Clarification Of The Situation

[Robbored]

This is a good read, apart from the last couple of paragraph's which aren't that relevant.

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Paying-Bristol-City-s-fringe-players-resort/story-13320018-detail/story.html

[Monkeh]

yep read that this morning and it cleared up one of the things I was ranting about pre-season about paying players off,

as a result of the article my stance has changed a little I would start to pay of surplus paying them off if no intrest is shown up until the loan window closes ( think thats december 17th or some where close) as if no intrest is shown then then its unlikely any will be, I think we did the same with styver,

I do find it ironic though that the only player to secure a loan away from the club is a player who "was only in the squad because of daddy"

[CodeRed]

My favourite bit from the EP story is this quote from Keith !!

"What I certainly won't do, is bring in another player who is similar to what I've already got, because of the numbers."

you couldn't make it up

CR

[chinapig]

So finally Keith and Colin are saying the same thing and Keith's hands are not tied after all. It would be interesting to know therefore what happened to the player(s) we were told we almost signed before the window closed that Keith hoped to convert to loans, possibly with a view to a permanent transfer. Still ongoing perhaps?

We also know Keith has arrived as a manager as he has mastered the cliche about not signing players who are no better than those we have, and even manages to express it slightly differently. It makes you wonder who are the managers who look at a player and think "He's as crap as the ones I have, must sign him up".

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

My favourite bit from the EP story is this quote from Keith !!

"What I certainly won't do, is bring in another player who is similar to what I've already got, because of the numbers."

you couldn't make it up

CR

Please explain what is so surprising about that.

[Monkeh]

My favourite bit from the EP story is this quote from Keith !!

"What I certainly won't do, is bring in another player who is similar to what I've already got, because of the numbers."

you couldn't make it up

CR

to be fair Codered we all have been over this more then once I don't think it needs to be discussed again here,

I think Robbo was pointing out about paying up contracts on players deemed surplus to requirement that myself and a few others had asked pre-season and towards the end of the transfer window, that article in the post clears that up,

[beaverface]

yep read that this morning and it cleared up one of the things I was ranting about pre-season about paying players off,

as a result of the article my stance has changed a little I would start to pay of surplus paying them off if no intrest is shown up until the loan window closes ( think thats december 17th or some where close) as if no intrest is shown then then its unlikely any will be, I think we did the same with styver,

I do find it ironic though that the only player to secure a loan away from the club is a player who "was only in the squad because of daddy"

I can't understand why we would do that? Basically we're giving them all the money on their contract just so they can leave? I'd rather keep them i the hope that somebody may buy them in January, take them on loan and partial pay their salaries, or have them as back up players in case of a bout of serious injuries.

[exAtyeoMax]

[Robbored]

My favourite bit from the EP story is this quote from Keith !!

"What I certainly won't do, is bring in another player who is similar to what I've already got, because of the numbers."

you couldn't make it up

CR

Seems perfectly sound to me. What do you find strange about it?

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Seems perfectly sound to me. What do you find strange about it?

Doppelgangers!

[Riaz]

Seems perfectly sound to me. What do you find strange about it?

Kilkenny = Lee Johnson.

[CiderHider]

Kilkenny = Lee Johnson.

Is Kilkenny more defensive, less creative? I don't know, for a little man LJ put his fair share of tackles in.

[Monkeh]

I can't understand why we would do that? Basically we're giving them all the money on their contract just so they can leave? I'd rather keep them i the hope that somebody may buy them in January, take them on loan and partial pay their salaries, or have them as back up players in case of a bout of serious injuries.

if no intrest is shown by the end of the loan window (about 2 weeks before the transfer window reopens) then none will be shown in jan, they've been surplus for 12 months why will some one suddenly show intrest?

[Robbored]

Kilkenny = Lee Johnson.

Despite a similar stature Kilkenny is a all round better player. His main asset is the fact he finds a City player far more regularly than LJ did.

[Monkeh]

That's very debatable

[Oizys]

if no intrest is shown by the end of the loan window (about 2 weeks before the transfer window reopens) then none will be shown in jan, they've been surplus for 12 months why will some one suddenly show intrest?

Someone may suddenly acquire a need for a new player in a certain position due to injury, form, transfer, bust up etc. Sure, it's unlikely due to the wages they're on, but not impossible.

[beaverface]

if no intrest is shown by the end of the loan window (about 2 weeks before the transfer window reopens) then none will be shown in jan, they've been surplus for 12 months why will some one suddenly show intrest?

Still think it's better to keep them on as a squad player, rather than let them walk away with a shed load of money in their pocket.

If we let them go, and we required somebody to come in as an emergency, surely that would cost us even more money again?

[exiledinwatford]

The Club would offer the player a lump sum - a percentage of his contract to go now and become a free agent. Agree - no point in offering 100%.

I can't understand why we would do that? Basically we're giving them all the money on their contract just so they can leave? I'd rather keep them i the hope that somebody may buy them in January, take them on loan and partial pay their salaries, or have them as back up players in case of a bout of serious injuries.

[Robbored]

The Club would offer the player a lump sum - a percentage of his contract to go now and become a free agent. Agree - no point in offering 100%.

Do some simple sums.

A player has 40 weeks left on his contract and is on 5k a week that's 200k so in order to pay him off 200k is the minimum the club would have to pay up. The player would refuse to accept any less because all he has to do is sit tight until his contract expires. The temptation to be a free agent won't be worth much to him because he's unlikely to be on the same wedge at his next club. The possibility of a signing fee might be tempting but once again he'd still get that when he's a free agent in the summer.

If City wanted to pay off several players in one go the club would be looking at over a million to cough up.

[Monkeh]

Do some simple sums.

A player has 40 weeks left on his contract and is on 5k a week that's 200k so in order to pay him off 200k is the minimum the club would have to pay up. The player would refuse to accept any less because all he has to do is sit tight until his contract expires. The temptation to be a free agent won't be worth much to him because he's unlikely to be on the same wedge at his next club. The possibility of a signing fee might be tempting but once again he'd still get that when he's a free agent in the summer.

If City wanted to pay off several players in one go the club would be looking at over a million to cough up.

another option is offer them on a free transfer to clubs and pay a % of the wages until said players contract ran out with us,

So take your 5k a week for example, say Southend came in and said player was interested in joining but they couldn't match what he's on, he verbially agrees to join at the end of the season, we'd pay 50% until his deal runs out with us and Southend pay the other 50% then once his contract is over with us he is payed 2500 for the rest of his contract,

It would reduce our wage bill, I think leeds did it with fowler when it was all going tits up,

Not ideal but would help,

We just need some one to be intrested

[havanatopia]

Do some simple sums.

A player has 40 weeks left on his contract and is on 5k a week that's 200k so in order to pay him off 200k is the minimum the club would have to pay up. The player would refuse to accept any less because all he has to do is sit tight until his contract expires. The temptation to be a free agent won't be worth much to him because he's unlikely to be on the same wedge at his next club. The possibility of a signing fee might be tempting but once again he'd still get that when he's a free agent in the summer.

If City wanted to pay off several players in one go the club would be looking at over a million to cough up.

Could be right but on the other hand if i was going to receive 200k over 40 weeks or, for example, £175k now as a lump sum i would seriously consider the latter. You can do a lot with 175k.. why, if your footie career is careering into the ditch on the way home from barrow gurney you might think time to get into property development, or football boot design or personal trainer to the son of a banana republic president. Thats assuming of course such footballers have the wherewithal to start up on their own in something different...or.. they take the 175k and go play for someone else on 2k a week which is 80k. so, in fact 175k + 80k is 255k or 55k more than sitting on their ass here at BCFC. And... they are playing football. Simples really.

In short, i doubt very much City would offer the total amount.. unless they have no clue how to negotiate.

[Ron]

Kilkenny = Lee Johnson.

Maybe it's just me but I've been impressed with Kilkenny, when we look to play on the break he's usually at the heart of it, although a poor final ball means it usually comes to nothing and no one remembers it.

[Monkeh]

Maybe it's just me but I've been impressed with Kilkenny, when we look to play on the break he's usually at the heart of it, although a poor final ball means it usually comes to nothing and no one remembers it.

I Liked lee so i think its a complement to be compared to him he was always available to take a pass and would be the vocal point (scapegoat) for the crowd as well meaning less pressure on others in turn freeing them up to express theirselfs a bit more,

As for kilkenny I've not seen enough of him to really comment he hasn't added anything new yet but its early days

[Robbored]

In short, i doubt very much City would offer the total amount.. unless they have no clue how to negotiate.

Getting your contract paid up doesn't mean your career is over. What it does probably mean is that your current income won't be matched at your next club as the player is likely to go a smaller club with a smaller wage budget.

That said, its worth remembering that these players have been on good deals for at least two years which at 5k a week is over half a million. Some, if not all will be on considerably more than 5k and you can work out the maths yourself.

[Guest always hoping]

if no intrest is shown by the end of the loan window (about 2 weeks before the transfer window reopens) then none will be shown in jan, they've been surplus for 12 months why will some one suddenly show intrest?

Think you may find that the driver for short trem loans and permanent transfers are different.

A loan may in inappropriate for a club that already has the position in question covered by existing contracted players. even if the loan player is a better option. However as clubs start to think about next year, the option to take someone on permanently to replace the current players becomes more likley. Timing, form and injuries and existing contract durations all play their part in this complex issue.

[Riaz]

Maybe it's just me but I've been impressed with Kilkenny, when we look to play on the break he's usually at the heart of it, although a poor final ball means it usually comes to nothing and no one remembers it.

I agree with you. I was just explaining what I think CodeRed was getting at

[exiledinwatford]

No need for sums - simple or otherwise. The player with a year to go on his contract accepts say nine months as a lump sum and banks it safe in the knowledge that his agent has already lined up another club and the player walks straight into employment. Ever taken voluntary redundancy? Works just the same.

Do some simple sums.

A player has 40 weeks left on his contract and is on 5k a week that's 200k so in order to pay him off 200k is the minimum the club would have to pay up. The player would refuse to accept any less because all he has to do is sit tight until his contract expires. The temptation to be a free agent won't be worth much to him because he's unlikely to be on the same wedge at his next club. The possibility of a signing fee might be tempting but once again he'd still get that when he's a free agent in the summer.

If City wanted to pay off several players in one go the club would be looking at over a million to cough up.