Guest D.J.Nick1212 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 According to his contract, if he plays 1 more game for us playing more than 75 minutes in one match. We have to make a one off payment to Carslile of £90000 and a one off payment to Madine of £10000! I am glad he is back with us and im convinced he will come good and become a good striker for us, but would this money be better spent in other ways or paying off this clause? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuthaMucker Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Not paying Wickham's £15k (I'd assume) wages will more than cover it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rustyfunk Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 just wondering how you know this? is it public domain stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrickyTrev Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 If I were you I'd be more concerned with how much Zayatte has cost us, both financially and in points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest D.J.Nick1212 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 just wondering how you know this? is it public domain stuff? http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/carlisle-united/latest/1.1119429 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan27 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 http://www.owlstalk.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic/210021-carlisle-united-to-land-90000-if-madine-plays/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest D.J.Nick1212 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 end of the day, they should have put this money away for him but this could be why the CW thing fell through? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leaping Lannys Perm Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 This is testicles. It was an issue at the end of last season and it was rumoured that was why he didn't come on on the final day. But didn't he play a couple of games at the start of the season? Therefore he has already gone past the previous seasons target. As is my understanding the agreement was up to the end if last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharrowowl Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 This is testicles. It was an issue at the end of last season and it was rumoured that was why he didn't come on on the final day. But didn't he play a couple of games at the start of the season? Therefore he has already gone past the previous seasons target. As is my understanding the agreement was up to the end if last season. Dont think Madines even featured as sub in the league this year has he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owls12387 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Dont think Madines even featured as sub in the league this year has he? QPR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharrowowl Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Basically he's only going to be playing as a 76th minute replacement for Nuhiu i reckon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sultan_Pepper Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Sure that was last season and it was testicles then as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adelphi1867 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Just like the rumour that the reason we dropped Kirkland was because of a clause in HIS contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uptheowls Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 This is testicles. It was an issue at the end of last season and it was rumoured that was why he didn't come on on the final day. But didn't he play a couple of games at the start of the season? Therefore he has already gone past the previous seasons target. As is my understanding the agreement was up to the end if last season. Did you not read the story on the link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markhs21owl Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Not an issue as it says it's for the remainder of his contract so unless he's goin to be an 76th minute sub for the next 18 month it's something the club will just have to pay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leaping Lannys Perm Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 (edited) Dont think Madines even featured as sub in the league this year has he?So you believe everything it says in the paper then? I'll admit that I hadn't absorbed the bit about the lateness of his appearances but I seriously doubt it is still valid this season.Edit: sorry. Quoted the wrong reply. Edited February 27, 2014 by Leaping Lannys Perm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueblood Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 (edited) http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/carlisle-united/latest/1.1119429Maybe we could broker a deal where they forget about the 90k and we don't have them for blatantly trying to tap him up while in prisonThat tap him up while in prison looks a bit wrong now I've read it back Edited February 27, 2014 by Blueblood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest D.J.Nick1212 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 This is testicles. It was an issue at the end of last season and it was rumoured that was why he didn't come on on the final day. But didn't he play a couple of games at the start of the season? Therefore he has already gone past the previous seasons target. As is my understanding the agreement was up to the end if last season. The agreement according to the report and the spokesman for Carslile was for the the total length of the initial contract of Gary Madine and not just for his first couple of years! Why would you think this isn't correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grlj Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 What difference is it if it is true? We have saved wages from not paying GM so that will cover the cost i am sure. And before anyone jumps in had to pay loan players blah blah blah, We did that even when we had GM avaliable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S36 OWL Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 If we had sacked him when the judge sent him down this wouldn't be an issue ,and we would be saving money on the wages we will now be paying him again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now