Forster Situation

[Dusic]

So...with just over two weeks remaining of the window, who is going to take Forster off our hands on a hugely subsidised season long loan to spare us the shame of our 3rd choice GK probably being the top earner at the club?

 

United and now Chelsea have signed clear 3rd choices in Grant and Green, whilst the other top PL sides already have a solid 3rs choice.

 

Surely Championship teams couldn't afford even half his wages, so possibly a move abroad like Joe Hart?

 

Has to be a fair chance we will be stuck with him at least til January when maybe injuries mean someone is on the lookout?

[Heisenberg]

His wages are blocking team improvements. Complete mess

[Saint Garrett]

Who's likely to take him? Why would anyone take him as a first choice keeper in the prem? Why would clubs in the championship take him on his wages? It's going to be difficult getting anything worthwhile for him, given every club will know we need to get rid of him. I always thought we wouldn't bring in Gunn if we didn't already have Forster a move lined up.

 

I still think he isn't as bad as what some people make out with a more structured defence in front of him. He probably needs a season in the championship to build back up his confidence, he still has worldy saves in him, he just lets too many easy ones in, especially from distance.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Obviously he should never have been given that contract but there is a positive spin on this in that we've decided to invest money in making sure the squad is good enough. In the past we might have kept hold of him as second choice because of the size of his wages. Instead we've taken the tough decision that he isn't good enough, and if that means paying money to a player who doesn't play, then so be it. Better to have two quality keepers than end up with Forster coming in at a vital point of the season.

 

My big fear was that Mr Gao wasn't going to invest in the team, but although its not exactly been huge investment and we can argue that it is VVD money that should be spent, we have a net spend this summer and ditching Forster is part of that investment

[Cabbage_Face]

Bloke couldn't save a JPEG. Pay him off and get rid.

[Batman]

£100k a week

 

 

that is all

[Saint Garrett]

£100k a week

 

 

that is all

 

Not what I heard? I heard £60k, where have you seen he's on £100k? Everytime I see his contract being discussed it seems to go up by £10k

[Batman]

Not what I heard? I heard £60k, where have you seen he's on £100k? Everytime I see his contract being discussed it seems to go up by £10k

 

ITKs on here said it is circa £95k a week.

People do not want to believe we pay high wages, when we clearly do

[shurlock]

ITKs on here said it is circa £95k a week.

People do not want to believe we pay high wages, when we clearly do

 

Didn't VFTT say it was £95K?

[Batman]

Didn't VFTT say it was £95K?

 

yes and confirmed by another ITK

He also said that clubs are not keen on a loan deal, even with us paying 50% of his wages as his salary is so high

Edited 25 July, 2018 by Batman

[rooney]

It will be in his own interest for his agent to find a club. Despite being able to sit back and take the money until his contract ends, he needs to be playing to keep himself in the shop window, otherwise he will become too old and everyone will have forgotten about him.

[Cartman]

£70k. £40k when he signed from Celtic, £55k after the first extension, £70k now.

[Saint_lambden]

Suspect the only way we could offload him before the window close is on loan, subsiding most of the wages. Then it would just be a case of hoping he does well wherever he goes and that prompts X club to want to buy him permanently.

[Pilchards]

Another fine mess.

We are wasting far too much money these days which is a shame as the club is run smoothly 80% of the time.

[Dan Johnson]

It's not worked out well but id be interested to read the comments in the thread started when he signed a new contract, it seemed like good business at the time we'd set a new clean sheet record, he had won numerous motm and player of the month awards in the months prior to him signing a new deal at a time when we were looking to establish ourselves as a non selling club, it was a statement by the club that allot of us, my self included thought was the correct move

[Graffito]

It doesn’t seem to be the way of the modern footballer but I think if I were desperate to play and get back some form I’d consider a wage cut. A temporary step backwards to go forwards.

[saint77]

£70k. £40k when he signed from Celtic, £55k after the first extension, £70k now.

 

Exactly the figures I have been told

[Batman]

Exactly the figures I have been told

 

the resident ITKs say otherwise.

[RedArmy]

Nobody wants him because he's sh1t. Not because of his wages.

[saint77]

the resident ITKs say otherwise.

 

I know who I believe 70 k it is all th wreak ITK have disappeared son

[View From The Top]

It will be in his own interest for his agent to find a club. Despite being able to sit back and take the money until his contract ends, he needs to be playing to keep himself in the shop window, otherwise he will become too old and everyone will have forgotten about him.

 

His agent is trying, as is the club. It's via agents gossiping in the NW that I hear bits and bobs. That and from people at Stoke.

 

His wages are proving to be a huge stumbling block, or were last thing I heard.

 

I'm about to disappear on holiday so I doubt it I'll hear anything until I get back and the season will have kicked off by then.

 

Does the loan window close at the same time as the transfer window?

[SuperSAINT]

His wages are no doubt a huge problem.

 

The fact he's been awful are likely the bigger problem.

[Toadhall Saint]

It's not worked out well but id be interested to read the comments in the thread started when he signed a new contract, it seemed like good business at the time we'd set a new clean sheet record, he had won numerous motm and player of the month awards in the months prior to him signing a new deal at a time when we were looking to establish ourselves as a non selling club, it was a statement by the club that allot of us, my self included thought was the correct move

 

This all day

[RedArmy]

It's not worked out well but id be interested to read the comments in the thread started when he signed a new contract, it seemed like good business at the time we'd set a new clean sheet record, he had won numerous motm and player of the month awards in the months prior to him signing a new deal at a time when we were looking to establish ourselves as a non selling club, it was a statement by the club that allot of us, my self included thought was the correct move

Winning MOTD isn't difficult when you're a keeper and you keep drawing 0-0. It's more than likely going to be one of the 2 keepers.

[Ultimatt]

It's not worked out well but id be interested to read the comments in the thread started when he signed a new contract, it seemed like good business at the time we'd set a new clean sheet record, he had won numerous motm and player of the month awards in the months prior to him signing a new deal at a time when we were looking to establish ourselves as a non selling club, it was a statement by the club that allot of us, my self included thought was the correct move

 

Not sure if you meant the 1st or 2nd extension. Here's the 2nd extension thread: https://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?58544-Forster-new-5-year-deal#.W1ivytIzaUk #meltdown

[S-Clarke]

It's not worked out well but id be interested to read the comments in the thread started when he signed a new contract, it seemed like good business at the time we'd set a new clean sheet record, he had won numerous motm and player of the month awards in the months prior to him signing a new deal at a time when we were looking to establish ourselves as a non selling club, it was a statement by the club that allot of us, my self included thought was the correct move

 

First extention, no real moans. 2nd extention 12 months after already signing a long-term brought a lot of total WTF's.

 

I'd really love to hear the clubs reasoning behind that as it makes not a single jot of sense in squad or financial management.

[the saint in winchester]

Who's likely to take him? Why would anyone take him as a first choice keeper in the prem? Why would clubs in the championship take him on his wages? It's going to be difficult getting anything worthwhile for him, given every club will know we need to get rid of him. I always thought we wouldn't bring in Gunn if we didn't already have Forster a move lined up.

 

I still think he isn't as bad as what some people make out with a more structured defence in front of him. He probably needs a season in the championship to build back up his confidence, he still has worldy saves in him, he just lets too many easy ones in, especially from distance.

 

Sadly this is now the biggest challenge we face and the suitors we hoped would take him and his wage bill off us have made alternative arrangements. The OP suggests he may be 3rd choice, but I fear he may not even make the cut of the 25 man squad and make the 3rd GK slot. As you state, top prem clubs who could afford him don't want him, lower prem club who could make a 50% contribution, don't want to pay even that; Championship clubs won't make much contribution at all. So we are looking for a decent overseas option and I can't see anyone (like Torino) going for another English GK. This is a mess, sadly. We can debate the merits of his contract extension until the cows come home, but we are where we are. I can't see a solution that excites all parties, unless we pay him off in full now, and that would be daft. He may have to stay on, on full pay, and compete for a place. It's like owning an ancestral home, putting it on the market, finding there are no buyers and having to live on there paying all the bills.

[Crab Lungs]

Hart in the same position except he's massively better and probably only paid a little more. We have absolutely no chance of getting rid.

 

Still, I'm sure his bad form will subside

[Saint86]

Not what I heard? I heard £60k, where have you seen he's on £100k? Everytime I see his contract being discussed it seems to go up by £10k

 

I heard it was near 100k from the second it was signed. Widely accepted value.

[nta786]

It's not worked out well but id be interested to read the comments in the thread started when he signed a new contract, it seemed like good business at the time we'd set a new clean sheet record, he had won numerous motm and player of the month awards in the months prior to him signing a new deal at a time when we were looking to establish ourselves as a non selling club, it was a statement by the club that allot of us, my self included thought was the correct move

 

 

Certainly not the second extension after the 2016/17 season. I’d say most were shocked at that!

[sadoldgit]

I cannot believe we are paying anyone £100k a week.

[shurlock]

I cannot believe we are paying anyone £100k a week.

 

£95K a week pal.

[scotty]

It's not worked out well but id be interested to read the comments in the thread started when he signed a new contract, it seemed like good business at the time we'd set a new clean sheet record, he had won numerous motm and player of the month awards in the months prior to him signing a new deal at a time when we were looking to establish ourselves as a non selling club, it was a statement by the club that allot of us, my self included thought was the correct move

 

I keep saying that. There was general approval of the policy at the time.

[S-Clarke]

I keep saying that. There was general approval of the policy at the time.

 

Not the 2nd renewal. There was no approval over that.

 

This is what people are up arms about....not the fact he got an initial deal, the unfathomable reason he got another 12 months later.

[nta786]

Not the 2nd renewal. There was no approval over that.

 

This is what people are up arms about....not the fact he got an initial deal, the unfathomable reason he got another 12 months later.

 

Exactly

 

He would have been far easier to shift out on loan if he never had that latest renewal

[saint1977]

Not the 2nd renewal. There was no approval over that.

 

This is what people are up arms about....not the fact he got an initial deal, the unfathomable reason he got another 12 months later.

 

Quite, not sure what some of the club ultras on here find hard to understand. It was a very damaging and totally unjustified extension with no business logic. Reed and the club should expect a lot of scrutiny.

[woodsaint]

Not paying him 95k a week, no mission

[aintforever]

Quite, not sure what some of the club ultras on here find hard to understand. It was a very damaging and totally unjustified extension with no business logic. Reed and the club should expect a lot of scrutiny.

 

That’s impossible to say unless you know the details of the contracts. The club obviously had their reasons, he was playing well but seemed to turn to ****e once he signed the new deal. I guess you could call it the Saganowski effect.

[Saint Garrett]

I cannot believe we are paying anyone £100k a week.

 

From what I’ve heard our top earner is on £80k, Forster on £65k/£70k pw

[Lord Duckhunter]

£100k a week

 

 

that is all

 

ITKs on here said it is circa £95k a week.

 

Lol what a joker.

 

That is all!!!!!

 

2 posts & minutes later it’s gone down by 5k. What is it now 7 hours later, 35k?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Batman]

Lol what a joker.

 

That is all!!!!!

 

2 posts & minutes later it’s gone down by 5k. What is it now 7 hours later, 35k?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Look at the 2nd post, I said circa £95k a week. Which it is.

 

Weekday drinking sessions are not a good look BTW!

Edited 26 July, 2018 by Batman

[saint1977]

That’s impossible to say unless you know the details of the contracts. The club obviously had their reasons, he was playing well but seemed to turn to ****e once he signed the new deal. I guess you could call it the Saganowski effect.

 

He was playing well in 2016/17? League Cup Final and Palace away for starters and there were a few more poor games as well. He did well 2015/16 and no one is disputing that extension but just to extend after the poor season under Puel was bad enough and it won’t have been for less will it, plus agents fees etc?

[Toon Saint]

That’s impossible to say unless you know the details of the contracts. The club obviously had their reasons, he was playing well but seemed to turn to ****e once he signed the new deal. I guess you could call it the Saganowski effect.

 

Have you read any of the above? Forster was playing sh1te for a year before we offered him the second extension after Puel’s season - that is what people are annoyed about. He then went from liability to calamity in the season just gone.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[larryhagman]

To be fair, everyone was moaning about us not being able to keep hold of players. The club started to try and do something about it. So they tried to sign players onto long term contracts as much as possible. I mean on the other hand it hasn't worked very well, players still seem to leave when they want to. But at least the club tried. They believed in him when they offered him the contract, now they don't. Another thought. With him being so hard to move on, should we just have kept him as number 2? I mean Gunn is an exciting signing for me. I don't know, decisions, decisions.

Anyway with hindsight we can all come on here and talk like we're football experts, and we'd have run a club so much better .

Having said that bit of a nightmare situation with Forster! Well can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs

[Bad Wolf]

I was told he'd agreed terms with Palace a couple of weeks ago but heard nothing since.

[sadoldgit]

Look at the 2nd post, I said circa £95k a week. Which it is.

 

Weekday drinking sessions are not a good look BTW!

 

You said it was £100k a week. You then said that ITKs on here said it is £95k a week. You are now saying yourself that it is £95k. Mess.

Given that our previous highest earner was supposedly on around £65k I find either of these figures hard to believe, especially as we as a club have a reputation for not paying high transfer fees or wages. Even in todays crazy market £100k a week is a big wage. The poster who said it was £70k a week gets my vote for the most believable wage for FF. The club had been heavily criticised for not tying players down for longer and clearly changed their policy to do something about it. Sadly it backfired but if (and it is a very big if) FF had rediscovered his original form it would have been a good move. Still, hopefully lesson learned and time to move on.

[hypochondriac]

It's all monopoly money as far as we are concerned. Whether he is on 70k or 100k it's an obscene waste and whoever gave him the new contract needs firing.

[tajjuk]

£65-70k a week makes the most sense, £100k a week does not at all as I can't see us having paid that to anyone and certainly not to Forster. £65k a week is also still problematic to most championship clubs and foreign clubs.

 

It's the issue of the PL money, all the clubs can easily pay £20 million for players and £65-80k a week with not much issue, but then PL clubs want to get rid of these players then the market for them becomes very limited because only the very top clubs in Europe can pay those wages and transfer fees and they are generally not signing PL cast offs.

 

So you are looking at middling clubs from France, Spain, Italy, Germany or top clubs in Holland or Championship clubs, they are not able to spend £20 million so easily or pay people £50-60k a week so easily.

 

Also hardly like it's just us either, several clubs are struggling to off load their deadwood.

 

He didn't need the 2nd deal, and it has obviously turned out to be a mistake in the long term, sadly these things happen but it's not like we are the only club to have done something like this.

 

All footballers are a financial risk, he could have gone the next season and had an amazing season wanted by top clubs and people would have been praising the club for getting him tied down or he could have ruptured his ACL and not played for the last two years.

[shurlock]

£65-70k a week makes the most sense, £100k a week does not at all as I can't see us having paid that to anyone and certainly not to Forster. £65k a week is also still problematic to most championship clubs and foreign clubs.

 

It's the issue of the PL money, all the clubs can easily pay £20 million for players and £65-80k a week with not much issue, but then PL clubs want to get rid of these players then the market for them becomes very limited because only the very top clubs in Europe can pay those wages and transfer fees and they are generally not signing PL cast offs.

 

So you are looking at middling clubs from France, Spain, Italy, Germany or top clubs in Holland or Championship clubs, they are not able to spend £20 million so easily or pay people £50-60k a week so easily.

 

Also hardly like it's just us either, several clubs are struggling to off load their deadwood.

 

He didn't need the 2nd deal, and it has obviously turned out to be a mistake in the long term, sadly these things happen but it's not like we are the only club to have done something like this.

 

All footballers are a financial risk, he could have gone the next season and had an amazing season wanted by top clubs and people would have been praising the club for getting him tied down or he could have ruptured his ACL and not played for the last two years.

 

Not really. Awarding him a new contract so soon after his previous one hardly gave us much more protection; what it did do, however, was to saddle us with a heavier wage bill if you believe the figures.

[DT]

Nobody wants him because he's sh1t. Not because of his wages.

 

Spot on. Can't we pay him off and let him do the kit or something? Mind you, he'd probably drop that too.