Jump to content
IGNORED

Bridges (again - Sorry)

South_Coast_Red

By South_Coast_Red
in Football Chat

Recommended Posts

South_Coast_Red

South_Coast_Red

Posted
Posted

I see the tabloids are speculating about the future of our former striker - he's set to turn down a move to Villa and stay at Carlisle :doh:

I'm assuming as the transfer didn't involve a fee, we would've inserted some sort of sell on clause as part of the bargain. This could potentially recoup some of the wages forked out for our pre-season £5m strikeforce!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lukejones2

lukejones2

Posted
Posted
I see the tabloids are

I'm assuming as the transfer didn't involve a fee, we would've inserted some sort of sell on clause as part of the bargain. This could potentially recoup some of the wages forked out for our pre-season £5m strikeforce!

Unfortunately, your assumption is incorrect. In what I think was a horrendous mistake, there was no sell on fee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Antman

Antman

Posted
Posted

:crying::crying::crying: WHO,S TO BLAME FOR THAT :crying::crying::dunno:

whilst I'd love to ladle some more blame soup into Stevie's lap, I can't see it on this occasion.

Bridges came for free, was only here for 5 minutes and never got the opportunity/chance/whatever, it would be rather 'dog in a manger' in terms of his career to try and get a big sell on clause from him leaving.

(The only proviso to that is so long as we didn't pay off any remaining wages/contract agreements at Sunderland. Because if we did then it really was a bit more sloppy management from the club)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lukejones2

lukejones2

Posted
Posted

Well, I think it was a massive error.

He wasn't going to play again for us clearly but he had shown enough during his few appearances to know that he would do a job for somebody (in my opinion, he would have done that job for us given more of a chance) and I believe it was short sighted not to insist on a sell on clause. I very much doubt that would be a deal breaker for a buying club when they were not paying any money originally!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Port Said Red

Port Said Red

Posted
Posted
Well, I think it was a massive error.

He wasn't going to play again for us clearly but he had shown enough during his few appearances to know that he would do a job for somebody (in my opinion, he would have done that job for us given more of a chance) and I believe it was short sighted not to insist on a sell on clause. I very much doubt that would be a deal breaker for a buying club when they were not paying any money originally!

I still think it will be interesting to see if someone does take a chance on him. Despite his current form and apparent fitness, nobody has paid money for him since his terrible injury. The question still remains, would he pass a fitness test?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lukejones2

lukejones2

Posted
Posted

I still think it will be interesting to see if someone does take a chance on him. Despite his current form and apparent fitness, nobody has paid money for him since his terrible injury. The question still remains, would he pass a fitness test?

True - that question does remain. As far as our club is concerned though, if he moves for free we don't lose anything from having inserted a sell on clause - we just don't gain anything. It was a no risk, very simple decision for me based on my knowledge of the facts (and I appreciate that there may be facts of which only SL is aware but I still can't see any of them making it a wise decision not to insert a sell on for Bridges).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CodeRed

CodeRed

Posted
Posted

Well, I think it was a massive error.

He wasn't going to play again for us clearly but he had shown enough during his few appearances to know that he would do a job for somebody (in my opinion, he would have done that job for us given more of a chance) and I believe it was short sighted not to insist on a sell on clause. I very much doubt that would be a deal breaker for a buying club when they were not paying any money originally!

Carlisle did not buy Bridges

Bridges contract was cancelled by mutual consent - to enable him to sign for Carlisle, therefore we couldn't insert a sell on as Bridges became a free agent entitled to sign for whoever he wanted. At the time we were happy to cancel his contract because GJ didn't think he (Bridges) was going get fit enough to play first team football regularly and there was a clause stating that if Bridges played 15 games then he was automatically entitled to a second years contract................So City thought they were doing well to get out of a big financial commitment & were happy foy Carlisle to offer him a deal. There was no agreement between City & Carlisle hence no sell on.

Wether GJ was right or not is a totally different question - at the moment it does seem to be a spectacular error, but who knows what went on behind the scenes and we have to take Gary Johnson as he is, & so far he's got many more things right than he has wrong.

Perhaps all the Bridges fans would rather Tinnion had stayed as manager (as Bridges - & Marcus - would still be here)...............no doubt though if BT had stayed Bridges would still have got to score many goals in League 2, but not until next season !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lukejones2

lukejones2

Posted
Posted

Bristol City chose to cancel Michael's contract in the knowledge that Carlisle were interested. They could therefore have just as easily negotiated a free transfer with a sell on clause couldnt they Codered?

And incidentally, your assumptions around my other opinions are incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
South_Coast_Red

South_Coast_Red

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I wasn't aware that his contract was cancelled, I thought it was a straightforward transfer - just with no fee involved. Personally, I have mixed feelings about his departure as he still posses some undoubted class but I can see how it was for the good of the club at the time (especially with the 15 game/year extension clause).

My post was regarding the inclusion of a sell-on clause and disappointing to read that we wont receiving anything. Maybe that was the only terms on which Carlisle would do business :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CodeRed

CodeRed

Posted
Posted

And incidentally, your assumptions around my other opinions are incorrect.

I wasn't directing that bit at you Luke - sorry,

! was just widening the topic to bring in the point that it's a bit negative for others to have a pop at GJ about Bridges - GJ's taken us from despair and certain relegation after the Swansea defeat to a point where at 5.00pm Saturday the dream could be a week away from reality, top of the current form league, GJ top of the

Leagur Managers table, and our results since he was appointed (despite the grenade/losingrun/conference manager jibes) have - if the season started when he was appointed - equalled a play off position.

So ok he was wrong to get rid of Bridges - but are we moving forward under GJ or not ??

.............and didn't Alex Fergusson sign Ralph Milne ?.......everybody messes up sometimes

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lukejones2

lukejones2

Posted
Posted

I wasn't directing that bit at you Luke - sorry,

! was just widening the topic to bring in the point that it's a bit negative for others to have a pop at GJ about Bridges - GJ's taken us from despair and certain relegation after the Swansea defeat to a point where at 5.00pm Saturday the dream could be a week away from reality, top of the current form league, GJ top of the

Leagur Managers table, and our results since he was appointed (despite the grenade/losingrun/conference manager jibes) have - if the season started when he was appointed - equalled a play off position.

So ok he was wrong to get rid of Bridges - but are we moving forward under GJ or not ??

.............and didn't Alex Fergusson sign Ralph Milne ?.......everybody messes up sometimes

No worries at all! :)

I agree completely with the rest of your points though and in no way do I blame GJ for getting rid of Bridges - I think he should have stayed but as you say, his team selection decisions should be looked at as a whole as they are interrelated.

I do blame the club for not inserting a sell on anywhere though - this in my opinion is a mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
treb

treb

Posted
Posted

Why Oh why do you all keep harping on about the loss of Bridges.

Have we not improved since he has gone ?

We have , in the space of 3 months gone from relegation candidates to play off hopefuls !!!

If all of GJ's so called mistakes took us up the league like this then so be it.

GJ is certainly doing more right than wrong.

Bridges is a good player , but as a team, we have done a lot better without him.

GJ's decisions obviously were for the good of the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lukejones2

lukejones2

Posted
Posted
Why Oh why do you all keep harping on about the loss of Bridges.

Have we not improved since he has gone ?

We have , in the space of 3 months gone from relegation candidates to play off hopefuls !!!

If all of GJ's so called mistakes took us up the league like this then so be it.

GJ is certainly doing more right than wrong.

Bridges is a good player , but as a team, we have done a lot better without him.

GJ's decisions obviously were for the good of the team.

I think you'll find that the main point of this thread is the lack of sell on clause, not whether or not he should have been kept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
South_Coast_Red

South_Coast_Red

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Why Oh why do you all keep harping on about the loss of Bridges.

Have we not improved since he has gone ?

We have , in the space of 3 months gone from relegation candidates to play off hopefuls !!!

If all of GJ's so called mistakes took us up the league like this then so be it.

GJ is certainly doing more right than wrong.

Bridges is a good player , but as a team, we have done a lot better without him.

GJ's decisions obviously were for the good of the team.

Totally agree with all of the above....I was just hoping for the club might receive a windfall from any future transfer following todays speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bristol Boy

Bristol Boy

Posted
Posted

No clause and Steve "Judge Me On Brian" Lansdown said and I quote "We won't need one either!"

When MB signed I said that one way or the other he'd be gone at the end of the season whether succesful (move up) or unsuccesful move out & down.

Whether he could still cut the mustard in the Prem, I don't know, but next season could tell us a lot.

If Carlisle can hang on to Bridges & Hawley and have good luck with injuries, then they could do a Southend.If not they could do a Yeovil, who, don't forget, were Champions too!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Admin
Ian M

Ian M

Posted
  • Admin
Posted

Not sure how the rules play on this one.

I was under the impression that if a player does not request a move then his contract has to be paid up by the club he is leaving.

If this is the case then by giving him a free transfer (with a sell on clause that may not make anything) we would be expected to pay up his contract.

By mutually agreeing to cancel his contract so that he is a free agent we weren't liable for the remainder of his contract.

I am not certain of the above but if it is true then it might explain why it was done this way. :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...