Who would you like to keep for next season? | Page 2 | Vital Football

Who would you like to keep for next season?

king_dezeeuw06 said:
I can't see any clauses that potentially increase spend on a player beyond initial loan agreement being allowed while in embargo.

I think in this instance the simplest answer is the most obvious one and for whatever reason Maloney just doesn't rate them above other players.
Click to expand...

We have been able to extend player contracts and renegotiate wages with our own players so I don't see a problem with the parent club subsidising wages for a number of games and then asking for full payment if a certain level is reached as long as that was in the original loan agreement.

The EFL, to my knowledge, have not placed any restrictions on the wages paid to loan players.

As I say, this may or may not be the case, if you have contradictory information regarding wages then please share.
 
TRUE BELIEVER said:
We have been able to extend player contracts and renegotiate wages with our own players so I don't see a problem with the parent club subsidising wages for a number of games and then asking for full payment if a certain level is reached as long as that was in the original loan agreement.

The EFL, to my knowledge, have not placed any restrictions on the wages paid to loan players.

As I say, this may or may not be the case, if you have contradictory information regarding wages then please share.
Click to expand...

I've heard of plenty of instances when a number of appearances triggers an automatic contract extension for the player the following season or a payment to the player or their previous club.

But I've never heard of triggers increasing wage contributions percentages after a number of appearances in a loan deal at any club at any level.

Shaw was on loan at Morcambe at this level last season and played 40 odd games and their wage bill is much smaller than ours. So I imagine we got the same type of deal so i can't see him being on big money or having a clause that jumps up significantly if Morcambe could pay it.

We also brought in Goode's wages while we've continued to pay Morrison to sit in the stands. So it's probably costing us more doing that than just playing Morrison even if there was an increase.

Even earlier in the season Morrison and Shaw got dropped and get subbed off before others, so I think it's just Maloney's preference rather than dodging clauses.
 
I would keep the following players and check out the possibility of re-signing the loanees or even make a cheeky offer for Morrison and Shaw.
I haven't seen enough of our loaned players but I think we should give them a chance.

Tickle
Sessegon
Pearce
Hughes
Kerr
Matt Smith
Scott Smith
Aasgaard
J Smith
McMannaman
Jones
Stones


Chambers
Godo
Morrison
Shaw
 
AndABusShelter said:
What are you talking about here?

Wyke was scoring for fun at the beginning of the season and working well in our set up.

He then got sent off against Portsmouth and bizarrely never found his way back into the team again over Magennis who has been clearly worse

I've stuck up for Maloney a lot this season but I can't defend him over this and can't explain it.
Click to expand...
He wanted out and his last goal he scored for us he couldn't even muster a hint of celebration.He wanted out and got his way,They should have let him rot in the u21s.
 
Ones I want to stay will be sold or released that's nailed on
Ones I want to leave will still be here
So I'll just wait see what danson has planned for our football club
 
what's clear is that next seasons squad could look extremely different to this seasons.

I expect Maloney to be pretty ruthless.
 
Pubey said:
what's clear is that next seasons squad could look extremely different to this seasons.

I expect Maloney to be pretty ruthless.
Click to expand...
I'm expecting squad might we ll be weaker next season can't see anything if at all available to sign players
Expect stones to be our main striker next year with adeeko being main midfielder
Has for defence I will wait and see
Expecting a bumpier ride than this season and maloney to be pissed off but will stay
 
king_dezeeuw06 said:
I've heard of plenty of instances when a number of appearances triggers an automatic contract extension for the player the following season or a payment to the player or their previous club.

But I've never heard of triggers increasing wage contributions percentages after a number of appearances in a loan deal at any club at any level.

Shaw was on loan at Morcambe at this level last season and played 40 odd games and their wage bill is much smaller than ours. So I imagine we got the same type of deal so i can't see him being on big money or having a clause that jumps up significantly if Morcambe could pay it.

We also brought in Goode's wages while we've continued to pay Morrison to sit in the stands. So it's probably costing us more doing that than just playing Morrison even if there was an increase.

Even earlier in the season Morrison and Shaw got dropped and get subbed off before others, so I think it's just Maloney's preference rather than dodging clauses.
Click to expand...

Given what you have posted you are really saying that because you have never heard of it it can't be right.

This season has been a strange season for us and due to the embargo enforced by the EFL we may have had to think outside the box. I am not saying that my suggestion is right but neither am I saying it is wrong but it does fit the situation and answers the question as to why they have not been selected for as many games as their form suggests.

There is no reason that this would breach EFL rules as there is no restriction on what wages we can pay or how they are paid. It may have been that we were not sure how Morrison or Shaw would perform and hedged our bets by inserting a wage related clause in the loan deal. There is nothing in the rules to prevent that and if the parent club agree then it could happen.

Your previous post suggests that the reason they are not playing is simply due to the manager not liking them, but if that is correct why not terminate the loans in the January window. It is as likely that Maloney has to balance the budget and he is looking to save the extra wages.

As far as Goode's wages go, we do not know what percentage if any we are paying as he had been injured for the previous season and may have been let out on loan by Brentford cheap to regain match fitness.
 
Just found this on the web which describes precisely what I am saying.


Certainly! A loan agreement in football can indeed include a performance-related wage clause. Let’s explore how this works:

What Is a Performance-Related Wage Clause?
  • A performance-related wage clause is a provision in a player’s contract that ties their earnings (wages or bonuses) to specific performance metrics.
  • These metrics can vary and might include goals scored, assists provided, appearances made, clean sheets (for goalkeepers), or other relevant factors.
  • How It Works in Loan Agreements:
    • When a player is on loan, the receiving club (where the player is temporarily playing) and the sending club (where the player is registered) negotiate the terms.
    • If both clubs agree, they can include a performance-related wage clause in the loan agreement.
    • Here’s an example:
      • Suppose Club A loans Player X to Club B for a season.
      • The loan agreement specifies that Player X will receive a base salary (fixed amount) during the loan period.
      • Additionally, if Player X achieves certain performance targets (e.g., scoring a certain number of goals or playing a minimum number of matches), they may receive additional bonuses.
      • These bonuses are directly linked to their on-field performance.
    • Benefits and Considerations:
      • Motivation: Performance-related clauses motivate players to give their best on the field. They have a financial incentive to perform well.
      • Risk Sharing: Clubs can manage financial risk by paying bonuses only when specific targets are met.
      • Fairness: It ensures that players are rewarded based on their actual contributions.
    • Challenges and Complexity:
      • Subjectivity: Determining performance metrics objectively can be challenging. Clubs must define clear criteria.
      • Injury Considerations: Clubs need to account for injuries or other factors beyond a player’s control.
      • Balancing Act: Clubs must strike a balance between incentivizing players and maintaining financial stability.
    In summary, performance-related wage clauses in loan agreements add an interesting dimension to player contracts, aligning financial rewards with on-field achievements. 🌟⚽





 
TRUE BELIEVER said:
Given what you have posted you are really saying that because you have never heard of it it can't be right.

This season has been a strange season for us and due to the embargo enforced by the EFL we may have had to think outside the box. I am not saying that my suggestion is right but neither am I saying it is wrong but it does fit the situation and answers the question as to why they have not been selected for as many games as their form suggests.

There is no reason that this would breach EFL rules as there is no restriction on what wages we can pay or how they are paid. It may have been that we were not sure how Morrison or Shaw would perform and hedged our bets by inserting a wage related clause in the loan deal. There is nothing in the rules to prevent that and if the parent club agree then it could happen.

Your previous post suggests that the reason they are not playing is simply due to the manager not liking them, but if that is correct why not terminate the loans in the January window. It is as likely that Maloney has to balance the budget and he is looking to save the extra wages.

As far as Goode's wages go, we do not know what percentage if any we are paying as he had been injured for the previous season and may have been let out on loan by Brentford cheap to regain match fitness.
Click to expand...

If it was common practice i think it's likely we'd have an example of it of someone doing it at some point.

You can't always terminate loans without the parent clubs agreement as we saw with Watts. We'd have definitely sent him back and saved money on his wages if we could, but Newcastle clearly told us no.

TRUE BELIEVER said:
Just found this on the web which describes
precisely what I am saying.


Certainly! A loan agreement in football can indeed include a performance-related wage clause. Let’s explore how this works:

What Is a Performance-Related Wage Clause?
  • A performance-related wage clause is a provision in a player’s contract that ties their earnings (wages or bonuses) to specific performance metrics.
  • These metrics can vary and might include goals scored, assists provided, appearances made, clean sheets (for goalkeepers), or other relevant factors.
  • How It Works in Loan Agreements:
    • When a player is on loan, the receiving club (where the player is temporarily playing) and the sending club (where the player is registered) negotiate the terms.
    • If both clubs agree, they can include a performance-related wage clause in the loan agreement.
    • Here’s an example:
      • Suppose Club A loans Player X to Club B for a season.
      • The loan agreement specifies that Player X will receive a base salary (fixed amount) during the loan period.
      • Additionally, if Player X achieves certain performance targets (e.g., scoring a certain number of goals or playing a minimum number of matches), they may receive additional bonuses.
      • These bonuses are directly linked to their on-field performance.
    • Benefits and Considerations:
      • Motivation: Performance-related clauses motivate players to give their best on the field. They have a financial incentive to perform well.
      • Risk Sharing: Clubs can manage financial risk by paying bonuses only when specific targets are met.
      • Fairness: It ensures that players are rewarded based on their actual contributions.
    • Challenges and Complexity:
      • Subjectivity: Determining performance metrics objectively can be challenging. Clubs must define clear criteria.
      • Injury Considerations: Clubs need to account for injuries or other factors beyond a player’s control.
      • Balancing Act: Clubs must strike a balance between incentivizing players and maintaining financial stability.
    In summary, performance-related wage clauses in loan agreements add an interesting dimension to player contracts, aligning financial rewards with on-field achievements. 🌟⚽


Click to expand...

That appears to be talking about extra payments to the player themselves which as I said isn't uncommon. It doesn't appear to mention taking on an increased wage contribution that is currently being paid by the parent club.

I think it's less likely there would be a rare appearance trigger wage contribution increase that we agreed to even though it's so large Maloney is afraid to use players rather than Maloney just preferred other players over them.
 
TRUE BELIEVER said:
We can pay wages.

What we can't do is pay a loan fee to the parent club however the deal could be set up in such a way that the parent club are paying a percentage of the wages up until a certain amount of games are played at which time we become responsible for the full amount.

I don't know if that is what is happening with both Shaw and Morrison or not but it would answer some questions.
Click to expand...
Sounds feasible.
 
NorthernSoul said:
Keepers
Tickle - Keep
Amos - Let go

Right backs
Clare - Let go
Sessegon - Keep as back up

Left backs
Pearce - Keep if wages very low
Chambers - Let go (no chance of staying)

Centre backs
Hughes - Let go (far too good for L1, if get a decent 8 figure fee, would fund multiple signings and contracts for current players to stay and make us a self sufficient club)
Goode - Let go
Kerr - Keep and make captain
Morrison - Let go (no chance of staying)
Watts - Let go

Central Mids
Adeeko - Keep
Matt Smith - Keep
Scott Smith - Keep
Shaw - Let go

Attacking Mids
Aasgaard - Keep
Sze - Keep
Humphrys - Keep (if it means he puts 100% like the first half of the season)
J Smith - Keep
McMannaman - Keep
Jones - Keep

Strikers
Wyke - Let go
Magennis - Let go
Kelman - Let go
Stones - Keep

Coming back from loans
Carragher - Keep
McHugh - Let go
Robinson - Keep
Adams - Keep
Mitchell - Keep
Watson - Keep

We should offer a contract to 25 year old left footed centre mid Joe Powell from Burton, got technical ability and was a shithouse against us, would be on a low wage.

Depending on who goes up but Josh Knight 26 year old centre half from Peterborough and 24 year old right wing back Lasse Sorenson from Lincoln are both out of contract and we should be able to offer better terms and both top end league one players at a decent age.

Would try for Gelhardt on loan too, needs to come back to us to help get his career going again, frozen out at Leeds for no reason, manager clearly doesn't like him.
Click to expand...

I'd take Powell and Sorenssen for sure. But I think Championship clubs will probably be looking at Knight as he's had such a good year.

Leeds asking clubs to take on most of Gelhardt's big wages have really killed his ability to go out on loan, but I think if they were willing to heavily subsidise his salary the lower end Championship clubs would probably want him. So I think that one is probably tough but certainly worth a try as nothing ventured nothing gained.
 
Whelans broken leg said:
Can’t see all this fuss about Gelhardt. Done nothing at Leeds nothing at Sunderland. Keep well away.
Click to expand...

We saw how much potential he had before he left, his career hasnt kicked on like we may have expected for his raw talent but he's still only 21. So he's still got a lot of time to come good but he certainly needs to be playing regularly to do that which hasn't been the case for quite a while.

I think Leeds haven’t done themselves or him any favours by not letting him go out on loan enough to play every week. Even if they paid 50%+ of his wages it'd be better than them paying 100% to sit in the stands for them and not developing at all.
 
I believe Geldhardt is out of contract this Summer.
Sean McGurk who moved to Leeds at the same time, during administration, got a free transfer to Swindon in the Jan 2024 transfer window.
A case of Leeds getting a wage off their books?
 
king_dezeeuw06 said:
If it was common practice i think it's likely we'd have an example of it of someone doing it at some point.

You can't always terminate loans without the parent clubs agreement as we saw with Watts. We'd have definitely sent him back and saved money on his wages if we could, but Newcastle clearly told us no.



That appears to be talking about extra payments to the player themselves which as I said isn't uncommon. It doesn't appear to mention taking on an increased wage contribution that is currently being paid by the parent club.

I think it's less likely there would be a rare appearance trigger wage contribution increase that we agreed to even though it's so large Maloney is afraid to use players rather than Maloney just preferred other players over them.
Click to expand...

This is nothing of the sort KDZ.

It is a negotiated agreement between the clubs whereby a performance related increase in the percentage of the players wages paid by the loan club are made in line with certain metrics.

Under EFL rules a loan club cannot make out of contract payments to loan players and therefore any payment made directly to the player would be considered illegal.

You say it is obvious that the players have fallen out of favour with the manager but in my opinion and given our financial position and the need to reduce wages it makes perfect sense that there is a financial reason behind this.
 
TRUE BELIEVER said:
This is nothing of the sort KDZ.

It is a negotiated agreement between the clubs whereby a performance related increase in the percentage of the players wages paid by the loan club are made in line with certain metrics.

Under EFL rules a loan club cannot make out of contract payments to loan players and therefore any payment made directly to the player would be considered illegal.

You say it is obvious that the players have fallen out of favour with the manager but in my opinion and given our financial position and the need to reduce wages it makes perfect sense that there is a financial reason behind this.
Click to expand...

Yes we are watching money so why would we agree to clauses that increase wages so much we were unwilling or unable to pay in the first place if they play regularly all season? There's no way the new sensible approach would enter an agreement knowing we are trapped paying loan players we won't be able to use for large parts of the season.

Shaw and Morrison are regulary on the bench and occasionally come on - if we were so afraid of playing them another game in case we had to pay more why would we include them in the squad at all?

Morrison has made no first team apperances before this season - his parent club need him getting as many games as possible for their benefit - so why would they put in a clause that disincentiveses us to play him over a certain number of games?

Shaw was on loan at Morcambe last season who have a tiny budget so they'd have probably been in the same position as us and there's no way they'd be able to pay a significant wage increase for playing him more games than we did.

It's far harder to think that the club got themselves into such a mess of making agreements we can't afford than it is they fell down the pecking order in the managers view.
 
daleks.at.the.monaco said:
I believe Geldhardt is out of contract this Summer.
Sean McGurk who moved to Leeds at the same time, during administration, got a free transfer to Swindon in the Jan 2024 transfer window.
A case of Leeds getting a wage off their books?
Click to expand...

Gelhardt signed an extension in 2022 i believe. He's under contract until 2027 I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.