Sicknote! | Page 2 | Vital Football

Sicknote!

FrancosLoveChild

Vital Football Hero
#21
Massey must be ready soon, I don't see the point in a contract extension if he is not going to be available for it. Waste of money sadly to say. But hopefully he is back and 100 percent soon
 

king_dezeeuw06

Vital Football Hero
#22
I think I remember Paul Kendrick saying that his option was triggered at 10 games ... which is what he played.
That is pretty crazy to write in such a low trigger. I've heard of contracts triggered at 20, 25, 30 etc. They might as well just given him 3 years in the first place.
 

king_dezeeuw06

Vital Football Hero
#23
I must have missed that - other than Leeds away the words Massey and immense do not spring to mind !
He was pretty much only fit for the start and end of the season and missed nearly all of the middle but most of the games he was fit he was playing his best football, with the crowning moment being his immense Leeds performance. But around then i remember him doing well against Reading, Preston, Bolton, Norwich where he got some goals and assists, there might have been others but i can't remember off the top of my head. And at the start he looked good against Sheff Wed, Stoke, Forest and QPR before he got injured.

He played a huge part in keeping us up, at the end of that season it looked like he'd turned the corner and he'd really stepped up his game. But unfortunately it didn't last.
 

king_dezeeuw06

Vital Football Hero
#25
Remember, it worked both ways (I think) ... the option was there for both parties.
The point of appearances triggers is to ensure the player plays enough to prove he's been valuable enough to keep, so us setting it so low completely defeats the point of putting it in. I

But i guess we are talking about the same people who negotiated that also negotiated Robinsons relegation release clause to be less than we paid for him. So probably can't be surprised.
 

moonay

Vital Football Legend
#26
The point of appearances triggers is to ensure the player plays enough to prove he's been valuable enough to keep, so us setting it so low completely defeats the point of putting it in. I

But i guess we are talking about the same people who negotiated that also negotiated Robinsons relegation release clause to be less than we paid for him. So probably can't be surprised.
The point of appearances also means that if we, the club, see enough to want to keep him (who can foresee long term injuries?), and prevent him leaving - or at least put a price on his head, then we're able to do so.
 

Mighty Bongsmon

Vital Squad Member
#27
But i guess we are talking about the same people who negotiated that also negotiated Robinsons relegation release clause to be less than we paid for him. So probably can't be surprised.
I don't think that criticism is neccesarily seeing the full picture to be honest - for a start it's likely that there could have been other clubs in for him who were possibly offering better wages but the relegation clause allowing him to move for a cut price fee persuaded him to sign at a club he already knew knowing that if we went down he could move on easily
Secondly when he signed, the jury was very much still out on Robinson - he'd spent a large chunk of the previous season out injured & he had a tendency to switch off in games & completely lose his man. If Latics had gone down & he'd carried on in that vein a low relegation clause would have allowed the club to shift on one of it's high earners quicker than a high clause
And linked to that, the relegation clause (whilst less than the reported purchase price from Latics) could have covered the actual fee without add ons or at the very least what was left of the payments due to Everton
A case could also be made that Latics were supremely confident they wouldn't get relegated so a relegation clause wasn't something they were worried about

In hindsight & taken against what he was truly worth in the transfer market I'd agree it looks poor from Latics but in all honesty I don't think many saw the improvement from Robinson that would lead AC Milan to bid £10mill for him within 6 months & a top flight side to eventually take him off our hands
 

king_dezeeuw06

Vital Football Hero
#28
I don't think that criticism is neccesarily seeing the full picture to be honest - for a start it's likely that there could have been other clubs in for him who were possibly offering better wages but the relegation clause allowing him to move for a cut price fee persuaded him to sign at a club he already knew knowing that if we went down he could move on easily
Secondly when he signed, the jury was very much still out on Robinson - he'd spent a large chunk of the previous season out injured & he had a tendency to switch off in games & completely lose his man. If Latics had gone down & he'd carried on in that vein a low relegation clause would have allowed the club to shift on one of it's high earners quicker than a high clause
And linked to that, the relegation clause (whilst less than the reported purchase price from Latics) could have covered the actual fee without add ons or at the very least what was left of the payments due to Everton
A case could also be made that Latics were supremely confident they wouldn't get relegated so a relegation clause wasn't something they were worried about

In hindsight & taken against what he was truly worth in the transfer market I'd agree it looks poor from Latics but in all honesty I don't think many saw the improvement from Robinson that would lead AC Milan to bid £10mill for him within 6 months & a top flight side to eventually take him off our hands
But you can sell a player if you go down for the same money if you want them to go or off the wage bull - you don't need a clause to do that. The club would not write in a clause like that to benefit the club.

It was clear to see Robinson and Williams were young and had lots of potential so clauses that could potentially sell them at a loss is just terrible negotiating.

I'm sure the players agent would've wanted a relegation release clause and if we had to put one in; if we paid something like 2.25m for Robinson and 1.3m for Williams, then the bare minimum should've been 3m and 2m so we make a minor profit not a loss. There is no hindsight needed to know it was very poor from us. This 10 appearance contract trigger is from the same school of negotiating.
 

king_dezeeuw06

Vital Football Hero
#29
The point of appearances also means that if we, the club, see enough to want to keep him (who can foresee long term injuries?), and prevent him leaving - or at least put a price on his head, then we're able to do so.
But that is exactly why you write the appearances at a decent number to ensure that they aren't always injured or playing so badly they aren't starting. And from the players perspective if they do play enough they will be rewarded.

The situation we have now where a contract extension was automatically rewarded to a player who didn't deserve it is what these type of triggers were invented to protect against happening.

Setting the bar so low that to trigger the clause completely negates the purpose of writing it in. If the clause was 20+ then it would make sense as it's a decent chunk of the season, but any less than that is just defies all logic.
 

moonay

Vital Football Legend
#30
But that is exactly why you write the appearances at a decent number to ensure that they aren't always injured or playing so badly they aren't starting. And from the players perspective if they do play enough they will be rewarded.

The situation we have now where a contract extension was automatically rewarded to a player who didn't deserve it is what these type of triggers were invented to protect against happening.

Setting the bar so low that to trigger the clause completely negates the purpose of writing it in. If the clause was 20+ then it would make sense as it's a decent chunk of the season, but any less than that is just defies all logic.
Maybe the low number is so as to allow the trigger to be initiated before the January window, when (if he'd been playing well) might have invited bids.

The club must have had a reason for it being comparatively low (if there was indeed an appearance number ....... I think there was but I may be wrong). Obviously, we don't know either the rationale behind the club's thinking, or the factors driving that rationale, but there's no reason for them to have done it if they didn't think it beneficial.
 

Mighty Bongsmon

Vital Squad Member
#31
But you can sell a player if you go down for the same money if you want them to go or off the wage bull - you don't need a clause to do that. The club would not write in a clause like that to benefit the club.

It was clear to see Robinson and Williams were young and had lots of potential so clauses that could potentially sell them at a loss is just terrible negotiating.

I'm sure the players agent would've wanted a relegation release clause and if we had to put one in; if we paid something like 2.25m for Robinson and 1.3m for Williams, then the bare minimum should've been 3m and 2m so we make a minor profit not a loss. There is no hindsight needed to know it was very poor from us. This 10 appearance contract trigger is from the same school of negotiating.
I can see why you see that & agree with it to some extent - Like I said maybe the club really felt that relegation wasn't on the table that season (an opinion that in the end, without administration, was justified) so if their agent's demanded a low relegation clause or they wouldn't sign the club was fine with that.
And like I said, if it was low relegation clause or not signing would you have been happy for Latics to walk away from the signings??

I know that you can still sell a player if you get relegated but without a clause or with a high clause, the club holds the aces in terms of they can either flatly refuse to sell, pick & choose who the player has an option of going to by only accepting bids agreeable to the club - I know from a friend who works at the current EPL champions & who has dealt with agents that some of their demands are staggering & the club's accept most of them. I don't know in this instance that it was, but do not be surprised if the insertion of that clause is why both players chose Latics over other suitors