Irons under fire over Payet deal

PayetnewimageAndy Dunn may or may not be a name with which you are familiar.

Just for background, he’s a journalist who at one point in his career prior to his life on the News of the World and Sunday Mirror  worked as a sports writer for the David Sullivan-owned Daily Sport.

And today he has written a piece in the Mirror taking issue with his former employer over West Ham’s decision to reward Dmitri Payet with a big contract. He draws Slaven Bilic into his sights after the boss claimed football should not be a game for the upper classes.

He says: “No sooner had Slaven’s ’s stirring speech died in his throat, his employers were guaranteeing Dmitri Payet  – six weeks shy of his 29th birthday and eight months at the club – £35million over the next five years.”

He adds: “Payet is clearly a very good player. He can’t make the France squad, but that could owe more to a personality clash with Didier Deschamps than ability.

He might well, as Bilic has said, be on a par with Mesut Ozil and David Silva – and you can bet those pair are on the £125,000 a week Payet now enjoys.”

His argument then explains why – in his terms – it was done by declaring that “the game is one great big, back-scratching carve-up between owners, executives, agents and players and that the only thing the football-watching public really know is that THEY fund it.”

Yep, I bet the Davids and every other owner love paying agents’ fees don’t you?

Perhaps as a non West Ham fan we should remind Andy that our ClaretandHugh poll showed that almost 80 percent of the fans approved of the deal being done.

Maybe, had West Ham’s owners wanted to prove some huge ethical point they would have refused to do a deal – and let’s make no mistake there was certainly some agent agitation going on.

Perhaps the owners could have come out publicly and said: “Slaven’s right – this is a working class game and will remain a small club by paying smaller wages.”

To argue that holding on to one of the best players West Ham have had in years, despite the manager wanting to see reasonable ticket prices, is a tricky position.

We all make statements about how we would like things to be whilst knowing it’s never likely to be possible because of circumstances and reality.

Holding up Slav’s words up against the realities of Payet’s contract is interesting if a little naive for the reality is that very few of us  would not be prepared pay a tad more to make sure we hold onto the likes of Payet and Lanzini.

When the Premier League chairman meet again in March they have the chance to strike a blow for the fans AS A GROUP by putting a ceiling on away ticket prices.

In the meantime I’m glad any uncertainty about Dimi’s position has been put to bed with our owners proving that West Ham has arrived in the big time.



About Hugh5outhon1895

Hugh Southon is a lifelong Iron and the founding editor of ClaretandHugh. He is a national newspaper journalist of many years experience and was Bobby Moore's 'ghost' writer during the great man's lifetime. He describes ClaretandHugh as "the Hammers daily newspaper!" Follow on Twitter @hughsouthon

4 comments on “Irons under fire over Payet deal

  1. In a capitalist society, the market value is what someone is prepared to pay. Even if you think that the house is not worth a million quid, if someone else is prepared to pay that then that’s what it’s worth. Would another club be prepared to give Payet a more lucrative deal? On present form you would think so. So that’s what he’s worth. If the clubs or the FA think that agents & player payments are exhorbitant then it is for them to do something about it. We all want the best we can get. Players such as Noble are a thing of the past. Loyalty? Very rare. Football is a business now as much as a game, like it or not. Payet has signed a new deal, it pays more money, maybe not 125 a week, but if the owners are prepared to pay that, then that’s his value & it’s up to the club meet those costs. It’s a fine line, how much do we pay the players & how much can we recoup from success, commercial sales & ticket prices. It’s for the owners to balance that out & return a profit. No one wants to go down the path of Leeds of yesteryear, but everyone wants top players. Where do you draw the line? Payet is worth what we are paying him or Sullivan & Gold would not have signed.

  2. Personally think footballers wages are obscene and agents are a nightmare and contracts mean nothing. Payet was happy to sign a contract with us and we now have to massively increase his wages because he plays well – was that not what was expected from him. Also although playing well he has yet to get 10 goals and West Ham have not won anything or qualified for Europe yet. Think he should have waited till end of season and then made a case for a rise based on his actual performance for an entire season and where we finish.
    That said glad we have him; though football being football I reckon he (or his agent) can still shred the new contract whenever he feels like it. Other issue is that it now raises the wage bar at WHU – are other going to want similar wage hikes ?

  3. Not quite sure why Payet’s contract details are of such seemingly national importance . You certainly don’t hear too much about other teams players wage details being given this level of scrutiny do you ? But we will have to get used to it i suppose as it all ties in with the O.S
    move and being in the spot light . We are daring to rub shoulders with the ” Big Boys” and it is starting to rattle a few cages in the establishment . Lets hope for a strong finish to the season and a place in Europe and as a bonus Leicester winning the title !

  4. If what has been said in the media this week is true, then we could have lost him to China £38m or a top four PL club in the summer. When a player says he wants a move then there is no point keeping him, he will not give it his all & could cause unrest in the squad. Paying top dollar for Payet shows the rest that we are coming to compete & even push them a side. COYI

Comments are closed.