Someone will take him on loan but on a small percentage of wages. I’d be amazed if he’s still with us when the window closes. Jones doesn’t think he fits and I expect Scott wants out as well.
Fraser wants to go back to Scotland. It appears we want to let him go but hold his contract for another year.
I never understand why in such circumstances we are obliged to pay his wages (or a large portion of them.)
Why can't we just say, ok we'll cancel your contract and you're free to find yourself another club but we aren't going to pay any of your wages.
If he says no, then say you can stay down here for the next year and train with the youth team or by himself.
Not nice I know but we are doing him a favour by letting him go for nothing and we should make him aware of that.
There’s such a thing as loyalty and it works both ways. We were happy to offer him the contract and we should be prepared to honour it. If something else can be sorted out that’s fine but I think your suggestion is frankly preposterous.
Fraser wants to go back to Scotland. It appears we want to let him go but hold his contract for another year.
I never understand why in such circumstances we are obliged to pay his wages (or a large portion of them.)
Why can't we just say, ok we'll cancel your contract and you're free to find yourself another club but we aren't going to pay any of your wages.
If he says no, then say you can stay down here for the next year and train with the youth team or by himself.
Not nice I know but we are doing him a favour by letting him go for nothing and we should make him aware of that.
There’s such a thing as loyalty and it works both ways. We were happy to offer him the contract and we should be prepared to honour it. If something else can be sorted out that’s fine but I think your suggestion is frankly preposterous.
Take your point but still disagree.
He wants to go supposedly for family reasons so he can go back to Scotland with his family. Fair enough. We're doing him a favour to do this by allowing him to break his contract. Therefore there is no reason we should subsidise him over the next year.
You also talk about loyalty. What loyalty is he showing us by saying I don't want to stay for the last year of a contract that I freely entered into because I've decided I now want to move back to Scotland?
No wonder football finances are in such a mess when we allow a footballer to put his own preferences first and we subsidise them!
Fraser wants to go back to Scotland. It appears we want to let him go but hold his contract for another year.
I never understand why in such circumstances we are obliged to pay his wages (or a large portion of them.)
Why can't we just say, ok we'll cancel your contract and you're free to find yourself another club but we aren't going to pay any of your wages.
If he says no, then say you can stay down here for the next year and train with the youth team or by himself.
Not nice I know but we are doing him a favour by letting him go for nothing and we should make him aware of that.
There’s such a thing as loyalty and it works both ways. We were happy to offer him the contract and we should be prepared to honour it. If something else can be sorted out that’s fine but I think your suggestion is frankly preposterous.
Take your point but still disagree.
He wants to go supposedly for family reasons so he can go back to Scotland with his family. Fair enough. We're doing him a favour to do this by allowing him to break his contract. Therefore there is no reason we should subsidise him over the next year.
You also talk about loyalty. What loyalty is he showing us by saying I don't want to stay for the last year of a contract that I freely entered into because I've decided I now want to move back to Scotland?
No wonder football finances are in such a mess when we allow a footballer to put his own preferences first and we subsidise them!
Do you mean if we can't get rid of him he stays down here in our youth team and we don't pay him?
Fraser wants to go back to Scotland. It appears we want to let him go but hold his contract for another year.
I never understand why in such circumstances we are obliged to pay his wages (or a large portion of them.)
Why can't we just say, ok we'll cancel your contract and you're free to find yourself another club but we aren't going to pay any of your wages.
If he says no, then say you can stay down here for the next year and train with the youth team or by himself.
Not nice I know but we are doing him a favour by letting him go for nothing and we should make him aware of that.
The first time this happened after the Bosman ruling was the Dutch player Winston Bogarde at Chelsea who was on a massive wage at the time (still seem massive to me)of 40k a week and was training with the kids as he was told he had no future with the 1st team as his form was poor. He kept turning down loans and potential transfers as the wages were no where near what he was on.
As I said before let's with the help of his agent get Fraser fixed up in the Championship in Scotland and Cafc pay a percentage of his wages.
If we were only going to get a portion of his wages i'd love us to just let him rot for a year and not play. Give him the chance to cancel his contract or not play for a year.
I personally never thought he was that bad in terms of some of the shit we have had. Could do a job over the season, but if he doesn't want to be here fuck him.
If Fraser REALLY wants to return to Scotland, then it's up to him to accept the necessary pay cut. I don't see why we should be subsidising his wages to facilitate such a move.
Fraser wants to go back to Scotland. It appears we want to let him go but hold his contract for another year.
I never understand why in such circumstances we are obliged to pay his wages (or a large portion of them.)
Why can't we just say, ok we'll cancel your contract and you're free to find yourself another club but we aren't going to pay any of your wages.
If he says no, then say you can stay down here for the next year and train with the youth team or by himself.
Not nice I know but we are doing him a favour by letting him go for nothing and we should make him aware of that.
The first time this happened after the Bosman ruling was the Dutch player Winston Bogarde at Chelsea who was on a massive wage at the time (still seem massive to me)of 40k a week and was training with the kids as he was told he had no future with the 1st team as his form was poor. He kept turning down loans and potential transfers as the wages were no where near what he was on.
As I said before let's with the help of his agent get Fraser fixed up in the Championship in Scotland and Cafc pay a percentage of his wages.
Fraser wants to go back to Scotland. It appears we want to let him go but hold his contract for another year.
I never understand why in such circumstances we are obliged to pay his wages (or a large portion of them.)
Why can't we just say, ok we'll cancel your contract and you're free to find yourself another club but we aren't going to pay any of your wages.
If he says no, then say you can stay down here for the next year and train with the youth team or by himself.
Not nice I know but we are doing him a favour by letting him go for nothing and we should make him aware of that.
There’s such a thing as loyalty and it works both ways. We were happy to offer him the contract and we should be prepared to honour it. If something else can be sorted out that’s fine but I think your suggestion is frankly preposterous.
Take your point but still disagree.
He wants to go supposedly for family reasons so he can go back to Scotland with his family. Fair enough. We're doing him a favour to do this by allowing him to break his contract. Therefore there is no reason we should subsidise him over the next year.
You also talk about loyalty. What loyalty is he showing us by saying I don't want to stay for the last year of a contract that I freely entered into because I've decided I now want to move back to Scotland?
No wonder football finances are in such a mess when we allow a footballer to put his own preferences first and we subsidise them!
Do you mean if we can't get rid of him he stays down here in our youth team and we don't pay him?
Yup, if he is forced to stay down here we obviously have to pay his wages.
But lets say he's on £5k a week. That's £260,000 he will earn off us next year. If he goes back to Scotland, then from what I understand we will still be picking up about 80% of his wages, so £208,000. That means we save £52,000 by letting him go and subsidising his wages. A lot of money to me and you but I suspect not a massive amount to Charlton.
So from now until the end of the transfer window we should be playing hardball with him. If I was in charge of negotiations I'd say Scott, I fully understand you want to go home and be with your family. I respect that and we are not going to stand in your way and ask you to honour the last year of your contract if that is what you really want to do. But I'm afraid we are not prepared to subsidise you to do it. You can either sort yourself out a new contract back in Scotland or stay down here for another year during which time you won't play and will therefore make it more unlikely you will ever got a new offer from elsewhere. Entirely your choice.
And if he stays down here, financially we are not much worse off anyway.
As someone above says, it's then down to him - does he want the money or to be with his family. I wouldn't be surprised if a new 2 or 3 year contract offer from someone in Scotland won the day.
I agree the onus is on Charlton because we said we wanted Fraser to play for us and agreed the wages. It is up to the player to decide whether he is going to make the effort, and specifically in this case conform to the Nathan Jones way of doing things. I thought when Scott signed for Ipswich they had done well, but his time at Ipswich changed my mind, and whilst hopeful when we signed him, I was also doubtful. Hope he settles happily at another club.
Fraser wants to go back to Scotland. It appears we want to let him go but hold his contract for another year.
I never understand why in such circumstances we are obliged to pay his wages (or a large portion of them.)
Why can't we just say, ok we'll cancel your contract and you're free to find yourself another club but we aren't going to pay any of your wages.
If he says no, then say you can stay down here for the next year and train with the youth team or by himself.
Not nice I know but we are doing him a favour by letting him go for nothing and we should make him aware of that.
Isn’t that precisely what the situation is? If both parties agree to terminate the contract without compensation (I.e. paying the remaining portion of his deal) then there’s nothing to stop that happening. If he won’t accept that, then he has to stay with us for another year or until such time that another club makes a bid that both parties find acceptable.
Fraser wants to go back to Scotland. It appears we want to let him go but hold his contract for another year.
I never understand why in such circumstances we are obliged to pay his wages (or a large portion of them.)
Why can't we just say, ok we'll cancel your contract and you're free to find yourself another club but we aren't going to pay any of your wages.
If he says no, then say you can stay down here for the next year and train with the youth team or by himself.
Not nice I know but we are doing him a favour by letting him go for nothing and we should make him aware of that.
The first time this happened after the Bosman ruling was the Dutch player Winston Bogarde at Chelsea who was on a massive wage at the time (still seem massive to me)of 40k a week and was training with the kids as he was told he had no future with the 1st team as his form was poor. He kept turning down loans and potential transfers as the wages were no where near what he was on.
As I said before let's with the help of his agent get Fraser fixed up in the Championship in Scotland and Cafc pay a percentage of his wages.
Similar to Rodwell at Sunderland, he didn’t have a relegation clause in his contract and had about three years left at £70k a week
kept turning down moves then made a statement saying he’d offered to rip up the contract but the owner won’t let him leave, turned out the offer was to get the contract paid in full and be allowed to go sign for someone else
Fraser wants to go back to Scotland. It appears we want to let him go but hold his contract for another year.
I never understand why in such circumstances we are obliged to pay his wages (or a large portion of them.)
Why can't we just say, ok we'll cancel your contract and you're free to find yourself another club but we aren't going to pay any of your wages.
If he says no, then say you can stay down here for the next year and train with the youth team or by himself.
Not nice I know but we are doing him a favour by letting him go for nothing and we should make him aware of that.
There’s such a thing as loyalty and it works both ways. We were happy to offer him the contract and we should be prepared to honour it. If something else can be sorted out that’s fine but I think your suggestion is frankly preposterous.
Take your point but still disagree.
He wants to go supposedly for family reasons so he can go back to Scotland with his family. Fair enough. We're doing him a favour to do this by allowing him to break his contract. Therefore there is no reason we should subsidise him over the next year.
You also talk about loyalty. What loyalty is he showing us by saying I don't want to stay for the last year of a contract that I freely entered into because I've decided I now want to move back to Scotland?
No wonder football finances are in such a mess when we allow a footballer to put his own preferences first and we subsidise them!
Where are we allowing him to break his contract ? So he wants away to be nearer his Scotland home but where exactly is he right now ? Training camp with the rest of the squad. He’s under contract and that’s exactly why the club expect him to be training, ready and able if selected.
Fraser wants to go back to Scotland. It appears we want to let him go but hold his contract for another year.
I never understand why in such circumstances we are obliged to pay his wages (or a large portion of them.)
Why can't we just say, ok we'll cancel your contract and you're free to find yourself another club but we aren't going to pay any of your wages.
If he says no, then say you can stay down here for the next year and train with the youth team or by himself.
Not nice I know but we are doing him a favour by letting him go for nothing and we should make him aware of that.
The first time this happened after the Bosman ruling was the Dutch player Winston Bogarde at Chelsea who was on a massive wage at the time (still seem massive to me)of 40k a week and was training with the kids as he was told he had no future with the 1st team as his form was poor. He kept turning down loans and potential transfers as the wages were no where near what he was on.
As I said before let's with the help of his agent get Fraser fixed up in the Championship in Scotland and Cafc pay a percentage of his wages.
Similar to Rodwell at Sunderland, he didn’t have a relegation clause in his contract and had about three years left at £70k a week
kept turning down moves then made a statement saying he’d offered to rip up the contract but the owner won’t let him leave, turned out the offer was to get the contract paid in full and be allowed to go sign for someone else
Yes, good example is Rodwell along with the Captain of Sunderland Lee Cattermole who was on about 60k a week. Cattermole may've taken a pay cut unless I made that up🤔
Jayden Stockley, wanted to spend the rest of his career in the South. Unfortunately when his stock went south Jayden had to go North to Fleetwood because they were the team that offered him the contract. He has now joined Port Vale. What the Journeyman footballer's wants and what their options are just don't dovetail. Had a great chat with him the day before JJ was sacked in Sussex at a NT property when he was still rated and again he said to me he will stay in the south if he ever leaves CAFC as he was settled with his 3 kids including his new born baby boy in Godstone just off junction 6 of the M25. The best laid plans 🤷🏼♂️
Interesting quotes from Jones on Fraser. Doesn’t sound like he “wants to have a look” as suggested by some, more like he’s still here because we haven’t been able to move him on yet.
NJ couldn't have made it clearer if he'd said "Fraser's making up the numbers here today" And Fraser's 'performance' double underlined it, in red, bold, italicised.
I think he doesn't particularly want to be here but won't get paid the same money anywhere else.
He now has to decide if his wallet is more important than his family who are already in Scotland
And also that of he gets a small pay off now (say £50-100k) and additionally earns 50-60% of his current wages for 2-3 years in Scotland, he's better off overall.
Albeit not by much and as he has the appearance of a workshy fop on the pitch, he may just want to sit about doing fuck all for the next year on double bubble.
Fraser wants to go back to Scotland. It appears we want to let him go but hold his contract for another year.
I never understand why in such circumstances we are obliged to pay his wages (or a large portion of them.)
Why can't we just say, ok we'll cancel your contract and you're free to find yourself another club but we aren't going to pay any of your wages.
If he says no, then say you can stay down here for the next year and train with the youth team or by himself.
Not nice I know but we are doing him a favour by letting him go for nothing and we should make him aware of that.
There’s such a thing as loyalty and it works both ways. We were happy to offer him the contract and we should be prepared to honour it. If something else can be sorted out that’s fine but I think your suggestion is frankly preposterous.
Take your point but still disagree.
He wants to go supposedly for family reasons so he can go back to Scotland with his family. Fair enough. We're doing him a favour to do this by allowing him to break his contract. Therefore there is no reason we should subsidise him over the next year.
You also talk about loyalty. What loyalty is he showing us by saying I don't want to stay for the last year of a contract that I freely entered into because I've decided I now want to move back to Scotland?
No wonder football finances are in such a mess when we allow a footballer to put his own preferences first and we subsidise them!
Where's he said that?
Why is it that when a circumstance changes with a player's performance for the negative, we demand he give his money back. But when it's for the positive, e.g. a youngster breaks through and does great, no one says the club should just voluntarily throw more money at him as part of the current deal?
Why didn't the club scout him better? Why did they offer him above market value? Why did they not realize they were signing a player who might want to be closer to home? Variations of this happened with DJ, Lavelle, Stockley, Kirk, and Aneke. At some point, the issue isn't the players themselves, it's the (now replaced) system that signed them.
The idea that subsidizing loans is what's broken about football finances is ridiculous.
If he wants to go back to Scotland so badly he takes a pay cut, fair enough. If not and he stays, he'll be expected to perform. But the way people treat him is so over the top at this point.
fairly sure he doesn’t want to be here but nobody else wants him so he’s sticking around for the money which he won’t get anywhere else
Swisdom, I really value you and your insights, and I make you right on the second part, but it was the first game of pre-season and he still had an assist!!!!!!!
Fraser wants to go back to Scotland. It appears we want to let him go but hold his contract for another year.
I never understand why in such circumstances we are obliged to pay his wages (or a large portion of them.)
Why can't we just say, ok we'll cancel your contract and you're free to find yourself another club but we aren't going to pay any of your wages.
If he says no, then say you can stay down here for the next year and train with the youth team or by himself.
Not nice I know but we are doing him a favour by letting him go for nothing and we should make him aware of that.
There’s such a thing as loyalty and it works both ways. We were happy to offer him the contract and we should be prepared to honour it. If something else can be sorted out that’s fine but I think your suggestion is frankly preposterous.
Take your point but still disagree.
He wants to go supposedly for family reasons so he can go back to Scotland with his family. Fair enough. We're doing him a favour to do this by allowing him to break his contract. Therefore there is no reason we should subsidise him over the next year.
You also talk about loyalty. What loyalty is he showing us by saying I don't want to stay for the last year of a contract that I freely entered into because I've decided I now want to move back to Scotland?
No wonder football finances are in such a mess when we allow a footballer to put his own preferences first and we subsidise them!
Where's he said that?
"I've got to respect the fact I have another year left on my Charlton contract. I respect the club and what they did for me, but I don't think it's any secret that I would like to move home on a more permanent basis. Whether something can be done or not? Hopefully."
Fraser wants to go back to Scotland. It appears we want to let him go but hold his contract for another year.
I never understand why in such circumstances we are obliged to pay his wages (or a large portion of them.)
Why can't we just say, ok we'll cancel your contract and you're free to find yourself another club but we aren't going to pay any of your wages.
If he says no, then say you can stay down here for the next year and train with the youth team or by himself.
Not nice I know but we are doing him a favour by letting him go for nothing and we should make him aware of that.
There’s such a thing as loyalty and it works both ways. We were happy to offer him the contract and we should be prepared to honour it. If something else can be sorted out that’s fine but I think your suggestion is frankly preposterous.
Take your point but still disagree.
He wants to go supposedly for family reasons so he can go back to Scotland with his family. Fair enough. We're doing him a favour to do this by allowing him to break his contract. Therefore there is no reason we should subsidise him over the next year.
You also talk about loyalty. What loyalty is he showing us by saying I don't want to stay for the last year of a contract that I freely entered into because I've decided I now want to move back to Scotland?
No wonder football finances are in such a mess when we allow a footballer to put his own preferences first and we subsidise them!
Where's he said that?
"I've got to respect the fact I have another year left on my Charlton contract. I respect the club and what they did for me, but I don't think it's any secret that I would like to move home on a more permanent basis. Whether something can be done or not? Hopefully."
Said in the Edinburgh Evening News.
Fair Chunes, good point. And also, he says he will respect the fact he has another year on his contract.
Comments
He now has to decide if his wallet is more important than his family who are already in Scotland
I never understand why in such circumstances we are obliged to pay his wages (or a large portion of them.)
Why can't we just say, ok we'll cancel your contract and you're free to find yourself another club but we aren't going to pay any of your wages.
If he says no, then say you can stay down here for the next year and train with the youth team or by himself.
Not nice I know but we are doing him a favour by letting him go for nothing and we should make him aware of that.
He wants to go supposedly for family reasons so he can go back to Scotland with his family. Fair enough. We're doing him a favour to do this by allowing him to break his contract. Therefore there is no reason we should subsidise him over the next year.
You also talk about loyalty. What loyalty is he showing us by saying I don't want to stay for the last year of a contract that I freely entered into because I've decided I now want to move back to Scotland?
No wonder football finances are in such a mess when we allow a footballer to put his own preferences first and we subsidise them!
The first time this happened after the Bosman ruling was the Dutch player Winston Bogarde at Chelsea who was on a massive wage at the time (still seem massive to me)of 40k a week and was training with the kids as he was told he had no future with the 1st team as his form was poor. He kept turning down loans and potential transfers as the wages were no where near what he was on.
As I said before let's with the help of his agent get Fraser fixed up in the Championship in Scotland and Cafc pay a percentage of his wages.
I personally never thought he was that bad in terms of some of the shit we have had. Could do a job over the season, but if he doesn't want to be here fuck him.
But lets say he's on £5k a week. That's £260,000 he will earn off us next year. If he goes back to Scotland, then from what I understand we will still be picking up about 80% of his wages, so £208,000. That means we save £52,000 by letting him go and subsidising his wages. A lot of money to me and you but I suspect not a massive amount to Charlton.
So from now until the end of the transfer window we should be playing hardball with him. If I was in charge of negotiations I'd say Scott, I fully understand you want to go home and be with your family. I respect that and we are not going to stand in your way and ask you to honour the last year of your contract if that is what you really want to do. But I'm afraid we are not prepared to subsidise you to do it. You can either sort yourself out a new contract back in Scotland or stay down here for another year during which time you won't play and will therefore make it more unlikely you will ever got a new offer from elsewhere. Entirely your choice.
And if he stays down here, financially we are not much worse off anyway.
As someone above says, it's then down to him - does he want the money or to be with his family. I wouldn't be surprised if a new 2 or 3 year contract offer from someone in Scotland won the day.
It is up to the player to decide whether he is going to make the effort, and specifically in this case conform to the Nathan Jones way of doing things.
I thought when Scott signed for Ipswich they had done well, but his time at Ipswich changed my mind, and whilst hopeful when we signed him, I was also doubtful.
Hope he settles happily at another club.
kept turning down moves then made a statement saying he’d offered to rip up the contract but the owner won’t let him leave, turned out the offer was to get the contract paid in full and be allowed to go sign for someone else
Yes, good example is Rodwell along with the Captain of Sunderland Lee Cattermole who was on about 60k a week. Cattermole may've taken a pay cut unless I made that up🤔
What the Journeyman footballer's wants and what their options are just don't dovetail.
Had a great chat with him the day before JJ was sacked in Sussex at a NT property when he was still rated and again he said to me he will stay in the south if he ever leaves CAFC as he was settled with his 3 kids including his new born baby boy in Godstone just off junction 6 of the M25.
The best laid plans 🤷🏼♂️
And Fraser's 'performance' double underlined it, in red, bold, italicised.
But not if they ask Dobbo about his former colleague...
Why is it that when a circumstance changes with a player's performance for the negative, we demand he give his money back. But when it's for the positive, e.g. a youngster breaks through and does great, no one says the club should just voluntarily throw more money at him as part of the current deal?
Why didn't the club scout him better? Why did they offer him above market value? Why did they not realize they were signing a player who might want to be closer to home? Variations of this happened with DJ, Lavelle, Stockley, Kirk, and Aneke. At some point, the issue isn't the players themselves, it's the (now replaced) system that signed them.
The idea that subsidizing loans is what's broken about football finances is ridiculous.
If he wants to go back to Scotland so badly he takes a pay cut, fair enough. If not and he stays, he'll be expected to perform. But the way people treat him is so over the top at this point.
Swisdom, I really value you and your insights, and I make you right on the second part, but it was the first game of pre-season and he still had an assist!!!!!!!
Said in the Edinburgh Evening News.
l thought he was the Scottish Pirlo!!!