Hull City’s director of football operations Adam Pearson says the Tigers are yet to receive any enquiries regarding Town loanee Jimmy Bullard. Blues boss Paul Jewell recently said that he had spoken to his former Derby colleague about the 32-year-old Town Player of the Year and also that he understood that there was interest from other clubs.

Pearson is desperate to offload the two remaining years of Bullard’s £45,000-a-week contract, which accounts for 21% of his club’s wage bill, and is hoping that the midfielder’s performances for Town attract some interest: "He's obviously done well down at Ipswich, he's played some games and hopefully that gets him back in the shop window.

"Hopefully, we will get a club interested in him. That hasn't happened as yet. We've had no enquiries whatsoever."

Jewell, who worked under Pearson during their time together at Pride Park, recently said that he had spoken with the Hull chief and was under the impression that other sides, including Premier League clubs, had shown interest.

QPR have been linked on a number of occasions, while Wigan and West Ham were claimed to be amongst Bullard’s suitors in one paper, prior to the Hammers’ relegation on Sunday. One somewhat spurious looking report over the weekend claimed interest from Coventry.

Pearson also dismissed Bullard’s claim last week that he had taken a pay cut to join the Blues on loan in January: "His wages are obviously very, very high but no professional footballer takes a pay cut.

"I keep hearing about pay cuts but I've never heard of that in my life. I don't understand why a player would take a pay cut.

"He's got another two years and that has a value to it so I'm sure that any player wouldn't be leaving for a penny less."

Previously, Pearson was in disagreement with Town regarding the level of Bullard’s wages the Blues were paying during his time on loan.

Hull are reportedly willing to allow Bullard, who cost them £5 million from Fulham in May 2006, to move on for free if his new side take on what remains of his contract in its entirety. It's unlikely that any Championship club would be in a position to do this.

As reported last week, another loan is also an option, although Hull are likely to want to exhaust all other alternatives before looking in that direction.

Town would probably prefer to do a permanent deal with the Blues paying a fee which would go towards the Tigers settling the remaining two years of the one-time England call-up’s contract, something which could be a possibility if Bullard is, as he says, willing to take a pay cut.

Meanwhile, Exeter City are likely to be keeping a close eye on developments regarding the Blues’ chase for Doncaster midfielder James Coppinger.

When the 30-year-old joined Rovers from the Grecians for a fee which eventually rose to £35,000 in 2004, a 15% of profit sell-on clause was included in the deal.

Last Friday, Doncaster chairman John Ryan confirmed that his club had turned down Town's £300,000 offer for the midfielder and also a £2.3 million bid for striker Billy Sharp.

Coppinger was a team-mate of Blues coach Sean McCarthy during the early part of his career at St James’ Park.

Photo: Action Images

suffolkpoker added 09:43 - May 16 this is surely good news for us, the less competition the more chance we have of getting him. even if its on a season long loan. I wonder when ipswich will make there move for him?
0

Keaneish added 09:44 - May 16 So...no news then!
0

trueblue1970 added 09:48 - May 16 Whos telling the truth ??
0

flashblue added 10:02 - May 16 People say the ball is in Hull's court but it is in fact Jimmy who holds all the cards. If he really wants to come here all he needs to do is stay put at Hull and turn down any transfer. He will then be back here on loan next season. It's the only deal that can happen. I can't see a prem club signing him permanently because they won't pay him 45K per week for two years. No club will pay this. Expect this one to rumble on right through to the start of the season.

0

cornishnick added 10:04 - May 16 Clear as mud then. Is Pearson trying to discredit Bullard, or is Jimmy just trying to say the right thing. "I don't understand why a player would take a pay cut." To play football week in week out. £45k a week, £20k a week, whatever. It's still an obscene amount of money. He's going to be filthy rich for life
0

Behind_Enemy_Lines added 10:08 - May 16 Ohh somebody seems to be lying through their ar@e, but I know for a fact or def info if you must say it isn't Me !!!
0

pennblue added 10:09 - May 16 So this means that we either pay Jiimmy 20k per week, and 'buy him' (cost of 25k for 2 years) for £2.6 million. Not sure we would pay £2.6 million for him though with his injury record, big risk...... You might gamble £1 million at a push.... Or..... This saga will drag onto August and we will get him if no-one else comes in for him.....
0

Superfrans added 10:11 - May 16 Clearly Pearson plays fast and loose with the truth. Obviously we would have spoken to them - we've had the player with us for several months, he's our player of the season, of course Jewell has picked up the phone. I suspect what he means is that nobody has made an acceptable offer yet - which is hardly surprising, given the crazy deal Hull gave JB in the first place. As for the "no pay cut" quip, it could simply be that JB waived win or goals bonuses that he would have been entitled to under his Hull deal. That would be equivalent to taking a pay cut, while he still draws the same wages overall.

0

Tractorboy24 added 10:14 - May 16 Considering there was a lot of confusion how much us and Hull were paying Jimmy, could it be that Jimmy told Hull to pay him say £10,000 and Ipswich to pay (reported) £10,000 a week. What I don't understand is why Hull are looking to off load him, before offering him reduced terms, it's clear they have a decent player at this level and if he's willing to take a drop in wages to play elsewhere, why not offer it to him?

0

dirtydingusmagee added 10:16 - May 16 COME ON who's telling the porkie's ? naughty, naughty......The truth is out there.!
0

AmberAndBlack added 10:17 - May 16 I've already explained this wages rubbish Bullard has been banging on about. He was due a pay hike of a couple of grand a week after he played so many games for us. When he joined you he agreed with Adam Pearson that the games he played for you did not count towards the requirement for this pay hike. So basically he hasn't taken a pay cut because he has never had this money. This is an example of what the guy is like. He wants to seem like he REALLY wants to play for you and that he is sacrificing massive amounts to do so, but at the same time, in reality, he is doing no such thing. I think Adam Pearson is being more than reasonable in allowing him to go on a free. After that, it is all between Bullard and ITFC to sort out wages. In that sense the ball is in Bullards and ITFCs court as far as sorting something out.

0

Suffolk_n_Proud added 10:19 - May 16 Jimmy couldn't played another game for Hull otherwise a clause would have been triggered in his contract to get an extra million pounds or wages to go up to £65,000, so by coming to Ipswich his wages were kept at £45,000 a week so in jimmy's eyes his not got his extra money, and Hulls eyes they saved themselves a bit but are still paying his 45 anf want rid
0

Lambrettaman added 10:22 - May 16 If Adam Pearson says we've had no enquiries, than you can be certain we've received no enquiries, he's as straight as a die. The same is true regarding the wages, he obviously hasn't taken a pay-cut at all, though as mentioned above, he probably has waived any appearance/goal bonuses. If you lads want him, you're going to need to make an approach at some point and if you've able to pay £2.3m for Billy Sharp, then you could also make a similar offer for Jimmy, which we would then use to pay him off, leaving you to agree a more realistic wage.

0

Suffolk_n_Proud added 10:23 - May 16 AmberandBlack knows what his on about. Jimmy just wants the money, but wants to be liked too
0

AmberAndBlack added 10:24 - May 16 Suffolk_n_proud Don't know where you get that £65k figure from but it's complete Bo**ox. It was 2 or 3 grand a week. As for the definition of "No interest" Adam Pearson isn't lying, of course we are talking to you people, he's been on loan with you, inevitably we will have been talking to you. The article refers to Bullards "SALE" which is why he was loaned to you in the first place, to put him in the shop window. Pearson means there has been no interest in his sale.

0

Lambrettaman added 10:29 - May 16 The appearance wage increase was £3k a week, he obviously doesn't get a £20k a week pay rise, that would be utterly ridiculous. You're currently paying him £20k and we're making up the other £25k.
0

AmberAndBlack added 10:33 - May 16 Actually, Lambo, I believe it was a flat £325k or so rather than a weekly fee, it just works out to be about £20k a week.
0

roytheboy added 10:48 - May 16 So what is the truth, are Hull lying or is Paul Jewell simply telling us what he is being guided to say by his Superiors, ie. what they think we want to hear, this is not good enough as far as I am concerned, I only want to be told the truth, anything else simply turns me right off our club.
0

DiamondGezzer added 10:50 - May 16 AmberAndBlack and Lambrettaman :- Thanks for the imput. Lets hope all the people who aren't talking can do so soon !
0

Mr_Evans added 10:54 - May 16 Get the boy on a free, pay him £22,250 a week (50% pay cut) then a signing on fee of £1,080,000.. If, and thats a big if, he ramains injury free and plays over 65% of games next season and we get promoted pay another £1,080,000 to Jimmy. If my maths skills are correct that would mean he would earn exactly what he would have been earning at Hull - However this time he would be playing games and would be enjoying a challenging season. Maybe offer him a little bonus for every goal he scores and goals he creates. Opinions?

0

SouperJim added 11:00 - May 16 AmberAndBlack I think you need to take a deep breath and consider the situation without bias for a second. Whatever the exact financial situation, it's your club who gave Jimmy this rather daft contract in the first place with no relegation clause. Bullard is not the devil incarnate because he wants what it says in black and white that he is due. Which of us would do any different at our place of work? Pearson is clearly being economic with the truth, what chairman/director isn't when it comes to transfer business. The fact remains that your club understandably want to wriggle out of Jimmy's contract and so will do whatever it takes to lessen the blow. Unfortunately for you, I doubt anybody is crazy enough to offer Jimmy like terms, so you're going to end up having to swallow some of the cost. Bullard is a very capable player at this level (whether you agree with it or not) and it looks like he is happy to take a more sensible contract beyond his current one, so you're in with a shout of offloading him and perhaps halving the defecit. But if you, Pearson or anybody else think it's not entirely Hull City's fault that this mess exists in the first place then you're even more deluded than you appear. Now run along to your own website like a good little fellow and blub to someone who cares.

0

AmberAndBlack added 11:17 - May 16 So, you expect he will agree to shoulder the financial risk of him getting injured?? Not going to happen! And before anyone mentions it, you CANNOT get insurance for him either.
0

TrueBlue1983 added 11:21 - May 16 Sign him up quick or risk losing him!!! Wages will be a big issue tho...
0

thebeat added 11:34 - May 16 surely if we pay a fee for him and agree terms his contract at Hull becomes null and void.ive never heard of a player movin clubs for a fee and also gets the rest of his old contract paid up.when did that start?
0

Bluetone added 11:35 - May 16 It would appear that in the wheeler/dealer transfer market truth plays no part.
0

Blogs 295 bloggers

Ipswich Town Polls