Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

Taylor, Bailey Wright and O Dowda re-sign


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Antman said:

all 3 signed until June 2020

good/interesting/surprising news

 

assume the players have agreed as i imagine the club cant just exercise its option really without a players consent?

Antman, you are the first to be duped. These fellas have signed nothing and agreed nothing. This is merely the club activating their (one-sided) option to extend these players contracts. This is often due to them not being able to agree new contracts/terms and tends to be indicative of negotiation inertia.

In COD's case, it enables them to add a few million to his value, thinking this will help get them through the January window. It changes nothing. COD will be gone in the summer.

I got all excited at 5pm today. What a bloody anti-climax!!!

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jack Bailey said:

Antman, you are the first to be duped. These fellas have signed nothing and agreed nothing. This is merely the club activating their (one-sided) option to extend these players contracts. This is often due to them not being able to agree new contracts/terms and tends to be indicative of negotiation inertia.

In COD's case, it enables them to add a few million to his value, thinking this will help get them through the January window. It changes nothing. COD will be gone in the summer.

I got all excited at 5pm today. What a bloody anti-climax!!!

That’s a very cynical take JB.

All three players signed the original contract knowing full well that there a clause enabling the club to extend their contracts if they wanted - and that’s exactly what happened. 

Having that clause in the contract works both ways - it encourages the player to perform well to earn the extension and it allows the club to off load them once the contract is up if they’ve become surplus to requirements. Plus it ties the player down thereby increasing their value - pertinent in CoD case.

Its normal practice with contracts theses days

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Juan Domingo Roldan said:

Guarantees nothing other than a stronger hand.

Strange statement - discounting the salient point of the action.

As for me I will no longer drive my car as it guarantees nothing than reaching my desired destination.

And, I will no longer go to work as it guarantees nothing but my income source.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Flames 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Juan Domingo Roldan said:

JB isn't being cynical at all - he's just hit the nail square on the head.

Club has simply pressed the safety valve with or without consent as per original contract.

Guarantees nothing other than a stronger hand.

All three players signed their contracts and must have been quite aware of the clauses.

The club triggering those clauses is a compliment to the three players.

I can’t see what the criticism is all about.

Its a prudent move for all concerned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Robbored said:

All three players signed their contracts and must have been quite aware of the clauses.

The club triggering those clauses is a compliment to the three players.

I can’t see what the criticism is all about.

Its a prudent move for all concerned.

Plus no need for photos or interviews as no negotiating was/is needed. Probably heard the news rumbling about COD and thought now was best to put it in public domain.

 

I remember seeing a lot of interviews with LJ over the years where he mentions we have taken up options to extend contracts that haven’t been publicised until the interview some months later.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Neo said:

Strange statement - discounting the salient point of the action.

As for me I will no longer drive my car as it guarantees nothing than reaching my desired destination.

And, I will no longer go to work as it guarantees nothing but my income source.

We're doomed Captain Mainwaring. Doomed. 😂😂😂

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Robbored said:

All three players signed their contracts and must have been quite aware of the clauses.

The club triggering those clauses is a compliment to the three players.

I can’t see what the criticism is all about.

Its a prudent move for all concerned.

It’s not a prudent move for the player at this point in time.  It’s likely to increase the fee a club would need to pay to secure their services.

Having said that, not all “options” are totally weighted in the club’s favour.

The criticism (if that’s the right word) is that in O’Dowda’s case particularly, City want to tie him down, but haven’t been able to.  Only right that people question why that is.

  • Hmmm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

It’s not a prudent move for the player at this point in time.  It’s likely to increase the fee a club would need to pay to secure their services.

Having said that, not all “options” are totally weighted in the club’s favour.

The criticism (if that’s the right word) is that in O’Dowda’s case particularly, City want to tie him down, but haven’t been able to.  Only right that people question why that is.

He is playing regularly and I believe LJ they all have a role in the first team for the rest of the season. In the summer all bets are off for every player.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jack Bailey said:

Antman, you are the first to be duped. These fellas have signed nothing and agreed nothing. This is merely the club activating their (one-sided) option to extend these players contracts. This is often due to them not being able to agree new contracts/terms and tends to be indicative of negotiation inertia.

In COD's case, it enables them to add a few million to his value, thinking this will help get them through the January window. It changes nothing. COD will be gone in the summer.

I got all excited at 5pm today. What a bloody anti-climax!!!

The players agreed to the year option when they signed. I don't even think offering Taylor or Wright new improved deals would be wise right at this moment. They now have a year and a half left which is plenty of time. O'Dowda maybe still ongoing with the negotiations. Maybe he wants to move on. Who knows. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Davefevs said:

It’s not a prudent move for the player at this point in time.  It’s likely to increase the fee a club would need to pay to secure their services.

Having said that, not all “options” are totally weighted in the club’s favour.

The criticism (if that’s the right word) is that in O’Dowda’s case particularly, City want to tie him down, but haven’t been able to.  Only right that people question why that is.

Sport and money, always what it comes to. At least our way of working with options at least gives us more negotiating time. In the NFL COD would be franchise tagged if we were that desperate to keep him and keep negotiating, but that would cost a predetermined amount (usually a lot higher than what you’d be looking to pay) and there’s still no guarantee you don’t lose the player at the end of that year. At least this won’t be costly to the club, and come the summer if he wants out, our hand is still strong from a selling point of view.

All good business as far as I can see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Robbored said:

That’s a very cynical take JB.

All three players signed the original contract knowing full well that there a clause enabling the club to extend their contracts if they wanted - and that’s exactly what happened. 

Having that clause in the contract works both ways - it encourages the player to perform well to earn the extension and it allows the club to off load them once the contract is up if they’ve become surplus to requirements. Plus it ties the player down thereby increasing their value - pertinent in CoD case.

Its normal practice with contracts theses days

 

 

Not cynical at all Robbored, just stating facts.

The press release bears the images of the three players with their signatures on each. This implies that they have signed/committed. The less informed are under the impression that they have signed new deals. This couldn't be any further from reality. As you say, the inclusion of option years is fairly standard stuff and the club has every right to activate when they cant nail down a new contract , a player wants out or they are a little undecided. You can be sure that these players would not have consented but that's irrelevant. Juan DR is right, all this does is slightly strengthen the clubs hand and delay the inevitable.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Davefevs said:

It’s not a prudent move for the player at this point in time.  It’s likely to increase the fee a club would need to pay to secure their services.

Having said that, not all “options” are totally weighted in the club’s favour.

The criticism (if that’s the right word) is that in O’Dowda’s case particularly, City want to tie him down, but haven’t been able to.  Only right that people question why that is.

Of course City wanted to tie  CoD down particularly with the rumours about Leeds being interested so the contract clause was triggered - no need to offer him or the other’s new deals yet. 

Any club would have done the same thing.

Saying the club weren’t able to tie him down is incorrect - they simply triggered the extension clause.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Jack Bailey said:

Not cynical at all Robbored, just stating facts.

The press release bears the images of the three players with their signatures on each. This implies that they have signed/committed. The less informed are under the impression that they have signed new deals. This couldn't be any further from reality. As you say, the inclusion of option years is fairly standard stuff and the club has every right to activate when they cant nail down a new contract , a player wants out or they are a little undecided. You can be sure that these players would not have consented but that's irrelevant. Juan DR is right, all this does is slightly strengthen the clubs hand and delay the inevitable.

 

The players definitely consented because they signed the original deal

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jack Bailey said:

Not cynical at all Robbored, just stating facts.

 As you say, the inclusion of option years is fairly standard stuff and the club has every right to activate when they cant nail down a new contract , a player wants out or they are a little undecided. You can be sure that these players would not have consented but that's irrelevant. Juan DR is right, all this does is slightly strengthen the clubs hand and delay the inevitable.

The fact you omitted to mention is that all three signed their contracts knowing full well what was in it in doing so consented to the extension clause.

With City doing well I daresay all three were delighted when they were informed of the contract extension. No need to offer a new deal just yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely this is just a matter of sound business management. I suspect the club have a deadline, by which they have to exercise their option to take up the extra year.

Regardless of the state of any further contract negotiations, positive or negative, it protects the club and protects the value of the players at this stage, while keeping them at the club and available for longer.

Particularly In the case of COD, who has the highest value of these three, it would have been very poor business to have not taken the option up.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget about them resigning, think of it like they were new players arriving. Would you think they could add to the team? I know this is difficult as you aren’t dealing with money as such, but think what we would have to pay if we purchased them now, say from another Championship team

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, formerly known as ivan said:

Players were happy to agree the clause when they were offered the thousands of pounds a week contracts. Wouldn’t feel too bad for them!

I was about to say.  My heart bleeds.  Imagine getting a guaranteed extra year, being paid thousands and thousands a week to play for this glorious club. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that always amazes me - what is it about football fans' psychology with regards to some players leaving?

Fans who'd support City through thick and thin - defend the club against any other fan of any other club in the country.

Yet when it comes to ex-players, players leaving, players wanting to leave - the default is to side with the player in 90% of cases.

Always this presumption that a good player leaving is the club's fault and then we go on to idolise players who've left, Flint, Freeman, Ayling recently for example, without knowing for sure if they pushed for the move or not. Doesn't matter, they were 'pushed out' by the club somehow or other.

Now with COD - the assumption is it's somehow the clubs fault again the player might want out - and when the club protects it's best interest (extending his deal) there is further suspicion, poor old Callum, will be harder for him to move now. What? Bullshit. The player is an asset, this is ultimately a business. We won't progress and make money playing nicey nicey and letting players leave for half their value because they're at the end of their contracts.

If he won't sign a new deal fine. If he is worth a big bid, it will come in, he will go. Fine. But in the meantime, we've protected BCFC's interests. How could any City fan question that?

  • Like 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

Many are implying that because COD hasn't agreed to and/or signed an extension to his contract this is a bad thing and he wants away.

If he wants away then he only has to give the club a signed a transfer request and I am sure they will consider reasonable bids, to avoid him leaving for nothing at the end of his contract!

When was the last time a player requested a contract, because it's not all about money is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...