Bradley Orr - Transfer Listed (now Confirmed)

[NickJ]

The question was explicitly about bringing in new players, nothing at all to do with Orr, hence the introducing new contestants into 'Celebrity...' analogy.

It wouldn't even make sense in the context of what he was saying for it to be about Bradley Orr.

Yes, Orr was discussed in the same conversation, but unless you are determind to read deeper into two totally seperate and unconnected pieces of the interview then it seemed perfectly clear that the only reason Orr is not playing is because he has made it clear that he will never sign a new contract at City and will be leaving, so Gary Johnson has decided he'll play people with a long term future instead.

OK, ignore what Johnson said and what he meant, because thats not really the important bit.

Orr has only made it clear he wont sign a new City contract because City have made it clear they wont offer more. If City increased the offer, he would sign.

Without going into the rights and wrongs of that, and whether he is worth more - what about the rest of my reply to Edson, what do you think abou that?

[edson]

Without having GJ in front of me, I don't wish to read too much into his comments.

Lets consider GJ's quote saying that Orr had been offerred a contract in keeping with our other defenders and midfielders. According to GJ the other players involved, signed and Orr did not. Orr wants more.

Consider that situation in the dressing room, players that have signed may think,

A] They have accepted less money than they may have negotiated.

B] Orr must think he's better than they are, demanding a better contract than they have.

Either of those reasons could indeed cause some serious negative debate in the dressing room. GJ made the right decision.

Wages are always a tricky one at a football club, which is why I think it's important to have a clear structure, as we seem to have by offering the defenders and midfielders similar deals.

Whilst Bradley has without doubt been a valuable player for us, I think you're right that the club can't accommodate his demands if they're out of line with what others are earning, as it would cause unrest.

Carle was shipped out because he wasn't justifying being our top earner, so it's fairly clear that GJ appreciates players know what each other earn. And if anyone is earning an amount out of line with their contribution to the team, he feels it's better to move that player on rather than create negativity in the dressing room.

[Rednready]

Wages are always a tricky one at a football club, which is why I think it's important to have a clear structure, as we seem to have by offering the defenders and midfielders similar deals.

Whilst Bradley has without doubt been a valuable player for us, I think you're right that the club can't accommodate his demands if they're out of line with what others are earning, as it would cause unrest.

Carle was shipped out because he wasn't justifying being our top earner, so it's fairly clear that GJ appreciates players know what each other earn. And if anyone is earning an amount out of line with their contribution to the team, he feels it's better to move that player on rather than create negativity in the dressing room.

Then we agree.

On the same topic, I would like to know if there is a major difference between Adebola/John/Trundle and Maynard. It has been mentioned that we are paying a part of Johns wages, but at 32 I would hope that we would not offer him more than our other strikers, if indeed we offer him a contract.

[NickJ]

"He said there's no way he'd sign another contract here."

That's the quote from Gary on the World interview.

Thats what Gary said, but most obviously if Orr was offered enough, he'd stay.

Without going into the merits of whether Orr is worth it, what about the rest of my reply, what's your opinion on that?

Don't you think the club is being foolish, or that perhaps there is more to it?

Chelsea didnt have Lampard training with the youth team when he wouldnt sign a contract.

At the moment, Orr belongs to us, I feel he should be playing. As far as I know, there is no player ill-feeling towards Orr, and as you yourself say, Johnson says he has no problem with Orr. So why cant he play?

[Rednready]

Yes he was asked a question about "Celebrity" but I'm fairly sure the comparison with the dressing room was a reference back to the Orr situation, of which there had been several questions about.

If Orr is contracted to us for another 7 months, which he is, and has done nothing wrong, which he hasnt (recently anyway!), and has been playing well, which he has been, and is respected by his fellow team mates, which so far as I know he is - where is the sense in dropping him out of the squad.

Did that happen to Lampard at Chelsea? Umm, don't think so.

Orr hasnt said he wont sign at all, simply wont sign the curent offer, which is his prerogative.

OK, if City feel they can't increase the offer, fair enough, but given all the above, why drop him?

If the club want to sell him, surely the best chance of maximising a good sale in January is to put him in the shop window of League One, contact every other club and invite them to have a look.

And in the meantime we get the services of a commodity for which we are paying. Or do City have so much money we can afford to keep doing this sort of thing?

It's a situation which makes no sense to me whatsoever.

GJ had to lift his offer to get Trundle, 3 times ? Maynard we had to go back to Crewe and raise our offer. Wages may be another matter. Consider though that GJ drew a line in the sand with Keogh. He was offerred a contract, he wanted better and GJ did not budge, Keogh was not selected and left. Having set that standard for the squad to see, he can hardly change his rules the following season for Orr. There were plenty of posters who thought that Keogh was better than Orr, but thats another story.In any event GJ is showing consistant fiscal control with wages and so he should.It disturbs me that players are aware of our 2 million loss last season, yet still want more money.

[samo]

OK, ignore what Johnson said and what he meant, because thats not really the important bit.

What he said is what he said; you can imply all you want but when the evidence contradicts your supposition don't hide behind tautology.

The really 'important bit' is that you basically put words in Gary Johnson's mouth then damned him with them.

He said one thing, you made up the rest. Sorry, but that is the fact of the matter.

Orr has only made it clear he wont sign a new City contract because City have made it clear they wont offer more. If City increased the offer, he would sign.

You know this how? As Edson responded; Gary said "Bradley has said he'll not be signing another contract at this club." Nothing about increasing the offer.

One again, you are creating things to back up your position, not actually looking at the bare facts.

And anyway; IF it was about raising the offer then maybe Orr was being unreasonable in his demands, in which case we are right to deny him.

Without going into the rights and wrongs of that, and whether he is worth more - what about the rest of my reply to Edson, what do you think abou that?

Yes he was asked a question about "Celebrity" but I'm fairly sure the comparison with the dressing room was a reference back to the Orr situation, of which there had been several questions about.

See above

If Orr is contracted to us for another 7 months, which he is, and has done nothing wrong, which he hasnt (recently anyway!), and has been playing well, which he has been, and is respected by his fellow team mates, which so far as I know he is - where is the sense in dropping him out of the squad.

Explained by Gary Johnson, and reiterated by myself above.

Even if Gary trusts him and he says he'll fight his heart out he is more open to attack if he plays badly. He is commodity now, any injury reduces his value and likelihood of a move.

As for his form that is a matter for debate, not a stone cold fact. No one really complained when he was left out at Watford.

Did that happen to Lampard at Chelsea? Umm, don't think so.

Bradley Orr is not Frank Lampard and we are not Chelsea. That situation existed due to uncertainties over the manager's situation and the clubs ambitions. Both situations were answered this summer.

Plus Lampard had more than 8-7 months left, he had over a year to go, and was far far more important to Chelsea than Orr was to us.

Very odd example to use IMHO.

Orr hasnt said he wont sign at all, simply wont sign the curent offer, which is his prerogative.

Edson has covered this; I have done the same again above. both of us have used quotes and facts, you have not.

OK, if City feel they can't increase the offer, fair enough, but given all the above, why drop him?

Answered above; he is now a commodity to us.

Plus GJ said he may play again if the situation (i.e. injurys/suspentions) dictates.

As he said; "you never say never, it's just unlikely".

If the club want to sell him, surely the best chance of maximising a good sale in January is to put him in the shop window of League One, contact every other club and invite them to have a look.

Not a terrible idea, but what if he didn't want to move on loan to league one or no one in league one wanted him (due to wages or whatever)?

And let's say he's holding out for a move to Watford or elsewhere in the Championship; what if he went to Cheltenham for a month, buggered his knee then ruined his move? We'd look foolish then and he'd be unhappy.

And in the meantime we get the services of a commodity for which we are paying. Or do City have so much money we can afford to keep doing this sort of thing?

We probably don't, but then it also makes sense not to bend to whatever wage requests they want because we likely can't afford that either, don't you think?

And as for the "commodity" thing; Brian Wilson is also our "commodity" but then he's not going to be having to pass a medical in 30 days or so in order for us to profit, so we could always use him instead.

It's risk management and the club are simply tying to make the best of it, nothing else are far as I can see.

It's a situation which makes no sense to me whatsoever.

I think it makes perfect sense actually, unless you really want it not to for some reason.

[NickJ]

GJ had to lift his offer to get Trundle, 3 times ? Maynard we had to go back to Crewe and raise our offer. Wages may be another matter. Consider though that GJ drew a line in the sand with Keogh. He was offerred a contract, he wanted better and GJ did not budge, Keogh was not selected and left. Having set that standard for the squad to see, he can hardly change his rules the following season for Orr. There were plenty of posters who thought that Keogh was better than Orr, but thats another story.In any event GJ is showing consistant fiscal control with wages and so he should.It disturbs me that players are aware of our 2 million loss last season, yet still want more money.

But again, thats not what I am saying.

What I am asking is, for what reason is Orr not playing now, when nobody has any problem with him, and he is still contracted to us for 7 months? And therfore still being paid lower wages.

Or are we saying that as a matter of policy, every time a contract is one year away from renewal, if the player refuses to sign an extended contract, we don't play him for the remainder of his contract?

Because that is just barmy.

[NickJ]

I think it makes perfect sense actually, unless you really want it not to for some reason.

I'm sorry but it doesnt make sense because it doesnt make sense, not because I don't want it to.

Footballer contract negotiations are taking place all of the time all over the country, that doesnt normally result in a player being left out several months ahead of the actual contract date.

Everybody keeps quoting what Gary has said Bradley has said, not what Orr has said himself.

Gary is quoting Orr as saying he wont sign a contract. The reason for that is Orr has said he doesnt like the contract, and the club has said it wont improve it. But nevertheless IF City improved the contract enough Orr WOULD sign.

I'm not saying the club arent right to refuse to give in to Orr, simply that if he is considered by Johnson to be the best right back we have - which on the basis of team selections over the past 2 years is obviously the case - then Orr should play until he goes.

[Rednready]

But again, thats not what I am saying.

What I am asking is, for what reason is Orr not playing now, when nobody has any problem with him, and he is still contracted to us for 7 months? And therfore still being paid lower wages.

Or are we saying that as a matter of policy, every time a contract is one year away from renewal, if the player refuses to sign an extended contract, we don't play him for the remainder of his contract?

Because that is just barmy.

I see your point and would suggest that after Keogh and now Orr, it is a matter of policy. Orr can leave on a free at the end of the season where as we may get a fee in January. It would appear that Orr has a move well orchastrated, otherwise 2009 will be a quiet start for him.

[Nibor]

I'm sorry but it doesnt make sense because it doesnt make sense, not because I don't want it to.

Footballer contract negotiations are taking place all of the time all over the country, that doesnt normally result in a player being left out several months ahead of the actual contract date.

Everybody keeps quoting what Gary has said Bradley has said, not what Orr has said himself.

Gary is quoting Orr as saying he wont sign a contract. The reason for that is Orr has said he doesnt like the contract, and the club has said it wont improve it. But nevertheless IF City improved the contract enough Orr WOULD sign.

I'm not saying the club arent right to refuse to give in to Orr, simply that if he is considered by Johnson to be the best right back we have - which on the basis of team selections over the past 2 years is obviously the case - then Orr should play until he goes.

When a club offers a contract and a player decides not to sign it and try and get a better deal elsewhere it's normal to look to sell them, and it's fairly usual not to select the player after that. After all, why pick a player who has decided not to stay over one who has?

According to the club Orr's contract offer was similar money to the other players who did sign so they haven't done anything wrong and are right to hold their ground. Orr's perfectly entitled to look elsewhere, he doesn't owe us anything, but he made his decision knowing full well the consequences.

I don't find anything strange about this situation, it's happened many times before at different clubs.

[Robbored]

I'm not saying the club arent right to refuse to give in to Orr, simply that if he is considered by Johnson to be the best right back we have - which on the basis of team selections over the past 2 years is obviously the case - then Orr should play until he goes.

Regardless of whether Orr's 'head is in the right place' as Johnson put it?

I can see both sides to the debate. Orr feels he's worth more dosh and for City to meet his demands would mean Orr getting more than others players. That could easily open the door for other players to make similar demands and also cause resentment amongst the squad if their demands aren't met.

Refusing to play Orr is exactly the same stance that Johnson took with Keogh in similar circumstances and from a managerial point of view its a tactic that leaves players knowing exactly how the land lies.

It would be no surprise to see Orr ending up like Keogh. Playing a league lower and on less money than he was at City. Of the two Keogh was the more versatile player and the more gifted.

[cheese]

The reason for that is Orr has said he doesnt like the contract, and the club has said it wont improve it. But nevertheless IF City improved the contract enough Orr WOULD sign.

I must've missed that - can you give me the link where that's stated? Thanks.

[Jumpers4Goalposts]

Plymouth fans seem to think he's heading down there. He was at Gnome park last week but guess they couldn't agree terms before the closure of the 'window'.

Could be rubbish though

[screech]

I'm sorry but it doesnt make sense because it doesnt make sense, not because I don't want it to.

Footballer contract negotiations are taking place all of the time all over the country, that doesnt normally result in a player being left out several months ahead of the actual contract date.

Everybody keeps quoting what Gary has said Bradley has said, not what Orr has said himself.

Gary is quoting Orr as saying he wont sign a contract. The reason for that is Orr has said he doesnt like the contract, and the club has said it wont improve it. But nevertheless IF City improved the contract enough Orr WOULD sign.

I'm not saying the club arent right to refuse to give in to Orr, simply that if he is considered by Johnson to be the best right back we have - which on the basis of team selections over the past 2 years is obviously the case - then Orr should play until he goes.

Nick, Have you ever given your notice in at work?

I have, 4 times, each time I have given a months notice of my intention to leave my post and each time I have been working the last month on about 10% effort.

It's not rocket science, when you know you are leaving you stop trying, regardless of what you tell the boss.

That is why he wont play again barring a monumental injury crisis.

[NickJ]

I must've missed that - can you give me the link where that's stated? Thanks.

Aren't you the smart one. You forgot the smug smilie.

I said:

IF City improved the contract enough Orr WOULD sign.

No link. Havent even heard Orr say it.

Its just ###### common sense.

[cheese]

Aren't you the smart one. You forgot the smug smilie.

I said:

IF City improved the contract enough Orr WOULD sign.

No link. Havent even heard Orr say it.

Its just ###### common sense.

So you're making something up to support your point then. OK.

[NickJ]

Nick, Have you ever given your notice in at work?

Nobody would employ me, thats why I have my own business!!

OK, see what you are saying, and rednready and Nibor too.

However..

I personally think Orr wouldnt be so daft to give less than 100% effort.

There is a difference to the point you make, because whereas when you give your notice in, you already have another job to go to and can do bugger all in private, in Orr's case, he is in the shop window and needs to sell himself to another club. Big difference.

[NickJ]

So you're making something up to support your point then. OK.

More of a hypotheses really.

A testable statement of presumed relationships between two or more concepts.

My mistake I suppose is stating it as fact, when I should realise that pedantic so and sos looking for an argument but with little to contribute, will pick up on that due to an inability to construct a coherent paragraph of interest.

Anyway, my hypotheses is that if City offered enough money (concept one), Orr would sign (concept two).

Now, my evidence for this is based on my observation of human behaviour over many years, albeit not scientifically tested.

I fear you may be taking me away from the original point.

[cheese]

More of a hypotheses really.

A testable statement of presumed relationships between two or more concepts.

My mistake I suppose is stating it as fact, when I should realise that pedantic so and sos looking for an argument but with little to contribute, will pick up on that due to an inability to construct a coherent paragraph of interest.

Anyway, my hypotheses is that if City offered enough money (concept one), Orr would sign (concept two).

Now, my evidence for this is based on my observation of human behaviour over many years, albeit not scientifically tested.

I fear you may be taking me away from the original point.

That's fine - but I get tired of people on here presenting opinion and hypothesis as fact - you can't debate with that. You may well be right about offering enough money - but, what would be enough and how would that affect the other players who have already accepted the contracts offered? It's also perectly reasonable to assume that no amount of money would be enough. Once someone has made up their mind to leave their mindset has been set - and even when they've accepted a more generous offer, their head has been turned and it's only a matter of time. Their output is never the same again.

[bully]

Nick, Have you ever given your notice in at work?

I have, 4 times, each time I have given a months notice of my intention to leave my post and each time I have been working the last month on about 10% effort.

It's not rocket science, when you know you are leaving you stop trying, regardless of what you tell the boss.

That is why he wont play again barring a monumental injury crisis.

I take the opposite view - if picked he would be putting himself in the shop window so would have more to play for than those who are in the team regardless of form.

Johnson being petulant i'm afraid.

[cheese]

I take the opposite view - if picked he would be putting himself in the shop window so would have more to play for than those who are in the team regardless of form.

Johnson being petulant i'm afraid.

I don't think GJ is being unreasonable at all.

[screech]

I take the opposite view - if picked he would be putting himself in the shop window so would have more to play for than those who are in the team regardless of form.

Johnson being petulant i'm afraid.

So what if Orr has another club lined up, I don' t know if he does or not, but if he has been targetted and has been told Wolves are interested for instance, would you see a fully committed Bradley ORR out on the pitch.

The fact is Gary Johnson has to make a decision on the what if's too, he can't take a risk with a player who has decided his future is elsewhere.

I expect his agent has already told him there are clubs interested in and to sit tight and see what January brings. I would hazard a guess that we pay pretty much an average wage for the size of our club for right backs, so he would have to be pretty confident that a top championship club is after him.

[john shaws hair]

i don't think orr will feature again gjs put his foot down and apparently hes training with the academy so i think that draws a line under the whole issue

[WhistleHappy]

I don't think GJ is being unreasonable at all.

Neither do I.

Thats the trouble with Orr's ..... always trying to screw you for more money, specially if you want 'em to keep it tight in and around the penalty box...

[miketh2nd]

Aren't you the smart one. You forgot the smug smilie.

I said:

IF City improved the contract enough Orr WOULD sign.

No link. Havent even heard Orr say it.

Its just ###### common sense.

Yet if he wants so much why should we give into his greed over other players? Lets be honest if we going to this whole imagine your own job. Maybe he has enjoyed his stay but wants to havea new challenge or possibly just the fact he wants to move back up to liverpool where he was born and have new family by his family. It's all a guessing game Orr has been a good servant to the club but he wants to move on this is football. At least he's not like other players who say they want out inbetween a contract.

[john shaws hair]

its not about anything other than money the best scenario i can give you is say you worked for said company for x amount of years and were on x amount of pounds a colleague of yours was on double your money yet didnt preform as well or as regularly youd kind of think if they can pay him that why not me make of that what you will but it should point you i the right direction

[Chivs]

"He said there's no way he'd sign another contract here."

That's the quote from Gary on the World interview.

I thought (though I'm only quoting what people have said third-hand) that Johnson said that Orr wanted more money now he has a young family.

Why would Orr say "there's no way he'd sign another contract here"? Surely if we offered him more money he'd prefer to play where his family is settled than move on?

That suggests there's more to this than just monetary terms?

[CiderSomerset]

That suggests there's more to this than just monetary terms?

Maybe there is, people on here seem to be quoting what Gary Johnson has said, but when do we get to hear Bradley's side of things??

Maybe he felt he was worth as much as other members of the squad getting paid higher than him? He had a fantastic season last season and at the end of the day he is only doing what anybody else would do, try to look after himself and his family financially.. We wont know until he speaks out, if he ever does...

I think Gary Johnson is probably a bit of a stubborn bugger when he comes to contract negotiations (fair play to him, he needs to control the purse strings) and this may have blown up because of that...