Hookowl Posted November 14, 2020 Share Posted November 14, 2020 10 hours ago, LondonOwl313 said: Likewise with the goal one, it was a 4 year contract. You‘d assume any trigger would be at least 50 goals if not more. He’s scored 12 for us so can’t see him triggering anything to do with that. So I can’t see it as being relevant Didn't you see what the OP posted in his second post? It's £1million per milestone, so he's already earned Middlesbrough an extra £12 million Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Toni Posted November 14, 2020 Share Posted November 14, 2020 11 hours 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. So Chansiri gambled and failed. Not our fault! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SolihullOwl79 Posted November 14, 2020 Author Share Posted November 14, 2020 1 hour ago, Swiss Toni said: So Chansiri gambled and failed. Not our fault! Who said anything about it being our fault? The post is simply suggesting that reason he hasn't played is because we can't afford to pay his ex club any more money. It's not unusual to have caveats in a transfer that make further payments at different stages. If the player wins promotion with new team, previous team receives x amount Every 10 goals scored x amount is paid Landmark goals 50, 75, 100 activates further x payments Landmark appearances 25, 50 etc etc activates further x payments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoorDoor Posted November 14, 2020 Share Posted November 14, 2020 1 hour ago, millo said: Your post has a couple of errors. He started the next league match following his hat trick against Forest last season. He started the next league match following his goal in the opening game this season. Ok 3 in 2 last season and 1 in 2 this season, glad he got dropped for the prolific windass and paterson 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A47Owl Posted November 14, 2020 Share Posted November 14, 2020 30 minutes ago, SolihullOwl79 said: Who said anything about it being our fault? The post is simply suggesting that reason he hasn't played is because we can't afford to pay his ex club any more money. It's not unusual to have caveats in a transfer that make further payments at different stages. If the player wins promotion with new team, previous team receives x amount Every 10 goals scored x amount is paid Landmark goals 50, 75, 100 activates further x payments Landmark appearances 25, 50 etc etc activates further x payments You are obviously a, Football Manager person like myself. Usually put a clause in for the maximum appearances/goals/time then sell them on before reaching it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage owl Posted November 14, 2020 Share Posted November 14, 2020 6 hours ago, SolihullOwl79 said: How do you know he's not got a 20 goal a season clause in his contract? By limiting him to 10-20 mins per match reduces the possibility of him him getting thst target. When first signed it wasn't a problem with the money being splashed around. Such is the poor foresight of our chairman, he offset the expected future outlay to be afforded from premier TV money. However, such is the financial dire straits now, he cannot afford to pay the agreed clause and therefore he isn't picked. Same with Westwood. He equalled club record clean sheets in two seasons. Clause in his contract identifying substantial bonus if acheived again. Club finances dictate he cannot be played due to costs. Manager to weak to stand up to this drops him. And Rhodes, Hutch etc. Big Bruce comes in won't stand for it and plays them regardless. He buggers off, Weak Monk comes in and drops them again. A huge benefit of (hopefully) of Tp is his character will be too strong to tow Chansiri line. We shall see 20 goals a season . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poite Posted November 14, 2020 Share Posted November 14, 2020 18 hours ago, DoorDoor said: scored 3 against forest last season dropped next game, scored opening game this season dropped next game, most of his apperences are from the bench and he still has the best goals to game ratio this season Not quite true. He scored first game and played in the second but he didn't score so was dropped which made no sense given the other options 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Django Posted November 14, 2020 Share Posted November 14, 2020 I’ve heard the same Rhodes has been told to not score as the club can’t afford his goal bonus, must be frustrating for Jordan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LondonOwl313 Posted November 14, 2020 Share Posted November 14, 2020 6 hours ago, SolihullOwl79 said: Who said anything about it being our fault? The post is simply suggesting that reason he hasn't played is because we can't afford to pay his ex club any more money. It's not unusual to have caveats in a transfer that make further payments at different stages. If the player wins promotion with new team, previous team receives x amount Every 10 goals scored x amount is paid Landmark goals 50, 75, 100 activates further x payments Landmark appearances 25, 50 etc etc activates further x payments Yeah that all makes sense but you don’t set the bar low for these types of add ons usually. Usually if adds on become due it’s because it’s been a success. Rhodes can’t possibly be near an add on for goals scored when he’s barely scored any for example. Likewise with appearances why would more money be due if he plays 70 odd games in 4 years. There’s 184 possible games to play during the course of his contract so you’d expect he’d need to play in way more than half, maybe even three quarters of them before anything more is due Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nethertonowl Posted November 14, 2020 Share Posted November 14, 2020 20 hours 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. It might be linked to appearances it cant be linked to goals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poite Posted November 14, 2020 Share Posted November 14, 2020 I think JR might have a chance under Pulis. He's the best target man we have 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
83owl Posted November 14, 2020 Share Posted November 14, 2020 Wonder if he’s got a thumbs up bonus? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kagoshimaowl Posted November 14, 2020 Share Posted November 14, 2020 22 hours 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. Nice story bro. I believe he’s vvank which is why he doesn’t play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owling Wolfe Posted November 14, 2020 Share Posted November 14, 2020 This is a joke right?, why would anybody allow payment clauses on numbers that would have been achieved in the first half season if he was any good. I seem to remember something similar written about Hutchinson and Westwood, which also turned out to be rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRightSide Posted November 14, 2020 Share Posted November 14, 2020 Having watched him play on the odd occasion he does get on the pitch I can only assume him and Chansiri have agreed to go halves on the next instalment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherlyegg Posted November 14, 2020 Share Posted November 14, 2020 9 hours ago, A47Owl said: Usually put a clause in for the maximum appearances/goals/time then sell them on before reaching it. Couldn't do that due to a sell on clause £2m, regardless what we got for him. That's why we told Norwich to ballaxe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buxtongent Posted November 14, 2020 Share Posted November 14, 2020 Strange how many people have seen his contract! And even if they are right, we would need to get him scoring regularly, which would be no bad thing since we appear to have lost our only potential scorers Jaoa and |fletcher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Tibbs Posted November 14, 2020 Share Posted November 14, 2020 23 hours 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. His goals return at SWFC is paltry. You believe that Boro put a clause in that if Rhodes scores and average of 6 goals a season for us we have to shell out more money. Really ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Tibbs Posted November 14, 2020 Share Posted November 14, 2020 2 hours ago, nethertonowl said: It might be linked to appearances it cant be linked to goals So our owner buys a striker in the belief his goals will fire us to the promised land, but signs a clause that dictates how many games he can play. I’m struggling with this concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Tibbs Posted November 14, 2020 Share Posted November 14, 2020 23 hours ago, ny owl said: Monk didn't play him for the.same reason his previous seven managers didn't play him - he's lost it Sometimes the simplest answer is the obvious one. 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