Dimples wrote:Don't know how accurate the figs are but Nunez is supposedly on £100K a week with Diaz on £56K a week.
If accurate both are significantly underpaid compared to their transfer values of approx £85M and £40M and also what they could earn elsewhere. In addition Nunez is supposedly number 15 in the list of Liverpool top earners.
They are being hyped up as world class but being paid as average players.
If they deliver, it will not take long for them to start demanding pay packets that match their level of play.
More problems for Liverpool.
It's hard to believe that players who were in demand, would move for salaries like that. They also know that liverpool (allegedly) wont pay a huge amount when it comes to contract renewal. Something doesn't add up - there's absolutely no way in the world these guys are moving for less salary than they would have got at United (for example) all for the love of playing in front of the kop.
There must be some other guaranteed payments going on if these sorts of numbers are anywhere close to true - and liverpool are just playing the media with a reputation for financial stewardship that isn't really warranted
In the last deloitte survey I could find for 19/20, City at 351m total payroll, only marginally above liverpool at 326m, which makes you laugh at the notion of liverpool being a sustainably run club. If they are paying peanuts on salaries, then clearly they are paying massive incentives out. But if you dig a little deeper, they have a huge bunch of players on around 100k a week who hardly ever play. We had a squad of (I think) 17 last year, which is admittedly paper thin, but suggests that based on a similar wage bill, our approach of paying more but having less players appears to pay dividends when it comes to winning trophies.
This year by the way, the net spend league over 5 years (now countinho's out of the equation) makes very interesting reading - in fact once we've shipped a few out this summer, we will actually have a lower 5 year net spend than them.
