Lol. Contracts are running down because we WILL get promotion and won't need them. Crazy way to run a football team.
And even if we got promotion, they're expecting that the whole new squad we somehow manage to sign in a hurry are going to accept lower wages than the current lot have been promised?
There is, as it happens, an explanation for the contract situation in the leaked document. It says the situation is advantageous because the players generally have a clause meaning they would get rises on promotion and having them all expire in 2014 means that if we get promoted they can all be released at no cost.
I think that's called putting the cart before the horse.
Shocking to say the very least. Just goes to show how catastrophic things get when non football people get involved in football. If the squad is capable of getting promoted then surely we would want the majority of it on board for our first season? Or should we just release them at no cost and then have to get in some proven premiership quality at double/treble the cost! Utter nonsense and I suspect any potential buyers who are football people would have run a mile on reading it. Who knows what other little gems these crackpots have pulled out of thin bloody air.
The more I read the crazier it all sounds. Can't start to get my head around it. Can't help thinking that something pretty damn big is around the corner. I hope it's good big and not bad big.
On a lighter note, I think the latest antics in Syria will drag us into World War 3 long before we are taken over or have gone into administration - so relax and prepare to kiss your arse goodbye!
On a lighter note, I think the latest antics in Syria will drag us into World War 3 long before we are taken over or have gone into administration - so relax and prepare to kiss your arse goodbye!
If you are right about WW3, I need Nigella's number NOW! I'll only need 3 minutes. :-)
I can only reiterate that the numbers are extraordinary and while the players are all well paid by general standards they will evaluate what they get against each other, not against the average wage.
What this player gets is grossly unfair by that standard and the situation would, I think, demoralise anyone in his position, especially (and this bit is pure speculation) if he'd been promised the unfairness would be addressed by now.
There is, as it happens, an explanation for the contract situation in the leaked document. It says the situation is advantageous because the players generally have a clause meaning they would get rises on promotion and having them all expire in 2014 means that if we get promoted they can all be released at no cost.
I think that's called putting the cart before the horse.
That beggars belief. So they get you promoted, thereby having a decent season, and you let valued players leave so you don't have to give them a salary increase. Unbelievable.
Would most of the current squad, if released and transferred, take a pay cut and play at a similar or lower level? Who is paying for the monies lost every week? Honest questions.
No disrespect to Carly, but I dont think threads like this help much. I think we have a group malaise going on here...if we write often enough at how bad it is (even though we dont ACTUALLY know) then it must be bad. Im not going to buy into that myself as the team is capable and its up to the management to get the best out of those representing us on the field...if they arent putting in the effort then play the younger players who want to play for the club. The contract situation isnt ideal, but then again if there are potential new investors in the offing then maybe they dont want to be saddled with players that are League one standard with a few exceptions?
2-3 wins on the trot and the majorirty will be talking about play offs......chin up chaps, talk positively and things will only get better.
Oh and I didnt read past page one either, I didnt want to start my day by feeling like I need to slit my wrists. :-)
Is it grossly unfair if a young player signs say a 3-year contract on relatively low wages and then subsequently during the contract turns out to be a better player than the club (and possibly he) expected? For every player that would meet this description, there are several more who drift instead, perhaps even out of the game altogether (in a full-time sense).
The contract provides a type of insurance to the young player, enabling him to earn and save enough during the course of it to provide a financial foundation for whatever his career subsequently brings. It also provides insurance to the club should the player turn out instead to be a potential star (enabling them to use his services cheaply and earn a proper transfer fee if/when sold).
Surely one can only assess the gross unfairness of it at the time it is signed, not with the benefit of hindsight?
Perhaps i'm the only one that thinks this but i don't see the contract situation as being as bad a situation as some are making out. I've no doubt that some of the current lot will re-sign new ones and with the way football is going outside of the top flight, there are going to be enough players kicking around who are out of contract for us to sign.
However if what Airman says is true (and i've got no reason to think it isn't) then yes i do agree it's a bizarre way of running a club.
After reading Airman's comment, why would the players "bust a gut" to achieve promotion if they feel the owners will let them go at the end of the season to save money? There's no financial benefit for them without a contract which takes them beyond this season. The owners/investors would achieve their goal by getting to the Sky money whereas the players get nothing. Could this answer the general downturn in performances on the pitch compared to last season? And the drop in team spirit?
This is a very telling comment IMHO. I think we should be careful not to be too presumptuous about what may or may not be going on behind the scenes though.
I'm a business knowledge vacuum. Please explain why you think this.
I 'think' Masicat is suggesting that if we were in the potential process of a sale / due dillegence phase, the 'old board' won't commit to new contracts (long-term spend) either directly on the say of the potential interested party, or indirectly to provide the most limited forward commitments.
I presume he means that any potential buyer may want to bring in their own players (and Management team!) therefore not wanting to tie down the current bunch to long, or even short, term contracts.
I'm a business knowledge vacuum. Please explain why you think this.
I 'think' Masicat is suggesting that if we were in the potential process of a sale / due dillegence phase, the 'old board' won't commit to new contracts (long-term spend) either directly on the say of the potential interested party, or indirectly to provide the most limited forward commitments.
Not fully sure i buy that though.
That's how I read it. Good theory but wouldn't explain why key players and managers have not been offered extensions since May and why Gower, Evina, Wood and Church (two years) have and Harriot's deal was extended.
Is it grossly unfair if a young player signs say a 3-year contract on relatively low wages and then subsequently during the contract turns out to be a better player than the club (and possibly he) expected? For every player that would meet this description, there are several more who drift instead, perhaps even out of the game altogether (in a full-time sense).
The contract provides a type of insurance to the young player, enabling him to earn and save enough during the course of it to provide a financial foundation for whatever his career subsequently brings. It also provides insurance to the club should the player turn out instead to be a potential star (enabling them to use his services cheaply and earn a proper transfer fee if/when sold).
Surely one can only assess the gross unfairness of it at the time it is signed, not with the benefit of hindsight?
I don't think it is "grossly unfair". I think it is bloody stupid.
We put Lee Bowyer on a new four year contract, and then a year or so later sold him for what at the time was decent money, and which was needed to fund further development. This principle of dealing with talented ex Academy players is long -established, and I don't see any thing in the current climate which changes the basic sound business sense behind it. We should do the same for Chris Solly because he has proved himself. You don't do it for players like Cousins and Piggot yet because they have not remotely proved themselves.
I am baffled why intelligent posters are trying to pretend this policy is no longer the best one.
I'm a business knowledge vacuum. Please explain why you think this.
I 'think' Masicat is suggesting that if we were in the potential process of a sale / due dillegence phase, the 'old board' won't commit to new contracts (long-term spend) either directly on the say of the potential interested party, or indirectly to provide the most limited forward commitments.
Not fully sure i buy that though.
It would be plausible if the "assets" which had a strong market value with contracts (Solly, Powell etc) whilst the others didn't. Undermining the value of the thing you're trying to sell is never a great sales tactic.
I'm not surprised that Solly is pissed off when he was told he would be offered a new deal nearly 12 months ago and he hasn't heard a peep since then. If he wants to walk out for nothing now and get a big signing on fee to make up for his salary the last 2 seasons, I personally wouldn't blame him one iota.
I'm a business knowledge vacuum. Please explain why you think this.
I 'think' Masicat is suggesting that if we were in the potential process of a sale / due dillegence phase, the 'old board' won't commit to new contracts (long-term spend) either directly on the say of the potential interested party, or indirectly to provide the most limited forward commitments.
Not fully sure i buy that though.
I don't buy it either. I can fully understand why you might hold back from major changes to the business during such a period as you wouldn't want to put the potential owners off with a change of circumstance they didn't like. But if you're buying a football club, you're buying a going concern; surely you're not going to want to inherit a club with no team.
I'm a business knowledge vacuum. Please explain why you think this.
I 'think' Masicat is suggesting that if we were in the potential process of a sale / due dillegence phase, the 'old board' won't commit to new contracts (long-term spend) either directly on the say of the potential interested party, or indirectly to provide the most limited forward commitments.
Not fully sure i buy that though.
I don't buy it either. I can fully understand why you might hold back from major changes to the business during such a period as you wouldn't want to put the potential owners off with a change of circumstance they didn't like. But if you're buying a football club, you're buying a going concern; surely you're not going to want to inherit a club with no team.
I want to add the point that it is dangerous getting bogged down with presumptions that after a while you accept as fact when you have no confirmed knowledge.
Players are not silly, they talk, their agents talk, they talk with their agents. Whilst this list of salaries has come into the hands of a few supporters recently, this sort of stuff would be widely known / presumed amongst the players all along, even if they have not seen exact confirmation written down on paper.
12 months ago Solly was relatively close for signing for a premiership club, which would have meant a huge increase in earnings. It never happened, and he went on to have a solid POTY season. He would have known 12 months ago what Wiggins was earning, or Kermorgant through the grapevine, but it clearly never effected his performance.
Whether someone has been strung along a bit or given broken promises, that's entirely a different matter. Times that by quite a few members of the squad, that can potentially lead to a less than perfect backdrop and a thousand 'what's going on gaffer?' repeated questions, that 'gaffer' equally hasn't a clue on.
That scenario seems much more possible in my mind, but again, I don't know.
Comments
Utter nonsense and I suspect any potential buyers who are football people would have run a mile on reading it.
Who knows what other little gems these crackpots have pulled out of thin bloody air.
Honest questions.
2-3 wins on the trot and the majorirty will be talking about play offs......chin up chaps, talk positively and things will only get better.
Oh and I didnt read past page one either, I didnt want to start my day by feeling like I need to slit my wrists.
:-)
The contract provides a type of insurance to the young player, enabling him to earn and save enough during the course of it to provide a financial foundation for whatever his career subsequently brings. It also provides insurance to the club should the player turn out instead to be a potential star (enabling them to use his services cheaply and earn a proper transfer fee if/when sold).
Surely one can only assess the gross unfairness of it at the time it is signed, not with the benefit of hindsight?
However if what Airman says is true (and i've got no reason to think it isn't) then yes i do agree it's a bizarre way of running a club.
Not fully sure i buy that though.
That's how I read it. Good theory but wouldn't explain why key players and managers have not been offered extensions since May and why Gower, Evina, Wood and Church (two years) have and Harriot's deal was extended.
We put Lee Bowyer on a new four year contract, and then a year or so later sold him for what at the time was decent money, and which was needed to fund further development. This principle of dealing with talented ex Academy players is long -established, and I don't see any thing in the current climate which changes the basic sound business sense behind it. We should do the same for Chris Solly because he has proved himself. You don't do it for players like Cousins and Piggot yet because they have not remotely proved themselves.
I am baffled why intelligent posters are trying to pretend this policy is no longer the best one.
Players are not silly, they talk, their agents talk, they talk with their agents. Whilst this list of salaries has come into the hands of a few supporters recently, this sort of stuff would be widely known / presumed amongst the players all along, even if they have not seen exact confirmation written down on paper.
12 months ago Solly was relatively close for signing for a premiership club, which would have meant a huge increase in earnings. It never happened, and he went on to have a solid POTY season. He would have known 12 months ago what Wiggins was earning, or Kermorgant through the grapevine, but it clearly never effected his performance.
Whether someone has been strung along a bit or given broken promises, that's entirely a different matter. Times that by quite a few members of the squad, that can potentially lead to a less than perfect backdrop and a thousand 'what's going on gaffer?' repeated questions, that 'gaffer' equally hasn't a clue on.
That scenario seems much more possible in my mind, but again, I don't know.