Forcing high earners out?

[Hookowl]

1 minute ago, Costello 77 said:

Fair point...if you were on gardening leave and somebody stated a mistruth publicly about why... I expect you'd want the record put straight?

 

.

 

Yes maybe so, unless, (and this is not a fact ) the true reason may be more damaging to your future.

[Brommers]

22 hours ago, Mr Farrell said:

Whoever sanctioned the stupid contracts in the first place wants their bumps felt.

Someone must have been reading Peter Ridsdale's book "Negotiating for Dummies".

[daveyboy66]

43 minutes ago, pazowl55 said:

Could be that he just has to play one league game in the final year of his contract to trigger an automatic extension, which is quite realistic. 

 

Would explain why he has been totally banished from any first team football at the club.

 

[offalyowl]

It's a joke how this club run, how could you have Westwood sitting at home when we cant even keep a clean sheet for 10 games, how are we going to attract players to play for us when we are treating the players we have like the way we treating them, it's a complete joke 

Edited November 12, 2018 by offalyowl

[Hack-Abusi]

23 hours ago, markowl said:

Funny I never heard people moaning about paying high wages when we were reaching the play offs in consecutive seasons.

 

Hindsight Is such a handy tool.

There were plenty of people moaning about Fletcher signing on 40k a week for 4 years!

 

I think there were a few disgruntled with Hooper on 32k!

 

Even more so when we had a raft of players signing new contracts, Westwood, Lees, Hutch etc which resulted in Forestieri throwing his toys out the pram

[Dutch McLovin]

I don't think its contract related myself I think its Jos and player unrest.

 

At some point most of the players (Lee Hooper and Winnall apart) have played for Jos even if in pre season. What would be the point If he wasn't allowed to play them ?

 

Hutchinson started the season as a first team player, he has obviously had a fall out. Westwood was wanted gone in the summer but didn't. Boyd Jones played early games even if in the cup. Forestieri was a starter at the beginning of the season and even Abdi came off the bench once last year.

 

I think there is unrest at the club and I believe a new manager would use these players

[sonofbert2]

I think it's a mixture of player unrest and contractual/financial and I fully support the club and Jos in the decisions made regarding the group of players in question.

 

I don't see how any of them are worth the risk of involvement if it means them receiving special conditions based on anything they have contributed for over a season or longer now.

 

I am fully behind the group of players from Friday night and those who have featured previously but are currently injured and the rest can either change their attitude, tow the line, follow the same rules as everyone else or fuckoff at the earliest opportunity on terms suitable to their current employers.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Hack-Abusi said:

There were plenty of people moaning about Fletcher signing on 40k a week for 4 years!

 

I think there were a few disgruntled with Hooper on 32k!

 

Even more so when we had a raft of players signing new contracts, Westwood, Lees, Hutch etc which resulted in Forestieri throwing his toys out the pram

 

Think Fletcher's salary is more like £35K but yes there were plenty that questioned the route we were following, certainly fans that had witnessed us fall into the financial mire under previous regimes.

From that point it seemed to get a bit out of control as you say, as others seemingly felt entitled to new contracts based on what other players were getting.

 

This has to be down to the club though - they are the ones making the decisions, not the players. 

 

I just find it bizarre that the approach could be to force high earners out by not playing them in the latter stages of their contracts. By not playing them any potential sale value decreases significantly or disappears completely and we cut our noses off to spite our face in terms of the options we currently have available. 

A policy such as this has the potential to detract players from considering signing for us in the future and as we will be paying them their 'basic' salaries anyway all we are saving financially is any bonuses or clauses - aspects of the contracts that we agreed to put in place based on wanting them to play and stay with us!

 

[gurujuan]

8 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Think Fletcher's salary is more like £35K but yes there were plenty that questioned the route we were following, certainly fans that had witnessed us fall into the financial mire under previous regimes.

From that point it seemed to get a bit out of control as you say, as others seemingly felt entitled to new contracts based on what other players were getting.

 

This has to be down to the club though - they are the ones making the decisions, not the players. 

 

I just find it bizarre that the approach could be to force high earners out by not playing them in the latter stages of their contracts. By not playing them any potential sale value decreases significantly or disappears completely and we cut our noses off to spite our face in terms of the options we currently have available. 

A policy such as this has the potential to detract players from considering signing for us in the future and as we will be paying them their 'basic' salaries anyway all we are saving financially is any bonuses or clauses - aspects of the contracts that we agreed to put in place based on wanting them to play and stay with us!

 

It’s probably going to be a bit controversial, but I’d also be looking at a way of offloading Fletcher Of course, his salary will make that difficult, but maybe a club like Rangers. Fletcher, when he’s fit, always gives his all, and his hold up play is the best at the club For me though, that’s somewhat negated by the fact that we don’t really play that way If he plays the lone striker, he becomes too isolated and we don’t have the goal scorers who can run beyond In a two, again he doesn’t suit the players who might be paired with him. Neither Forestieri, nor Hooper, are the type of strikers who feed of knock downs 

I favour a more mobile strker in that role. Joao? I’m not sure, I had hoped he would be the answer, but I’m not totally convinced he could do it Certainly it’s not a witch hunt against Fletcher, but if we are looking to cull the high earners, getting rid of Fletcher’s salary, would be a huge saving

[sonofbert2]

Look at it another way.  If you was an employer and you paid an appearance or clean sheet bonus then surely you would expect the same from the employee as the rest in terms of earning the right to appear and keep appearing?

 

What I think we have are a group of players on contracts with large bonus elements who have taken as a given that they will appear and keep appearing  on their terms and thus trigger the bonus.

 

I think this was allowed to happen in the past and it fitted with the philosophy of the previous manager but that was then, this is now, FFP has tightened its grip and it is a poor example and model to show our new priority, the younger players coming through.

 

Bad signings, contracts, attitudes and atmosphere and all being managed through to implement a new business model.

 

Anyone would think they're signing on every week and just because they are high earners it should and does not mean they are guaranteed a start.  

[Sonny]

I think the bare minimum I’d want from a player is a willingness to train everyday that the first team is in for training and also not act like a cünt when at the training ground.

Edited November 12, 2018 by Sonny

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, sonofbert2 said:

Look at it another way.  If you was an employer and you paid an appearance or clean sheet bonus then surely you would expect the same from the employee as the rest in terms of earning the right to appear and keep appearing?

 

What I think we have are a group of players on contracts with large bonus elements who have taken as a given that they will appear and keep appearing  on their terms and thus trigger the bonus.

 

I think this was allowed to happen in the past and it fitted with the philosophy of the previous manager but that was then, this is now, FFP has tightened its grip and it is a poor example and model to show our new priority, the younger players coming through.

 

Bad signings, contracts, attitudes and atmosphere and all being managed through to implement a new business model.

 

Anyone would think they're signing on every week and just because they are high earners it should and does not mean they are guaranteed a start.  

 

Don't think many fans are suggesting that. From what I have seen most of the high-earners that have seemingly been frozen out can't be accused of not putting the effort in when involved previously and could be contributing to try and improve results now, when we have dire stats in many key indicators and are edging closer to a relegation battle game by game.

 

The new business model that involves integrating younger players would be easier to implement if the young players had a clear direction in terms of tactics, formation and playing in their preferred positions consistently when picked but that's another bone of contention being discussed on here. The plan doesn't seem to be taking much shape on or off the field at the moment. 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Sonny said:

I think the bare minimum I’d want from a player is a willingness to train everyday that the first team is in for training and also not act like a cünt when at the training ground.

But which came first? Did some of the players supposedly start acting like idiots so became cast aside or were they cast aside with no hope of coming back so then started to not turn up for training etc?

 

Not saying by any means it is right to jack it in anyway but if your employer told you to carry on turning up for work as normal but you would no longer be involved in anything meaningful would you accept it, having been an integral part of the operation up to that point?

 

The fact is we don't know for sure what the exact reasons are. It could be different for the different players left out, contractual, poor discipline or manager preference but whatever is the case we as a club are suffering as a result. 

I find it hard to believe that a handful of players who have previously served the club well and have had little indication of major indiscipline in their careers have all suddenly downed tools for no apparent reason so to be frozen out at the same time.

 

It certainly doesn't help when one day the manager reiterates a player has been left out purely on ability and the next day states he has been injured for some time.

Edited November 12, 2018 by Guest

[sonofbert2]

1 minute ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Don't think many fans are suggesting that. From what I have seen most of the high-earners that have seemingly been frozen out can't be accused of not putting the effort in when involved previously and could be contributing to try and improve results now, when we have dire stats in many key indicators and are edging closer to a relegation battle game by game.

 

Seriously? None of the players have either lived up to expectations or contributed anything of note for over a season.

 

1 minute ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

The new business model that involves integrating younger players would be easier to implement if the young players had a clear direction in terms of tactics, formation and playing in their preferred positions consistently when picked but that's another bone of contention being discussed on here. The plan doesn't seem to be taking much shape on or off the field at the moment. 

 

Maybe he is overmanaging I'd agree, especially at the back, but hopefully he'll stick with a core, at least down and across the centre, we'll get some luck with injuries and we can build on the gutsy togetherness from Friday following the break.

 

We are currently not far off a team capable of challenging for the play-offs on a good run and not far from struggling against being relegated on a bad run.

 

There is still plenty of time to be more consistently the former and there are a lot of teams for whom the same could be said in this division.

 

I cannot see any reason to change the boss or bring back the outsiders in a state of panic right now.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, sonofbert2 said:

 

Seriously? None of the players have either lived up to expectations or contributed anything of note for over a season.

 

 

Maybe he is overmanaging I'd agree, especially at the back, but hopefully he'll stick with a core, at least down and across the centre, we'll get some luck with injuries and we can build on the gutsy togetherness from Friday following the break.

 

We are currently not far off a team capable of challenging for the play-offs on a good run and not far from struggling against being relegated on a bad run.

 

There is still plenty of time to be more consistently the former and there are a lot of teams for whom the same could be said in this division.

 

I cannot see any reason to change the boss or bring back the outsiders in a state of panic right now.

 

Westwood has been frozen out for nearly a year, Hutchinson and Jones have offered certainly no worse than Pelupessey and either would have given us more chance of securing 2 points more than we have now as alternatives as subs against West Brom to name 1 game. Boyd has been largely poor but has been played out of position most of the time. 

 

We have the worst attacking stats in the division and have been propped up by Reach scoring wonder goals, we have relegation stats in terms of clean sheets, goals conceded and chances created against us. We are way closer to a relegation battle than a promotion push and have a manager who has not nailed down his preferred formation, line up or tactical approach in 10 months in charge. 

 

I'll continue to support the team at every game as they need to be backed on the pitch but I now go in hope rather than any expectation or belief in us getting a positive result.

 

[BARMYARMY2010]

1 hour ago, Hack-Abusi said:

There were plenty of people moaning about Fletcher signing on 40k a week for 4 years!

 

I think there were a few disgruntled with Hooper on 32k!

 

Even more so when we had a raft of players signing new contracts, Westwood, Lees, Hutch etc which resulted in Forestieri throwing his toys out the pram

No there weren't,they only started whingin when he was injured,his signing was met with pretty much universal thumbs up.

[sonofbert2]

7 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Westwood has been frozen out for nearly a year, Hutchinson and Jones have offered certainly no worse than Pelupessey and either would have given us more chance of securing 2 points more than we have now as alternatives as subs against West Brom to name 1 game. Boyd has been largely poor but has been played out of position most of the time. 

 

We have the worst attacking stats in the division and have been propped up by Reach scoring wonder goals, we have relegation stats in terms of clean sheets, goals conceded and chances created against us. We are way closer to a relegation battle than a promotion push and have a manager who has not nailed down his preferred formation, line up or tactical approach in 10 months in charge. 

 

I'll continue to support the team at every game as they need to be backed on the pitch but I now go in hope rather than any expectation or belief in us getting a positive result.

 

 

I don't think you'll see any of those players involved again anytime soon, maybe nearer the window, if he's still here by then.

 

He will be judged, like any manager, on results and 1 point, with some positives, from 5 games has put him under pressure.

 

His personality won't change, he is who he is, so unless we start winning then folk won't forgive him being foreign or willingness to crack jokes etc in interviews and he isn't suddenly going to develop the touchline pashun some think will make him better at his job.

 

He needs to start winning again, simple as that.  I hope he and the group from Friday, plus those involved but injured, start doing that however and whatever it takes for now.

 

I would rather throw my energy behind the youngsters than some of the wasters and Bigtime Charlies folk keep screaming for.

[asteener1867]

2 minutes ago, sonofbert2 said:

 

I don't think you'll see any of those players involved again anytime soon, maybe nearer the window, if he's still here by then.

 

He will be judged, like any manager, on results and 1 point, with some positives, from 5 games has put him under pressure.

 

His personality won't change, he is who he is, so unless we start winning then folk won't forgive him being foreign or willingness to crack jokes etc in interviews and he isn't suddenly going to develop the touchline pashun some think will make him better at his job.

 

He needs to start winning again, simple as that.  I hope he and the group from Friday, plus those involved but injured, start doing that however and whatever it takes for now.

 

I would rather throw my energy behind the youngsters than some of the wasters and Bigtime Charlies folk keep screaming for.

Problem is Bert, the "big time Charlies" are the ones we are going to try and offload this January, now say the boot was on the other foot and your club was after Westwood, abdi, hutch, Hooper for instance...

any fan would think..."They can't even get into a Wednesday side...17th in the Championship!"

The only selling options are gonna be Bannan,Reach, FF maybe Penney, Dawson and a couple of others...That leaves us in reight state

[Hack-Abusi]

21 minutes ago, DELUDED OWL said:

No there weren't,they only started whingin when he was injured,his signing was met with pretty much universal thumbs up.

Without sounding like we are in a Panto show but "oh yes there was!!"

 

 

[BARMYARMY2010]

Just now, Hack-Abusi said:

Without sounding like we are in a Panto show but "oh yes there was!!"

 

 

Ok then panto villain.......................when did this concern about the signing of fletcher start,when he signed or when he got injured ?