 4 seasons vs £5.5M for 1 at a newly promoted side.

If he scores more than 10 goals for Forest and they stay up, good deal

Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo · Jul 21, 2022

PILTDOWN MAN said:
Cheap deal in reality for a good player.

No doubt he’s a good player, but he’s not £200k a week good. It’s also not really a good deal if it blows their wage structure wide open, creates a huge disparity across the squad and also bumps up the amount any other potential signing wants. I’m certainly glad Tony Bloom stays well away from these kind of cheap deals.

Springal said:
I can see that point - but the flip side is a deal like Maupay got - say £20M fee to Brentford + £10.4M in wages. So £34M outlay for 4 seasons vs £5.5M for 1 at a newly promoted side.

If he scores more than 10 goals for Forest and they stay up, good deal

5.5 million is what Lingard takes home, it’s cost them well over just the £10 million in headline wages (NI contribution, insurance, signing on fees etc). A one year deal means there is no incentive for the player, what does he care if they get relegated, he’s not got to worry about spending a season in The Championship as he knows another club will come along and snap him up on a “free”.

The Wizard · Jul 21, 2022

Justice said:
Good player

Based on what? Half a good season for West Ham?

Prior to that, 11 goals in 85 odd league games for one of the better teams in England suggests he’s hardly a world beater.

PILTDOWN MAN · Jul 21, 2022

Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo said:
Not really if it blows their wage structure wide open, creates a huge disparity across the squad and also bumps up the amount any other potential signing wants. I’m certainly glad Tony Bloom stays well away from these kind of cheap deals.

The wage is a rumour, if, like the deal we have with Lallana where we paid a signing on fee (basically wages via a another way) then they retain their wage structure.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Offers] Jessie Lingard

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Pro-peace

Well-known member

.

Harry Wilson's Tackle

Well-known member

Well-known member

Back From The Dead

Back on the rollercoaster

Waxing chumps like candles since ‘75

Dangerous Idiot

Well-known member

Well-known member

Waxing chumps like candles since ‘75

Well-known member

Well-known member

Share this page