Rhodes Clauses

[Dronfield Blue]

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. 

 

[Holmowl]

5 hours ago, sage owl said:

20 goals a season .

I know it’s laughable to think if he was on the pitch Rhodes could score 20 for us.

 

You need to score a goal every ~200 minutes to do that.

 

For us this season and last that’s what he’s done. Season before he scored every ~160 minutes for Norwich.

 

But let’s laugh and settle down to watch Marriott, Paterson, Kachunga and Windass.

[SallyCinnamon]

Everyone laughing at the OP but I really wouldn’t be surprised if this was the case. 

[StudentOwl]

Absolutely devastated that in four pages neither the OP nor anyone else has come up with the far better title for this thread: The Clausossus of Rhodes.

 

Anyone?

 

Reyt, I'm wasted on you.

[Emilianenko]

3 minutes ago, StudentOwl said:

Absolutely devastated that in four pages neither the OP nor anyone else has come up with the far better title for this thread: The Clausossus of Rhodes.

 

Anyone?

 

Reyt, I'm wasted on you.

@Utah Owlfirst page did it.

[StudentOwl]

3 minutes ago, Emilianenko said:

@Utah Owlfirst page did it.

This is why I shouldn't be allowed on my phone after 11pm

[FreshOwl]

I bet accounts department wince in disgust every week when they issue his payslip 

 

And DC even worse when he gets invoiced 

Edited November 14, 2020 by FreshOwl

[OwlerIT]

On 13/11/2020 at 23:09, 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 have him on the bench then?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jamie_W said:

Scoring a goal isn’t hitting form.

 

It is by our current standards! 

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, SallyCinnamon said:

Everyone laughing at the OP but I really wouldn’t be surprised if this was the case. 

 

Really?

So based on the stats below already posted in this thread you think there might be a huge fee to pay at what key point?

Perhaps we paid £8M for a striker and also agreed a huge clause to pay a big chunk when he hits 10 goals? Don't think so somehow.

Maybe its the 55 games milestone that we are preventing him from reaching?

 

Do you think this clause has a bigger fee than the pay off that will probably now be due to Monk and his chums for terminating their contracts? 

 

22 hours ago, JackSWFC said:

A quick look on wiki, and since he signed a full contract (so not including loan spell) he’s made 53, and scored  9 goals.

 

So unless his contract has had a clause where we have to pay Boro a substantial fee after he scores 10 goals over a 4 year period, you’re obviously talking our your arse.

 

[Guest]

16 hours ago, Holmowl said:

We know what you think of Rhodes from your posts in similar threads.

 

Which of the partnerships we’ve seen in the last nine games has impressed you more than the Windass-Rhodes partnership we saw v Cardiff and Watford?

 

Not surprised he hasn't bothered to answer your question. The guy who stated he was ambivalent to Monks management appear to stick the knife in to Rhodes every time a thread about him pops up. 

[sage owl]

1 hour ago, Holmowl said:

I know it’s laughable to think if he was on the pitch Rhodes could score 20 for us.

 

You need to score a goal every ~200 minutes to do that.

 

For us this season and last that’s what he’s done. Season before he scored every ~160 minutes for Norwich.

 

But let’s laugh and settle down to watch Marriott, Paterson, Kachunga and Windass.

Look mate I know he lives near you and apparently he's a really lovely bloke. But have you seen anything since he joined us that makes you think he's going to score 20 goals a season  ?.

I  haven't but I'd love to be proved wrong. 

And I don't rate the rest of them either. 

[Sergeant Tibbs]

12 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

 

 

 

So, in the opening game of the season he scores, bringing him closer to his ‘landmark’, was Monk under instruction to then remove him from the team - sub him in that game ?

Or “Garry you can pick him for the next game, but tell him not to score” (he doesn’t need much help in that area tho...)

 

[OWLISH]

why dont we ask the big man himself about his contract? be good to get him tweeting again if nothing else

 

[Guest]

18 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 hey! 

Was this a drug induced response 

[soldierboyblue]

On 14/11/2020 at 02:09, 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. 

I think that someone has been playing CM! Good grief 

[Holmowl]

8 hours ago, sage owl said:

Look mate I know he lives near you and apparently he's a really lovely bloke. But have you seen anything since he joined us that makes you think he's going to score 20 goals a season  ?.

I  haven't but I'd love to be proved wrong. 

And I don't rate the rest of them either. 

I’m not saying he would score 20. 
 

Your last line is the key point. We have to pick the best of a bad bunch, and the evidence of goals and eyes makes it Windass-Rhodes.

 

 

[DJMortimer]

17 hours ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Not surprised he hasn't bothered to answer your question. The guy who stated he was ambivalent to Monks management appear to stick the knife in to Rhodes every time a thread about him pops up. 

 

Oh put your big boy pants back on. I've actually answered the question many times before. Rhodes might be a better finisher than some of the other options but there are at least three problems. Firstly, it would probably come at the expense of the overall team effort because he offers so little in all other areas of the role, secondly, based on recent years, even the evidence that he would offer that much is debatable and thirdly, we have been creating little anyway.

 

I've never been a fan of judging players on scoring statistics alone because it is like getting your news from only reading the headlines and not the detail. But for what it's worth, even when the team has been better than it is now, going back to the end of December 2017, his record for us is 20+21 appearances and 5 goals. And this is the answer to our scoring problems?

 

I actually have less of a problem with Rhodes himself than those who contradict themselves or reality trying to defend him. Nuhiu took ten times the criticism despite being way more effective for example. That said, I take Holmowl's point about the others failing to do much better, but I wouldn't use one five yard nudge over the line as much in the way of evidence. 

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, DJMortimer said:

 

Oh put your big boy pants back on. I've actually answered the question many times before. Rhodes might be a better finisher than some of the other options but there are at least three problems. Firstly, it would probably come at the expense of the overall team effort because he offers so little in all other areas of the role, secondly, based on recent years, even the evidence that he would offer that much is debatable and thirdly, we have been creating little anyway.

 

I've never been a fan of judging players on scoring statistics alone because it is like getting your news from only reading the headlines and not the detail. But for what it's worth, even when the team has been better than it is now, going back to the end of December 2017, his record for us is 20+21 appearances and 5 goals. And this is the answer to our scoring problems?

 

I actually have less of a problem with Rhodes himself than those who contradict themselves or reality trying to defend him. Nuhiu took ten times the criticism despite being way more effective for example. That said, I take Holmowl's point about the others failing to do much better, but I wouldn't use one five yard nudge over the line as much in the way of evidence. 

 

 

Big boy pants!  I see you are back for another go in a thread about Rhodes!

 

Come at the expense of the overall team effort? Yeah, because the overall team effort in the last 9 league games has been massively productive!

The evidence of recent years? I agree, we would have been better off offloading him ages ago but that hasn't happened and all we can judge at the moment is the options that we currently have.

Creating little anyway? True, but why give Rhodes any less of a chance on that basis when he has actually managed to score this season.

 

Judging by statistics alone can sometimes be misleading as you say. This season I am judging on the 11 games we have played.Rhodes started in the first 2 matches, we picked up 4 points and he scored along with his strike partner. The performance against Cardiff was effective and the first half against Watford was a good display.

 

Since then we have scored 4 goals in 9 games, played poorly in many of them and the strikers chosen ahead of Rhodes have scored 1 in those 9 games.

 

I simply feel on that basis that Rhodes has deserved more of a chance this season. Certainly Kachunga and Marriott have done nothing to warrant getting selected ahead of him. 

 

As for Nuhiu, not sure why you felt the need to bring him into this particular debate, he would have been far more effective for us than any of our current options. 

[Holmowl]

44 minutes ago, DJMortimer said:

 

Oh put your big boy pants back on. I've actually answered the question many times before. Rhodes might be a better finisher than some of the other options but there are at least three problems. Firstly, it would probably come at the expense of the overall team effort because he offers so little in all other areas of the role, secondly, based on recent years, even the evidence that he would offer that much is debatable and thirdly, we have been creating little anyway.

 

I've never been a fan of judging players on scoring statistics alone because it is like getting your news from only reading the headlines and not the detail. But for what it's worth, even when the team has been better than it is now, going back to the end of December 2017, his record for us is 20+21 appearances and 5 goals. And this is the answer to our scoring problems?

 

I actually have less of a problem with Rhodes himself than those who contradict themselves or reality trying to defend him. Nuhiu took ten times the criticism despite being way more effective for example. That said, I take Holmowl's point about the others failing to do much better, but I wouldn't use one five yard nudge over the line as much in the way of evidence. 

 

So, which partnerships have impressed you more than Rhodes-Windass?