Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, SolihullOwl79 said:

I believe there is a clause in his contract related to appearances and goals scored. 

 

If he goes past either figure then a sum of money has to be paid to Boro and it's not peanuts. 

 

This is why Monk didn't play him. 

Why do you believe that ?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SolihullOwl79 said:

I believe there is a clause in his contract related to appearances and goals scored. 

 

If he goes past either figure then a sum of money has to be paid to Boro and it's not peanuts. 

 

This is why Monk didn't play him. 

Are you saying it's Colossal?

  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Treborowl said:

You sign a goal scorer then don't play him in case he scores too many???

It's bit different to that though isn't it. He was bought when it was expected we'd go up to thr promised land and now instead we're fighting to stay in the division and in deep mire with FFP. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Treborowl said:

You sign a goal scorer then don't play him in case he scores too many???

 

2 minutes ago, SolihullOwl79 said:

It's bit different to that though isn't it. He was bought when it was expected we'd go up to thr promised land and now instead we're fighting to stay in the division and in deep mire with FFP. 

Not sure how relevant that is. My point was; you don't sign a striker then keep him on the sidelines in case he scores too many. Doesn't make sense.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Treborowl said:

 

Not sure how relevant that is. My point was; you don't sign a striker then keep him on the sidelines in case he scores too many. Doesn't make sense.

It does make sense if it costs a million quid for each landmark. Taking the club over the edge making more breaches and having more points taken off. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Treborowl said:

 

Not sure how relevant that is. My point was; you don't sign a striker then keep him on the sidelines in case he scores too many. Doesn't make sense.

The last 2 managers couldn’t wait to drop him after he hit form.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, SolihullOwl79 said:

I believe there is a clause in his contract related to appearances and goals scored. 

 

If he goes past either figure then a sum of money has to be paid to Boro and it's not peanuts. 

 

This is why Monk didn't play him. 

So why have him on the bench? 

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In the last season and a quarter, he's made 11+17 appearances. Obviously a long way from being ever present, but hardly indicative of someone not being played because of such clauses. Maybe the reason he hasn't featured much is a lot more straightforward and is also consistent with much of the last five years despite being at three clubs under several managers?

 

As for 'hitting form', either side of the City Ground miracle, Rhodes' form for Wednesday (between 30th December 2017 and the present day) is 19+21 appearances and 2 goals.

 

Edited by DJMortimer
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sage owl said:

Hit form ?.

Yes . Played away at Hull, scored the winner, got man of the match and never played under Jos again.Hit a hat-trick at a Forest , after turning the Brentford game, back on the bench after failing to score in the next game.  

Starts first two games this season, scores a goal in our biggest win and earns 4 points from 6. Back on the bench despite woeful form from the rest of the strikers.

  • Like 7
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...