Spurs must not pay Eriksen £150,000-a-week

TOTTENHAM TALK

We now the figures Christian Eriksen is demanding seem to have been made public by the Daily Express and is correct, it explains why he hasn't signed a new contract.

As explained in a previous article, if Tottenham blast their wage structure apart by granting one player £125,000-a-week, or in Eriksen's case £150,000-a-week it seems, then the rest of the players will then want wage increases so you are actually destroying your wage budget.

His current wage is low, we know that. He came from Holland and we have made him a major player, in our wage structure, until we have additional income, that means around £75,000-a-week or £100,000 (believed to be the figure offered to hatty Kane) for a top earner. Eriksen's demand for 50% more than that would add at last £20-million to the wages budget in knock-on effects, probably over £30-million.

There isn't the wages in the wages budget for that and it may involve us looking elsewhere to replace him. At the moment he apparently sticking to his demands and we are sticking to our wage structure, which quite frankly we have to do.

No player is bigger than the club. If it mans we have to sell him next summer then that is what we will have to do, in the meantime a young replacement wouldn't be a bad purchase, unless we believe that Onomah may be able to fit the bill or Marcus Edwards in a couple of years, depending upon his growth.

It certainly explains why we have been looking a wide left attackers as well as central attacking midfielders. Eriksen while able to play both, generally plays on the left. If we are to sell Chadli and Eriksen sticks to his wage demands then the left side will be a major concern next summer in the transfer market.

If, however, we achieve Champions League football again or win the title the financial situation may strat to change sooner and a wage increase nearer his desired figure possible. Again though, until additional future income is guaranteed we can not agree to send the wages budget soaring to higher percentages of income, which I believe the Financial fair Play rules restrict anyway.

---