- Aug 31, 2012
- 7,293
- 18,237
I find it hard to believe Levy is silly enough to not view Eriksen's value to the team as equivalent to Kane or Hugo.
Eriksen is just as important for us, imo.Never in a million years will Eriksen be on parity with Kane, like it or not Kane will always be the highest paid player at the club, he's a striker and he's a club icon, legend etc...
I suspect that Eriksen will be under the £200k a week which represents a massive pay hike considering he's on allegedly £75k he doubles his wages.
Regardless I expect this to get done, same thing happened this time 2 years ago when we were locked in talks with him for some time and he ended up signing around November(ish)...anyway we will see.
Eriksen is just as important for us, imo.
I agree. The thing is that wages in football are ridiculous now but if we are increasing the wage ceiling for what we consider to be our most influential players then I don't see why Eriksen should miss out.It doesn't appear as though he is making outrageous demands for a wage rise and surely the longer Spurs continue to dither about the less confidence he has that the club appreciate his overall contribution. I wouldn't necessarily say "however much it takes to keep him" but if the guy is being reasonable and simply looking to be on par with Hugo and Harry salary wise then fair enough, because he certainly matches them with level of performances.
Somehow, the greed in football becomes even more abhorrent when somebody like Eriksen, who always strikes me as a thouroughly decent person, is wallowing in the trough with the rest of them. Yes, he's on a par with the very best, but there is still that element of unquenchable greed to reconcile.
What is most greedy, to want to be paid what you are worth, or to refuse to pay what you ought to?I'm not criticising Eriksen, I'm just sick of the greed in football. Maybe I'm a bit sensative because I've just had eye surgery where I have been treated and looked after by amazing people who do incredible things that are life changing. The surgeon who operated on me probably earns less in a year than a moderate footballer earns in a fortnight, and the nurses earn in a year what a top footballer earns in a day, and still it's not enough.
Eriksen is just as important for us, imo.
What is most greedy, to want to be paid what you are worth, or to refuse to pay what you ought to?
Now, I do agree that the level of the market salary for somebody kicking a ball around a grass pitch is insane. However, that level of salary is not of Eriksens doing. Once said (crazy and bewildering) level is the going rate in the market, is it greedy to want it, or greedy to refuse to pay it? I'd rather have really good players content with their salaries, than good business men content with their spendings.
Is it the going rate though? Bayern don't pay any of their players that much.
Is lewandowski earning over 200k euros
I'm not criticising Eriksen, I'm just sick of the greed in football. Maybe I'm a bit sensative because I've just had eye surgery where I have been treated and looked after by amazing people who do incredible things that are life changing. The surgeon who operated on me probably earns less in a year than a moderate footballer earns in a fortnight, and the nurses earn in a year what a top footballer earns in a day, and still it's not enough.
Whilst I do not want to see any of our top players leave I wouldn’t lose a great deal of sleep if Eriksen was to go. He plays 1 in 4 games at best, goes missing in the crunch games and bottles any 50/50 challenges. In Lucas, Winks, Son and Lamela we have adequate cover, if he ain’t on board he ain’t on board IMO!
Whilst I do not want to see any of our top players leave I wouldn’t lose a great deal of sleep if Eriksen was to go. He plays 1 in 4 games at best, goes missing in the crunch games and bottles any 50/50 challenges. In Lucas, Winks, Son and Lamela we have adequate cover, if he ain’t on board he ain’t on board IMO!