Friday, 13 February 2009

Sturridge deal deadlock

Well sourced stories in Friday's papers suggest that a new contract for Danny Sturridge is some way off. Daniel Taylor and James Ducker both have articles claiming that Sturridge has asked for ludicrously high wages (Ducker says £65,000/week, Taylor £70k) as oart of a new deal.

And as eager as Hughes is to keep Sturridge, he has put a limit of roughly £45,000/week on the club's offer.
“We want him to stay, he’s an outstanding player,” Hughes said. “He knows, and his advisers know, he is in a position of strength. At the moment, we’re not close to an agreement. We made it clear that we feel for his sake this is the best place for him. Other things are of more importance to others around him but we’re trying to make sure Daniel is here and not anywhere else.”
Of course, £70,000/week for a nineteen year old with only five goals for the club is well above market price. But so is £18million for Nigel de Jong, or £100k/week for Wayne Bridge. MCFC surely can't think that absurd demands are ok when they come from other clubs but not when they come from our own players? The 'Manchester City premium' which Hughes has rightly identified must apply to these sorts of contract negotiations too. And if Hughes, Cook, and ADUG are serious about their claims that Academy graduates would form the core of the squad in future, well, it would be nice to see them match that promise with cash.

Not that I want to sound like I'm defending Sturridge, or anything. His demands are preposterous, and show a lack of gratitude for the club that made him. But football finance (particularly MCFC finance) wasn't a pretty place before. So do we want to keep him or not?

7 comments:

Daniel B said...

I would agree wholeheartedly except that, at 70k a year, as Daniel Taylor points out, he would be on more money than SWP/Dunne/Ireland. Its an unfair demand and one that could cause dressing room unrest. If it were Ireland asking for a raise, with all the quality he has displayed this season, I dont think Hughes would even think twice. A difficult one.

JPB said...

I recognise that giving Sturridge much more than SWP/Dunne/Ireland is problematic. But with Wayne Bridge on £100K+, there is already a two tier wage structure at the club (pre and post 1/9/08). So why not level it out sooner rather than later?

Jack said...

By all means level it out. So When DS is a regular in the England team as for instance De Jong is in the Dutch squad, then he can ask for parity. Until then he should be offered no more than about a paltry £25K a week. FFS he has started 5 matches!!!!

TPB said...

There is a difference between giving 100k a week to a quality, experienced left back, one of the best in Europe, than giving 65/70 grand a week to someone who has only scored 5 senior goals. If City back down here, the problems will only continue - other players in the squad asking for more money. Forget Sturridge, shelling out so much money like this could tear down the squad. It's important that we stay firm on issues like this.

Simon said...

65k - 70k is too much for a teenager who hasn't done anything in the game yet. However, if City are willing to pay even 50k a week, then I think they are paying for potential. If City are willing to take that much of a risk, I think putting a big buy-out clause in his contract would be a good move, so that if another club does come in for him, City have some protection of their (massive) investment. It would also show Sturridge's commitment if he's willing to sign something like that. Just my opinion...

Henry Crun said...

Smells like a greedy agent is lurking in the background filling young Daniel's head with delusions of grandeur.

trinder said...

Couldn't he just be offered £30k now, rising to £40k after 40 games or 20 goals, £50k after 80 games or 40 goals, etc.? He can get his £70k if he gets a cap, 100 games or 60 goals.