Baldock To Charlton

[glynriley]

The reason was given in the post you quoted. I believe it was to give relegated teams a bit of leeway when they signed long term contracts with players knowing how difficult it can be to shift those sorts of players. There's. bit if confusion as to whether its 3 or 4 year contracts but I understand its the former.

Oh yeah , how did I miss that ?!!!!

Steven Davies signed a 3 year contract as well , presume he in the same position as Baldock and Cunningham?

Edit : And Liam Kelly ??

[Bar BS3]

Oh yeah , how did I miss that ?!!!!

Steven Davies signed a 3 year contract as well , presume he in the same position as Baldock and Cunningham?

I'm not going to start a thread about this, but I was told over the weekend by a personal friend of his, that Cunningham has every intention of staying with us and only if the club accept a bid and ask him to move on, will he contemplate leaving us due to relegation. Apparently he "Feels that those who took the club down, should try and take them back up again". Personally i think that is great news and refreshing to hear. I didn't think that we had much chance of him staying before hearing this.

So basically, he is and wants to stay as long as the club don't receivwe an offer that they can't refuse!

[glynriley]

I'm not going to start a thread about this, but I was told over the weekend by a personal friend of his, that Cunningham has every intention of staying with us and only if the club accept a bid and ask him to move on, will he contemplate leaving us due to relegation. Apparently he "Feels that those who took the club down, should try and take them back up again". Personally i think that is great news and refreshing to hear. I didn't think that we had much chance of him staying before hearing this.

So basically, he is and wants to stay as long as the club don't receivwe an offer that they can't refuse!

That is good news.

However , I'm trying to get to the bottom of all this "Player x , y & z's wages don't count towards FFP"

If it's recently signed players on 3 year deals , I make that Cunningham (4 years) , Kelly (3.5 years) , Davies and Baldock both 3 years.

If those 4's wages are all exempt from FFP regulations then hopefully we can hang onto them for one more season to give ourselves a better chance of bouncing straight back up. Bit of a gamble , granted , especially if offers do come in for them.

[Bedminster Born And Red]

He hasnt EVER! Sorry to burst your bubble, he's never scored more than 14 in a season .http://espnfc.com/player/_/id/73314/sam-baldock?cc=5739

FWIW he is like Danny Haynes, in all but name. He needs to work on his composure in front of goal more and then would be a real at this level or the Champs, however at this stage, he doesnt really do much of anything, consistantly. If we played 3 up front 'properly' we may get more from him, but lumps arent really working.

My mistake. I thought he had. But using your 8 goals in 23 starts figure that would equate to 16 at Championship level if a he played a whole season and would make anyone think that he could get 20 at the lower League 1 standard as long as he gets a bit of decent service.

But like I said, if SOD thinks he can sell Baldock and get those 20 goals we need at a fraction of the transfer fee and wages then I don't have a problem with him going. However isn't the club policy now to have players of 24 and under in the main and develop those players? If so, Baldock fits the bill, especially if his wages do not count towards FFP.

If you look at his career to date, though, the biggest concern is whether you can get 40+ games out of him in a season albeit he played 35 last year including sub appearances.

[bearded_red]

That is good news.

However , I'm trying to get to the bottom of all this "Player x , y & z's wages don't count towards FFP"

If it's recently signed players on 3 year deals , I make that Cunningham (4 years) , Kelly (3.5 years) , Davies and Baldock both 3 years.

If those 4's wages are all exempt from FFP regulations then hopefully we can hang onto them for one more season to give ourselves a better chance of bouncing straight back up. Bit of a gamble , granted , especially if offers do come in for them.

My understanding was that to qualify for the exemption of your wages from the SCMP you had to be signed the previous summer on a contract of three years or more and be under the age of 24. This would only mean Cunningham and Baldock would qualify.

The Kelly point is an interesting one and I couldn't give you a definitive answer either way, but as far as I was aware it only applied to players signed last summer which obviously rules him out.

[Bar BS3]

That is good news.

However , I'm trying to get to the bottom of all this "Player x , y & z's wages don't count towards FFP"

If it's recently signed players on 3 year deals , I make that Cunningham (4 years) , Kelly (3.5 years) , Davies and Baldock both 3 years.

If those 4's wages are all exempt from FFP regulations then hopefully we can hang onto them for one more season to give ourselves a better chance of bouncing straight back up. Bit of a gamble , granted , especially if offers do come in for them.

I've not heard anything about this being the case, but it could be.

All I know is from SOD's quotes that if we keep all of our contracted players, then that accounts for 88% percent of next season wage budget. Of course some are going to move on and some of them could/should be the higher earners, so should free up some significant funds ie Adomah, Baldock, Davies...

[Bar BS3]

That is good news.

However , I'm trying to get to the bottom of all this "Player x , y & z's wages don't count towards FFP"

If it's recently signed players on 3 year deals , I make that Cunningham (4 years) , Kelly (3.5 years) , Davies and Baldock both 3 years.

If those 4's wages are all exempt from FFP regulations then hopefully we can hang onto them for one more season to give ourselves a better chance of bouncing straight back up. Bit of a gamble , granted , especially if offers do come in for them.

Actually mate, thinking logically about the point above.... Surely that would mean that everyone that is still under contract from last year or previous to that ie. Not signing a new deal this summer, would be exempt from next years FFP budget restrictions...? That can't be right....?!

[Monkeh]

I've seen this mentioned a few times , and I have asked before but not had an answer from anyone.

Is this definitely right and if so , what is the reason?

Yes it is correct, its on the football league site under the FFP section,

Any team relegated from the championship this season who has a player signed before sept 2012 on a 3 year+ contract their wages will not be counted towards the 60% of turnover spent on wages,

So Davies Baldock and Cunningham hams wages will no effect our wage budget for next season ONLY

[Monkeh]

I make it 10 in 35.. That's unless you want to not include his sub appearances which would make it. 8in 23 if you wanted to be proper about it

I'm just using the same rules as the pople in the pitman thread who say he got 13 in 21 but forget about the 19 sub apperances

[Monkeh]

My understanding was that to qualify for the exemption of your wages from the SCMP you had to be signed the previous summer on a contract of three years or more and be under the age of 24. This would only mean Cunningham and Baldock would qualify.

The Kelly point is an interesting one and I couldn't give you a definitive answer either way, but as far as I was aware it only applied to players signed last summer which obviously rules him out.

Steven Davies would also count as he was 24 when he signed the contract with us,

Kelly wouldn't as it was signed after september

[glynriley]

Yes it is correct, its on the football league site under the FFP section,

Any team relegated from the championship this season who has a player signed before sept 2012 on a 3 year+ contract their wages will not be counted towards the 60% of turnover spent on wages,

So Davies Baldock and Cunningham hams wages will no effect our wage budget for next season ONLY

That seems logical , cheers Monk.

[bearded_red]

The only thing that makes me think we should attempt to keep Baldock is the FFP issue. Other than that I would bite off the hand of anyone willing to pay anything close to what we paid for him.

It is harsh to judge any striker of his type in a team is bad as ours so I don't want to be overly critical, but for me he has been a huge disappointment.

His first touch is bordering on criminal, his ability to play a pass or run with the ball isn't a lot better and most disappointingly his finishing is extremely erratic. If you couple all of those things with his obvious physical weaknesses and the fact it would be impossible to ever be a success playing in anything other than two upfront and you begin to wonder if he worth bothering with.

I totally see the argument that if we had a team that plays to his strengths and a midfield that was able to play him though behind the opposition defence, as he does make good runs, he could be a decent player, but I don't see that he has enough to his game. Maybe in a City team that you would hope is slightly more competitive than we were this season we will create more chances and his confidence in front of goal will grow, but that could just be wishful thinking.

To be a good player with his physical weaknesses you need to be extremely talented and I just don't think he has enough quality.

Having said all that, as it would seem his wages don't count towards the SCMP, and as I can't see us keeping both, it would probably make financial sense to sell Davies and keep Baldock. Even though for me Davies is a much better player.

[bearded_red]

Steven Davies would also count as he was 24 when he signed the contract with us,

Kelly wouldn't as it was signed after september

My understanding would be that you have to be under the age of 24 when you sign and Davies was already 24.

If you are correct then that is excellent news as I think Davies could score for fun in League 1.

[NATCHER]

Cunningham has every intention of staying with us and only if the club accept a bid and ask him to move on, will he contemplate leaving us due to relegation. Apparently he "Feels that those who took the club down, should try and take them back up again".

IF true, good on him.

It's a shame he got injured when he did.

[Monkeh]

My understanding would be that you have to be under the age of 24 when you sign and Davies was already 24.

If you are correct then that is excellent news as I think Davies could score for fun in League 1.

I think it's the same as the under 21's at international, it depends where their birthday lands, Take James Milner His birthday is in Jan so he was still playing for the u21's when he was actually 22,

I'm not an expert but to me its logical to think that way until told otherwise,

Anyway their wages are a lot less next season (rumoured to be 50% less) so I'm not all that worried, If charlton cam in and offered 1.5 million then yes let him go, we'd get our money back but it wouldn't reduce our wage bill as it will still be 88% of the 60% regardless,

I'm sure West Ham will have a sell on clause as well so if we are to sell we need to get as much money as possible for him

[GoingUp]

Yes it is correct, its on the football league site under the FFP section,

Any team relegated from the championship this season who has a player signed before sept 2012 on a 3 year+ contract their wages will not be counted towards the 60% of turnover spent on wages,

So Davies Baldock and Cunningham hams wages will no effect our wage budget for next season ONLY

[GoingUp]

So if we sold davies, baldock and cunningham that would remove nothing off of the 60% turnover figure and their replacements would.got to do everything we can to keep them it seems.increased wage from suitors will make that an imposible task I would have thought.

[Monkeh]

So if we sold davies, baldock and cunningham that would remove nothing off of the 60% turnover figure and their replacements would.got to do everything we can to keep them it seems.increased wage from suitors will make that an imposible task I would have thought.

Correct,

Those 3 don't effect our wage bill for next season and selling them would be pointless unless seriously stupid money was offered,

What we need to get rid of are the likes of Fontaine, Elliot, Anderson, Pearson, Foster who are amoung our higher paid players under contract next season,

[Bar BS3]

Correct,

Those 3 don't effect our wage bill for next season and selling them would be pointless unless seriously stupid money was offered,

What we need to get rid of are the likes of Fontaine, Elliot, Anderson, Pearson, Foster who are amoung our higher paid players under contract next season,

ANDERSON...?! Are you Joking..? Not only is he a decent player, does he not also tick every box regarding avoiding the FFP criteria for next season...?

[Monkeh]

ANDERSON...?! Are you Joking..? Not only is he a decent player, does he not also tick every box regarding avoiding the FFP criteria for next season...?

I'm not suggesting we get rid of them all, I quite like anderson and I think elliot can do a decent job next season,

I'm just saying before we consider shipping on Cunningham, aldock and Davies those player i mentioned should be at the top of the queue,

I don't think (albert aside) we will be seeing any under contract player leave sadly

[Corleone]

Charlton can't afford Baldock.

[Taylor10]

Charlton can't afford Baldock.

Agreed.

There is no way they will be able to pay out 1million for him that's for sure.

[GoingUp]

Correct,

Those 3 don't effect our wage bill for next season and selling them would be pointless unless seriously stupid money was offered,

What we need to get rid of are the likes of Fontaine, Elliot, Anderson, Pearson, Foster who are amoung our higher paid players under contract next season,

Christ this ffp thing is gonna screw us by the sound of things.I can see all the players we wanna keep being bought for well below their market value.if they're offered a wage near to lat seasons with us by a championship club they would want to go wouldnt they, I know I would and if we don't sell because our values are not met we will be left with players who don't wanna be here and not put in 100% every game.very concerned now about transfer activity over the summer.

[Gol]

I'm not going to start a thread about this, but I was told over the weekend by a personal friend of his, that Cunningham has every intention of staying with us and only if the club accept a bid and ask him to move on, will he contemplate leaving us due to relegation. Apparently he "Feels that those who took the club down, should try and take them back up again". Personally i think that is great news and refreshing to hear. I didn't think that we had much chance of him staying before hearing this.

So basically, he is and wants to stay as long as the club don't receivwe an offer that they can't refuse!

I got told this as well a few weeks back, the person who told me this said the same is true of Baldock, Davies and Anderson, as long as the club doesn't accept an offer they won't go don't know how true this is

[Merrick's Marvels]

ANDERSON...?! Are you Joking..? Not only is he a decent player, does he not also tick every box regarding avoiding the FFP criteria for next season...?

No, unfortunately, as his contract was for 2 years only.

[Bar BS3]

No, unfortunately, as his contract was for 2 years only.

Ah ok!

[Bar BS3]

I got told this as well a few weeks back, the person who told me this said the same is true of Baldock, Davies and Anderson, as long as the club doesn't accept an offer they won't go don't know how true this is

I don't know about Baldock, Davies but have heard similar regarding Anderson too.

If there is truth in Davies, then after the Derby pictures at last game of the season, I would have thought he could/would make a statement saying that he intends to stay if the club want to keep him.

[OldlandReddies]

Quite simple really. SOD will not keep anyone at the club, regardless of the length of their contract, if they do not wish to be here. Baldock would be a class above striker for us in L1 I am sure but only if he wants to play for the cub.

[Gol]

I don't know about Baldock, Davies but have heard similar regarding Anderson too.

If there is truth in Davies, then after the Derby pictures at last game of the season, I would have thought he could/would make a statement saying that he intends to stay if the club want to keep him.

I think Quite a lots been read into Davies visiting Derby whilst it wasn't the wisest move on his part, he was probably visiting friends in the area. He was also injured at the time and we had what was then a meaningless game. I'm sure SO'D knew about it and gave it his blessing, otherwise we would of probably heard more about it by now

[Mendip City]

Quite simple really. SOD will not keep anyone at the club, regardless of the length of their contract, if they do not wish to be here. Baldock would be a class above striker for us in L1 I am sure but only if he wants to play for the cub.

This