I mean we can properly afford more, which is why we are losing players. We are underinvesting in the team.
Sent from my iPhone On 11 Jun 2011, at 09:17, "Mark Humphries" <[email protected]> wrote: > What do you mean "artificial ceiling"? Any wage structure has by definition > an "artificial ceiling"? > > Plus, it figures that the top wage in the wage structure is reserved for the > very best players, in terms of age/experience/value to the squad. Therefore, > even within a wage structure BJ is not necessarily going to get the very top > wage. > > At the end of the day, if we had lost Gradel over 1 or 2 thousand a week I > might have been a bit peeved, but Johnson especially can be replaced > relatively easily, and is not the player to be breaking a wage structure over. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Murray [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 10 June 2011 21:01 > To: Mark Humphries > Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [LU] Johnson, Kilkenny and the "market rate" > > As has been demonstrated, 7k a week is less than we can afford, according to > our published accounts. So we have created an artificial ceiling. > > _______________________________________________ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email [email protected] MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
