The point AA is that Yann was one for the present. It remains to be seen whether any of this "up and coming talent" is
do you work for RD or any company associated with him, maybe in PR?
No, though I understand why RD got rid of him. Charltons biggest issue is that the team hasn't been scoring enough. The team has the lowest scoring average in the league. That alone should say something.
We got 400k for Yann. We likely bought PP for the same amount of money. PP is only 20 and is on a long contract. If PP's previous club form says anything, then he is going to be much more of a prolific striker than Yann ever was.
In football you have to think both short and long-term. Would keeping Yann as a player have been best this season? Maybe, but then you would have to look at next season if we got relegated. Yann would have been 33 and on Championship level wages. In League one you are only allowed to spend 60 percent of your turnover on wages.
I suspect that Yanns wages were likely near what PP and Reza combined are making. The difference though is that Reza is one for the present and the future, PP is likely for the future (though could be present too!), whereas Yann was only for the present.
see I don't get that. Uncertainty in my job would make me try harder, perform better. Also, uncertainty over my manager's position wouldn't affect me so why should it a footballer?
Don't know what you do, but the margins that pro sports people operate at means that marginal issues can have a massive effect. I'm afraid that it's a bit stupid to compare occupations in this way.
Yann is like fairy liquid, you get more out of one bottle than you do with two cheapies :0)
I don't want to slag off our new signings before they've hardly kicked a ball but people do need a bit of a reality check. Scoring a lot of goals in Holland and Belgium is no real guide to performance in the Championship. For instance, the dutch 2nd division where PP has come from is renowned for teams conceding a lot, look at last nights results
EMMEN v DORDRECHT 1-6 FC EINDHOVEN v ALMERE CITY FC 1-2 FC OSS v DE GRAAFSCHAP 2-2 FORT. SITTARD v TELSTAR 5-0 SPARTA ROTTERDAM v MVV 1-2
22 goals in 5 games and this sin't a freak set of results, games in this league always have a lot of goals.
to coin a phrase, football in England is a different ball game. The style of play is completely different from the Benelux as is what defenders can get away with and it will take time, perhaps half a season for these two to adapt, which is why I think the wrong decision has been made on Yann, unless we can loan an equivalent in soon.
We've got a fee for Yann, plus are saving on his wages so I can see the business sense of what RD has done, but from a football point of view its a big gamble, but then again, he does have a £4m cushion if we go back down
I am still trying to understand conflicting versions of events and the South London Press article read in full is helpful, I think. The programme, in contrast, says as little as possible. We also have a well-sourced account by Steve Dixon in VOTV. Given we have a picture of Yann talking (to his agent) on the phone on the Thursday night, it is reasonable to assume Steve has a source very close to Yann.
So for what it's worth, my take on it is that Yann was led to believe that he would be offered a two-year extension, which would have been to summer 2016, before the club was sold, but the value of that assurance was limited since the view of the new owner could not be anticipated.
After the takeover, there was initially no willingness to offer an extension to 2016, also consistent with the claim that there was a trigger in his contract that would have given him one extra year and which, if true, must have included terms and presumably must have been for at least the same wages.
Eventually, however, the principle of 2016 was conceded but according to Yann no terms were ever offered attached to this period by the club and his terms were rejected. This would mean in effect that 2016 was never offered. He expected a negotiation, but instead Charlton accepted Bournemouth's offer.
I still find it odd that the club talks about a two-year-contract. Either a two-year extension or a two and a half year contract would provide clarity - they have included the half in all other contract announcements, including Rhoys Wiggins.
Finally, the figures of £10k a week offered at CAFC and £15k at Bournemouth are coming from the Charlton board. Both would be increases on what he was paid. It is strongly suggested that Yann would have signed for Charlton for less money that he could have got at Bournemouth, as long as the contract was until 2016.
I know people will think it doesn't matter now, but I think it's quite important to understand if both parties were acting in good faith - especially if we are relegated and spend the next few years lamenting that we could have stayed up if only he had stayed.
I think anyone who reads and believes the VOTV article, including info that Yann accepted 50% less pay when he joined us from Leicester will know that he is not a mercenary.
Such a ridiculously unnecessary situation, thanks to Roland's 'know-it-all' attitude. This sale is so much worse than Parker and Reid, when at least the players on paper were bettering themselves.
I am still trying to understand conflicting versions of events and the South London Press article read in full is helpful, I think. The programme, in contrast, says as little as possible. We also have a well-sourced account by Steve Dixon in VOTV. Given we have a picture of Yann talking (to his agent) on the phone on the Thursday night, it is reasonable to assume Steve has a source very close to Yann.
So for what it's worth, my take on it is that Yann was led to believe that he would be offered a two-year extension, which would have been to summer 2016, before the club was sold, but the value of that assurance was limited since the view of the new owner could not be anticipated.
After the takeover, there was initially no willingness to offer an extension to 2016, also consistent with the claim that there was a trigger in his contract that would have given him one extra year and which, if true, must have included terms and presumably must have been for at least the same wages.
Eventually, however, the principle of 2016 was conceded but according to Yann no terms were ever offered attached to this period by the club and his terms were rejected. This would mean in effect that 2016 was never offered. He expected a negotiation, but instead Charlton accepted Bournemouth's offer.
I still find it odd that the club talks about a two-year-contract. Either a two-year extension or a two and a half year contract would provide clarity - they have included the half in all other contract announcements, including Rhoys Wiggins.
Finally, the figures of £10k a week offered at CAFC and £15k at Bournemouth are coming from the Charlton board. Both would be increases on what he was paid. It is strongly suggested that Yann would have signed for Charlton for less money that he could have got at Bournemouth, as long as the contract was until 2016.
I know people will think it doesn't matter now, but I think it's quite important to understand if both parties were acting in good faith - especially if we are relegated and spend the next few years lamenting that we could have stayed up if only he had stayed.
Holy shit, if Bournemouth are paying YK 15K per week then that is a lot of money for a 32 year old in the Championship with no re-sale value.
I gather they are owned by a Russian businessman, he must have cash to burn if he is paying that for YK.
I think anyone who reads and believes the VOTV article, including info that Yann accepted 50% less pay when he joined us from Leicester will know that he is not a mercenary.
Such a ridiculously unnecessary situation, thanks to Roland's 'know-it-all' attitude. This sale is so much worse than Parker and Reid, when at least the players on paper were bettering themselves.
IF you believe all of that, which I don't. There's a whole lot of info that paints RD as the panto villain, and Yann as some kind of tragic hero. The truth is probably much less vague. Perhaps Yann accepted less money as he was desperate to get out. Bournemouth at the very least gave him higher wages, potentially a lot higher. But there's no way our beloved Yann would EVER chase money, oh no, not him, he's special...
Hell have no wrath like a football fan scorned. Obviously now that we have 2 kids that have played 10 minutes and a couple games respectively Yann going isn't an issue at all as they have both been banging them in for us.
Another typical case of "man use to wear same shirt as me, now he wear different colour shirt so me bang chest and say he rubbish. Boo!"
To me the closest replacement we have got to Yann isn't either of these kids but is actually AA. If you've watched Yann for the past season I have felt that he has been playing much more of a playmaker/attacking midfield role because of Stephens lack of ability to see/make a pass within the same decade before he is tackled, I think it's that that will be missed the most but I think AA (from what I've seen on Saturday) will pick up a lot of the slack there.
If these two new kids are the business now and will be even better in the future and are combined on the same/less than Yann and you genuinely believe that, then I have a friend in Nigeria who wants to deposit a few hundred million in your account.
I really hope Reza and Pete come good, and I think having Yann, a player who knows about fighting an uphill struggle as a striker in the championship, would have been a huge help to their development/adaptation to the English game.
I am still trying to understand conflicting versions of events and the South London Press article read in full is helpful, I think. The programme, in contrast, says as little as possible. We also have a well-sourced account by Steve Dixon in VOTV. Given we have a picture of Yann talking (to his agent) on the phone on the Thursday night, it is reasonable to assume Steve has a source very close to Yann.
So for what it's worth, my take on it is that Yann was led to believe that he would be offered a two-year extension, which would have been to summer 2016, before the club was sold, but the value of that assurance was limited since the view of the new owner could not be anticipated.
After the takeover, there was initially no willingness to offer an extension to 2016, also consistent with the claim that there was a trigger in his contract that would have given him one extra year and which, if true, must have included terms and presumably must have been for at least the same wages.
Eventually, however, the principle of 2016 was conceded but according to Yann no terms were ever offered attached to this period by the club and his terms were rejected. This would mean in effect that 2016 was never offered. He expected a negotiation, but instead Charlton accepted Bournemouth's offer.
I still find it odd that the club talks about a two-year-contract. Either a two-year extension or a two and a half year contract would provide clarity - they have included the half in all other contract announcements, including Rhoys Wiggins.
Finally, the figures of £10k a week offered at CAFC and £15k at Bournemouth are coming from the Charlton board. Both would be increases on what he was paid. It is strongly suggested that Yann would have signed for Charlton for less money that he could have got at Bournemouth, as long as the contract was until 2016.
I know people will think it doesn't matter now, but I think it's quite important to understand if both parties were acting in good faith - especially if we are relegated and spend the next few years lamenting that we could have stayed up if only he had stayed.
Holy shit, if Bournemouth are paying YK 15K per week then that is a lot of money for a 32 year old in the Championship with no re-sale value.
I gather they are owned by a Russian businessman, he must have cash to burn if he is paying that for YK.
Precisely, it's madness (if these figures are accurate). And it's not just about what the Owner can afford or even the immediate question of compliance with FFP. With FFP now beginning to bite, budget pre-committed today is money that can't be spent on new players (or on improving existing contracts) tomorrow.
Bournemouth's owner has, in effect, just put a significant liability on the Club's balance sheet which may well limit room for manoeuvre, not just next season, but the one after that too.
There's another important point here which often seems to get missed. Deals like this require a very high level of trust between the Owner and the Manager because their interests are not aligned. Eddie Howe will, no doubt, be most concerned about the here and now and that means ensuring Bournemouth's survival in the Championship this season. Even if he has an eye to next season, it's very unlikely that he'll have thought about 2015/16 because he knows he may not be around. But that perspective matters to the Owner. Conversely, unless the Owner is "understanding", Howe is, potentially, compromised. Imagine he realises that next season Kermorgant isn't worth a place in the starting line up?
Duchatelet has set out his stall. It's clear that he's only interested in offering long-term contracts to "value" with potential. Financially, that's prudent. Footballing wise it might be risky and that's the dilemma.
I think anyone who reads and believes the VOTV article, including info that Yann accepted 50% less pay when he joined us from Leicester will know that he is not a mercenary.
Such a ridiculously unnecessary situation, thanks to Roland's 'know-it-all' attitude. This sale is so much worse than Parker and Reid, when at least the players on paper were bettering themselves.
IF you believe all of that, which I don't. There's a whole lot of info that paints RD as the panto villain, and Yann as some kind of tragic hero. The truth is probably much less vague. Perhaps Yann accepted less money as he was desperate to get out. Bournemouth at the very least gave him higher wages, potentially a lot higher. But there's no way our beloved Yann would EVER chase money, oh no, not him, he's special...
From Airman Browns figures it sounds like Bournemouth have just waved the best part of £2M in front of Yann and who knows what to his agent who lets face it is worth every penny (to him). Meanwhile Yann was due to pick up another £200K this season from CAFC and perhaps £4-500k next season. Nice of Yann to give CAFC a chance to match the deal but never going to happen was it? I s
I think anyone who reads and believes the VOTV article, including info that Yann accepted 50% less pay when he joined us from Leicester will know that he is not a mercenary.
Such a ridiculously unnecessary situation, thanks to Roland's 'know-it-all' attitude. This sale is so much worse than Parker and Reid, when at least the players on paper were bettering themselves.
IF you believe all of that, which I don't. There's a whole lot of info that paints RD as the panto villain, and Yann as some kind of tragic hero. The truth is probably much less vague. Perhaps Yann accepted less money as he was desperate to get out. Bournemouth at the very least gave him higher wages, potentially a lot higher. But there's no way our beloved Yann would EVER chase money, oh no, not him, he's special...
From Airman Browns figures it sounds like Bournemouth have just waved the best part of £2M in front of Yann and who knows what to his agent who lets face it is worth every penny (to him). Meanwhile Yann was due to pick up another £200K this season from CAFC and perhaps £4-500k next season. Nice of Yann to give CAFC a chance to match the deal but never going to happen was it? I s
I think we should be clear that they are the club's figures, not mine. Ask Richard Murray publicly on Thursday. I get a bit fed up with the secret squirrel stuff, because it has the advantage of being deniable later, albeit the club is in a difficult position over salaries. I don't doubt he would have told the meeting "in confidence" anyway.
On the other side of the equation Yann's posiiton is that he did not expect Charlton to match the Bournemouth offer in terms of cash, whatever it was, just in terms of duration.
The one thing this saved us from is the unedifying spectacle of CP being forced not to pick Yann when he reached the trigger point number of games for his extension. That may have ended both their careers.
from his article he clearly wanted more money. a better offer. he thought he was a cut above the rest of the team..thats just IMO though.,
That's probably because he was ... Already reflected in his existing terms, subject to whatever Wiggins may be on now.
The fact is YK was in a strong bargaining position at that stage of the season. RD is entitled to call his bluff, but there is a strong possibility he will be the one with egg on his face at the end of the season. Time will tell.
Comments
We got 400k for Yann. We likely bought PP for the same amount of money. PP is only 20 and is on a long contract. If PP's previous club form says anything, then he is going to be much more of a prolific striker than Yann ever was.
In football you have to think both short and long-term. Would keeping Yann as a player have been best this season? Maybe, but then you would have to look at next season if we got relegated. Yann would have been 33 and on Championship level wages. In League one you are only allowed to spend 60 percent of your turnover on wages.
I suspect that Yanns wages were likely near what PP and Reza combined are making. The difference though is that Reza is one for the present and the future, PP is likely for the future (though could be present too!), whereas Yann was only for the present.
Not blind guesswork. Yann was on 8,000 per week. Not too hard to imagine that PP and Reza combined would equal about that.
Come on AA, ill ask again do you work for RD or any company associated with him, maybe in PR?
I don't want to slag off our new signings before they've hardly kicked a ball but people do need a bit of a reality check. Scoring a lot of goals in Holland and Belgium is no real guide to performance in the Championship. For instance, the dutch 2nd division where PP has come from is renowned for teams conceding a lot, look at last nights results
EMMEN v DORDRECHT 1-6
FC EINDHOVEN v ALMERE CITY FC 1-2
FC OSS v DE GRAAFSCHAP 2-2
FORT. SITTARD v TELSTAR 5-0
SPARTA ROTTERDAM v MVV 1-2
22 goals in 5 games and this sin't a freak set of results, games in this league always have a lot of goals.
to coin a phrase, football in England is a different ball game. The style of play is completely different from the Benelux as is what defenders can get away with and it will take time, perhaps half a season for these two to adapt, which is why I think the wrong decision has been made on Yann, unless we can loan an equivalent in soon.
We've got a fee for Yann, plus are saving on his wages so I can see the business sense of what RD has done, but from a football point of view its a big gamble, but then again, he does have a £4m cushion if we go back down
Evina May have been cack today but the real embarrassment was Reza and his constant dives.
So for what it's worth, my take on it is that Yann was led to believe that he would be offered a two-year extension, which would have been to summer 2016, before the club was sold, but the value of that assurance was limited since the view of the new owner could not be anticipated.
After the takeover, there was initially no willingness to offer an extension to 2016, also consistent with the claim that there was a trigger in his contract that would have given him one extra year and which, if true, must have included terms and presumably must have been for at least the same wages.
Eventually, however, the principle of 2016 was conceded but according to Yann no terms were ever offered attached to this period by the club and his terms were rejected. This would mean in effect that 2016 was never offered. He expected a negotiation, but instead Charlton accepted Bournemouth's offer.
I still find it odd that the club talks about a two-year-contract. Either a two-year extension or a two and a half year contract would provide clarity - they have included the half in all other contract announcements, including Rhoys Wiggins.
Finally, the figures of £10k a week offered at CAFC and £15k at Bournemouth are coming from the Charlton board. Both would be increases on what he was paid. It is strongly suggested that Yann would have signed for Charlton for less money that he could have got at Bournemouth, as long as the contract was until 2016.
I know people will think it doesn't matter now, but I think it's quite important to understand if both parties were acting in good faith - especially if we are relegated and spend the next few years lamenting that we could have stayed up if only he had stayed.
Such a ridiculously unnecessary situation, thanks to Roland's 'know-it-all' attitude. This sale is so much worse than Parker and Reid, when at least the players on paper were bettering themselves.
I gather they are owned by a Russian businessman, he must have cash to burn if he is paying that for YK.
Another typical case of "man use to wear same shirt as me, now he wear different colour shirt so me bang chest and say he rubbish. Boo!"
To me the closest replacement we have got to Yann isn't either of these kids but is actually AA. If you've watched Yann for the past season I have felt that he has been playing much more of a playmaker/attacking midfield role because of Stephens lack of ability to see/make a pass within the same decade before he is tackled, I think it's that that will be missed the most but I think AA (from what I've seen on Saturday) will pick up a lot of the slack there.
If these two new kids are the business now and will be even better in the future and are combined on the same/less than Yann and you genuinely believe that, then I have a friend in Nigeria who wants to deposit a few hundred million in your account.
I really hope Reza and Pete come good, and I think having Yann, a player who knows about fighting an uphill struggle as a striker in the championship, would have been a huge help to their development/adaptation to the English game.
Bournemouth's owner has, in effect, just put a significant liability on the Club's balance sheet which may well limit room for manoeuvre, not just next season, but the one after that too.
There's another important point here which often seems to get missed. Deals like this require a very high level of trust between the Owner and the Manager because their interests are not aligned. Eddie Howe will, no doubt, be most concerned about the here and now and that means ensuring Bournemouth's survival in the Championship this season. Even if he has an eye to next season, it's very unlikely that he'll have thought about 2015/16 because he knows he may not be around. But that perspective matters to the Owner. Conversely, unless the Owner is "understanding", Howe is, potentially, compromised. Imagine he realises that next season Kermorgant isn't worth a place in the starting line up?
Duchatelet has set out his stall. It's clear that he's only interested in offering long-term contracts to "value" with potential. Financially, that's prudent. Footballing wise it might be risky and that's the dilemma.
I haven't read all posts so if anyone's already done that then apologies, and also if it's liable to create fresh arguments.
Meanwhile Yann was due to pick up another £200K this season from CAFC and perhaps £4-500k next season.
Nice of Yann to give CAFC a chance to match the deal but never going to happen was it?
I s
On the other side of the equation Yann's posiiton is that he did not expect Charlton to match the Bournemouth offer in terms of cash, whatever it was, just in terms of duration.
Agree. Thought MSE7 was wrong but it's not abuse imo
The fact is YK was in a strong bargaining position at that stage of the season. RD is entitled to call his bluff, but there is a strong possibility he will be the one with egg on his face at the end of the season. Time will tell.