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

Antman

Taylor, Bailey Wright and O Dowda re-sign

Recommended Posts

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?

Edited by Antman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


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

 

 

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....and if the club DIDN't negotiate contracts with clauses like this, and if they DIDN'T activate these clauses, there would be hell to pay on here wouldn't there ? Smart move all round by the club as far as I can see it.

  • Like 16

Share this post


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

Share this post


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.

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


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 2

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who was it on here who said Bailey Wright had fallen out with the club, would never play again and would leave in January?

More BS

  • Like 2

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

 

Share this post


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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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 3

Share this post


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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


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. 

 

 

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

It literally blows my mind how some people on here can turn any story into a negative.

*Figuratively.

(Sorry!)

 

Edited by Stortz
  • Like 2

Share this post


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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, downendcity said:

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?

Signed transfer request? That’s a bit 90’s.

Players only do that when a club are refusing to accept bids and want to put pressure on a club publicly. It quickly burns bridges and the fans do not like it. You better know you’ve got a bid coming in!

The way I see it, the club want him to stay. They’ve offered him a deal. It’s not been signed. The club trigger the extension so we can get a fair price for him, should a bid come in and the player want to leave. We know the club sells players when they get a reasonable bid, we’ve not held players back.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours 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.

Surely that's a good thing then

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RedDave said:

Who was it on here who said Bailey Wright had fallen out with the club, would never play again and would leave in January?

More BS

He still could.

Unlikely, but if someone came in with the right offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours 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 obvious!

There's very little else to criticise at present!

:innocent06:

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every one of those players would have been delighted with the extension option otherwise they wouldn't have been advised by their agents to sign up.

Whether any of them want away is irrelevant because they can still do that, although it will now cost a buyer more to secure their signature, or the player will get less for putting pen to paper.

In any event, is anyone aware of a queue of clubs waiting to snap any of these chaps ? Surely some murmurs in the press somewhere ?

Bailey might be bitter about playing out of position and then ultimately playing through injury costing him a probable world cup place, but would another top end Champ club sniff around at present ? Likewise Matty, who has just gotten over injury and is looking great off the bench but would surely be a hell of a punt for someone to offer up enough to persuade the club to part with him right now when we need him. Callum maybe different because possibly international exposure and mixing with the odd Prem player might turn his head, but if he's as good as many say, then the sort of club who might want him will have ti pay the going rate.

Well done City and good luck to all the three players who add value to our squad.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Loon plage said:

Every one of those players would have been delighted with the extension option otherwise they wouldn't have been advised by their agents to sign up.

Whether any of them want away is irrelevant because they can still do that, although it will now cost a buyer more to secure their signature, or the player will get less for putting pen to paper.

In any event, is anyone aware of a queue of clubs waiting to snap any of these chaps ? Surely some murmurs in the press somewhere ?

Bailey might be bitter about playing out of position and then ultimately playing through injury costing him a probable world cup place, but would another top end Champ club sniff around at present ? Likewise Matty, who has just gotten over injury and is looking great off the bench but would surely be a hell of a punt for someone to offer up enough to persuade the club to part with him right now when we need him. Callum maybe different because possibly international exposure and mixing with the odd Prem player might turn his head, but if he's as good as many say, then the sort of club who might want him will have ti pay the going rate.

Well done City and good luck to all the three players who add value to our squad.

Just because they were happy with the option when they signed the original contract, doesn't mean they are happy now.

I can particularly imagine O'Dowda would rather be out of contract this summer and get a nice fat signing on fee from someone else. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RedDave said:

Just because they were happy with the option when they signed the original contract, doesn't mean they are happy now.

I can particularly imagine O'Dowda would rather be out of contract this summer and get a nice fat signing on fee from someone else. 

You could say that about any player at Championship or below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RedDave said:

Just because they were happy with the option when they signed the original contract, doesn't mean they are happy now.

I can particularly imagine O'Dowda would rather be out of contract this summer and get a nice fat signing on fee from someone else. 

Cuts both ways doesn't it. Engvall was shit but was happy to have the contract he signed whilst he moped about homesick or played back home with the club paying the bulk of his wages. Any one of those players could have a career ending injury in training on Monday and they would be happy for the extension.

As for COD we have no idea what the issue is do we, and a fat signing on fee from someone else shouldn't interest any City fan.

Share this post


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

You could say that about any player at Championship or below.

Disagree.  There are some players who wont want their contract to run out as they don't know if they will get another one.  Particularly in league one and two.

I specified O'Dowda for obvious reasons.  Interest from bigger clubs than us, more money undoubtedly on offer and if the extension hadn't been put in he could probably stand to make £500k-£1m this summer personally. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Loon plage said:

As for COD we have no idea what the issue is do we, and a fat signing on fee from someone else shouldn't interest any City fan.

I don't understand what you mean by this.  I think it is safe to assume that O'Dowda is hankering for a move and thus, would prefer to not have extended his deal due to the increased signing on fee he would receive if he was a free agent.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Disagree.  There are some players who wont want their contract to run out as they don't know if they will get another one.  Particularly in league one and two.

I specified O'Dowda for obvious reasons.  Interest from bigger clubs than us, more money undoubtedly on offer and if the extension hadn't been put in he could probably stand to make £500k-£1m this summer personally. 

Exactly, all three will have varying views NOW of whether they signed the right deal THEN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Exactly, all three will have varying views NOW of whether they signed the right deal THEN.

Yep.  Shouldn't be too tricky to understand, should it! 

I assume there are those that think the player has to agree to this extension 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, RedDave said:

I don't understand what you mean by this.  I think it is safe to assume that O'Dowda is hankering for a move and thus, would prefer to not have extended his deal due to the increased signing on fee he would receive if he was a free agent.  

What I mean is that Callum missing out on a fat signing on fee shouldn't be of any concern to a City fan. What he may or may not be hankering for doesn't matter because he and the club are tied into a contract they both freely signed up to. City is a selling club if the price is right, so he will get his wishes, if a club meets City's valuation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Loon plage said:

What I mean is that Callum missing out on a fat signing on fee shouldn't be of any concern to a City fan. What he may or may not be hankering for doesn't matter because he and the club are tied into a contract they both freely signed up to. City is a selling club if the price is right, so he will get his wishes, if a club meets City's valuation.

I didn't say  I was concerned by it.  

And I was making the point that O'Dowda might now wish he hadn't agreed to that extension.  Hope that's okay to point that out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, RedDave said:

Disagree.  There are some players who wont want their contract to run out as they don't know if they will get another one.  Particularly in league one and two.

I specified O'Dowda for obvious reasons.  Interest from bigger clubs than us, more money undoubtedly on offer and if the extension hadn't been put in he could probably stand to make £500k-£1m this summer personally. 

Then why did he sign a contract with an extension clause ?  Was happy enough at the time of signing.

7 minutes ago, RedDave said:

I didn't say  I was concerned by it.  

And I was making the point that O'Dowda might now wish he hadn't agreed to that extension.  Hope that's okay to point that out

We live by our mistakes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, HanwellRed said:

....and if the club DIDN't negotiate contracts with clauses like this, and if they DIDN'T activate these clauses, there would be hell to pay on here wouldn't there ? Smart move all round by the club as far as I can see it.

Yep, especially when they trot off on a free!! 

Damned if they do, damned if they don't are City. The other interesting point here is the whole 'the club did it without the players consent'. People moan about 'player power' yet when the club shows who's in charge it's a negative........!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BigTone said:

Then why did he sign a contract with an extension clause ?  Was happy enough at the time of signing.

We live by our mistakes

Hindsight is wonderful 

Share this post


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

Then why did he sign a contract with an extension clause ?  Was happy enough at the time of signing.

Playing devil’s advocate - so we’re City happy.

Both Callum and City have realised that ultimately the deal they both originally agreed to is out of date, but they cannot agree on new terms. Both parties have been pushing the deal from their respective angles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, RedDave said:

Hindsight is wonderful 

Indeed it is

Share this post


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...