DannyboyDJL wrote:I don't understand this. Surely he can't demand anything? His contract is with Chelsea so if we agreed a deal with them then it would have been agreed who pays what proportion of his wages. If he's on £170k a week at Chelsea then it's not his problem if they want to loan him out, it's up to them to agree the loan team pays 100% of his wage.
If they refuse to pay any, then it's them demanding 100% of his wage is covered, not him demanding 170k a week?
In response to the Batshuayi wage demand rumours. I too was surprised to learn he might be on as much as £170k a week. However, i remember reading an article, below, earlier in the transfer window which confirmed that players can earn above and beyond their parent team contracts.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... fer-window
Guardian wrote:It may be surprising to learn that some players not only get their wages covered in full by the club they are joining but also receive a substantial sum on top. In fact, the complaints of one Premier League player about all the time he had spent on loan earlier in his career raised a few eyebrows within his former club, given that at one stage he was happily picking up an additional five-figure sum every week, on top of his basic wage, for playing in the Championship.
Given that £170k a week over 6 months equals close to £4m plus whatever the loan fee might have been, I'm pleased we haven't wasted upwards of £5m on a player who isn't ours, with no guarantee he'd be ours come the summer either.
As commented elsewhere throughout this thread and previous windows, we need to move away from costly short term loans like Zaza, Tore, Calleri who between them have probably cost us between £10-£15m in loan fees and wages with little to no impact made in the process.