GaelicFox Posted 4 June 2016 Author Posted 4 June 2016 It's amazing how many people on here think they can run a clearly very well run football club better than our current owners. Also it surprises me how much inside knowledge everybody has. I guess a lot of people know the players and agents personally. Fair enough. The owners are acting on advice , most of which is great , the contracts seem a mess !
Gerard Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 It's amazing how many people on here think they can run a clearly very well run football club better than our current owners. Also it surprises me how much inside knowledge everybody has. I guess a lot of people know the players and agents personally. Fair enough. If Vardy was on 40k a week with no release fee would you concede his new contract has been a total balls up by the club?
bluebeau Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 For God's sake why can't some guys on this forum understand that top pro footballers are greedy bas---ds & I guess I would also be one if I were in their position! Their agent wants the lowest possible amount in the release clause & the football club wants a higher one, but unfortunately nowadays the player seems to hold all the aces! A contract is pretty worthless anyway cos if a player wants to leave a club, he will do one way or another, same goes for managers contracts. If Vardy decides to leave City for Arsenal then so be it, but imo it would be the wrong move for him as their style of play would not suit him. Let's not worry too much, have faith in the owners & management. If Jamie does go they will have a damned good replacement lined up.
Viva Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 If Vardy was on 40k a week with no release fee would you concede his new contract has been a total balls up by the club? No. There would have been a reason behind it that we don't necessarily know. The club wouldn't just chuck away £1m in wages and let a player go on the cheap for no reason. As stated earlier, my guess would be that there was strong interest for him in January and it was decided this was the best course of action for all parties.
FireFox Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 No. There would have been a reason behind it that we don't necessarily know. The club wouldn't just chuck away £1m in wages and let a player go on the cheap for no reason. As stated earlier, my guess would be that there was strong interest for him in January and it was decided this was the best course of action for all parties. How was such a low release clause the best course of action for the club? Especially if there was strong interest? Why not just keep him on his current contract in a which then we could decide the price?
Viva Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 How was such a low release clause the best course of action for the club? Especially if there was strong interest? Why not just keep him on his current contract in a which then we could decide the price? Well i've said this before, but a big club could have shown a strong interest in him in Jan. Vardy could have wanted the move then as it might have been his last chance at securing his future with a massive contract. To a) keep Vardy happy and b) keep him at the club, we might have said stay with us and we'll increase your wages. Also we will give you the chance to move in the summer. We then have a happy player helping us to win the league and he still gets his big move in the summer. If there was no release clause, we could have easily declined all offers this summer and he would never have got his move.
FireFox Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 Well i've said this before, but a big club could have shown a strong interest in him in Jan. Vardy could have wanted the move then as it might have been his last chance at securing his future with a massive contract. To a) keep Vardy happy and b) keep him at the club, we might have said stay with us and we'll increase your wages. Also we will give you the chance to move in the summer. We then have a happy player helping us to win the league and he still gets his big move in the summer. If there was no release clause, we could have easily declined all offers this summer and he would never have got his move. So when we negotiated the contract, the club was happy to get 15m for him in the summer, with no guarantee keeping him happy would get us in the top 4?
Viva Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 So when we negotiated the contract, the club was happy to get 15m for him in the summer, with no guarantee keeping him happy would get us in the top 4? Yes I would certainly have thought the club would do anything in their power to help us to win our first ever league, even if that means losing some money this summer. Obviously it looks like Vardy wants to go to a 'big'' club, so it's possible to assume he would have liked to leave in Jan too. We could have maybe got 30-35m for him then as clubs are a bit more desperate to buy in Jan. Now, I can't see another champions league club paying that figure. Spurs and Man City wouldn't, and I doubt Arsenal would for a 29 year old. So we would have priced him out of a move, which is why he would have wanted the clause put in when he signed.
FireFox Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 Yes I would certainly have thought the club would do anything in their power to help us to win our first ever league, even if that means losing some money this summer. Obviously it looks like Vardy wants to go to a 'big'' club, so it's possible to assume he would have liked to leave in Jan too. We could have maybe got 30-35m for him then as clubs are a bit more desperate to buy in Jan. Now, I can't see another champions league club paying that figure. Spurs and Man City wouldn't, and I doubt Arsenal would for a 29 year old. So we would have priced him out of a move, which is why he would have wanted the clause put in when he signed. Giving him the new contract though never guaranteed us to finish top 4, let alone win the league. And if he wanted a big move, he'd have to continue to do well anyway. So did giving him a new contract help at all really?
Donut Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 Giving him the new contract though never guaranteed us to finish top 4, let alone win the league. And if he wanted a big move, he'd have to continue to do well anyway. So did giving him a new contract help at all really? Maybe the release clause was a big incentive to him?
hornyhollthefox123 Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 Yes I would certainly have thought the club would do anything in their power to help us to win our first ever league, even if that means losing some money this summer. Obviously it looks like Vardy wants to go to a 'big'' club, so it's possible to assume he would have liked to leave in Jan too. We could have maybe got 30-35m for him then as clubs are a bit more desperate to buy in Jan. Now, I can't see another champions league club paying that figure. Spurs and Man City wouldn't, and I doubt Arsenal would for a 29 year old. So we would have priced him out of a move, which is why he would have wanted the clause put in when he signed. Yes we've had this already but he still had 30 months on his contract. He couldn't just leave if he fancied it?! We didn't have to give him a new deal nor did we have to sell him in January.. and we could have sold him for £30m ish this summer and saved us money. Makes no sense to offer him more money for 4 months and lower his release clause. We therefore pay more on wages and are guaranteed to lose him for less.. Not one part of that adds up
GaelicFox Posted 4 June 2016 Author Posted 4 June 2016 Yes we've had this already but he still had 30 months on his contract. He couldn't just leave if he fancied it?! We didn't have to give him a new deal nor did we have to sell him in January.. and we could have sold him for £30m ish this summer and saved us money. Makes no sense to offer him more money for 4 months and lower his release clause. We therefore pay more on wages and are guaranteed to lose him for less.. Not one part of that adds up Honestly this guy your replying to can't get it ....he is all over the shop with his point We fecked up and a blind man can see that His Agent must have been so excited that he must have had a tug in the car park after the meeting that contract was signed at !
Viva Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 Honestly this guy your replying to can't get it ....he is all over the shop with his point We fecked up and a blind man can see that His Agent must have been so excited that he must have had a tug in the car park after the meeting that contract was signed at ! Oh yes silly me, a bunch of members from a forum including a fair few kids could see it, but the people that have negotiated many contracts which have kept our team together and players happy couldn't.
WengersWingMan Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 Arsenal fan coming in peace What if Vardy already had a lower release clause and agreed to a higher one out of respect for the club while allowing him options in the summer? Would of made sense, a player joining a Championship team with a good goal scoring record may have wanted one. The board doesn't want to let him go dirt cheap, I mean imagine if he had a 5 million release that would be heart breaking. Vardy knows he can still get a big money move for 20m if he plays well enough, if not he has a better contract anyway. Everyone's a winner.....except..... Also the talk of him being benched at our place...........he'd have to perform pretty poorly with the options we have at CF, he's not competing with Aguero, or Sturridge or even Costa, he's competing with a lamp post, the unmovable object, I mean if he suffers a career ending injury he'd probably be on squad rotation duty.
Viva Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 Yes we've had this already but he still had 30 months on his contract. He couldn't just leave if he fancied it?! We didn't have to give him a new deal nor did we have to sell him in January.. and we could have sold him for £30m ish this summer and saved us money. Makes no sense to offer him more money for 4 months and lower his release clause. We therefore pay more on wages and are guaranteed to lose him for less.. Not one part of that adds up It's painful trying to explain things to people that only see the simple side of it.
The Doctor Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 Arsenal fan coming in peace What if Vardy already had a lower release clause If that were the case then why'd no one move for him in January?
FireFox Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 It's painful trying to explain things to people that only see the simple side of it.
hornyhollthefox123 Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 It's painful trying to explain things to people that only see the simple side of it. Just explain what motivation we would've had to pay him more for 4 months if we were to lose him for LESS at the end of the season? He was under contract going nowhere
GaelicFox Posted 4 June 2016 Author Posted 4 June 2016 It's painful trying to explain things to people that only see the simple side of it. Simple Yip now your bang on
whoareyaaa Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 Arsenal fan coming in peace What if Vardy already had a lower release clause and agreed to a higher one out of respect for the club while allowing him options in the summer? Would of made sense, a player joining a Championship team with a good goal scoring record may have wanted one. The board doesn't want to let him go dirt cheap, I mean imagine if he had a 5 million release that would be heart breaking. Vardy knows he can still get a big money move for 20m if he plays well enough, if not he has a better contract anyway. Everyone's a winner.....except..... Also the talk of him being benched at our place...........he'd have to perform pretty poorly with the options we have at CF, he's not competing with Aguero, or Sturridge or even Costa, he's competing with a lamp post, the unmovable object, I mean if he suffers a career ending injury he'd probably be on squad rotation duty. You would just ruin him and he would be in the medical room within 6 months. He doesn't want to play for you he is just trying to get the best deal from our owners silly.
Viva Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 Just explain what motivation we would've had to pay him more for 4 months if we were to lose him for LESS at the end of the season? He was under contract going nowhere Look back in this thread. I'm not explaining it again.
Donut Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 I think the new contract essentially was to give him a boost, to keep him scoring the goals to keep us at the top of the table. It was a calculated risk by the club, and it worked in the sense it delivered the title. We are taking a hit on him now in terms of his value, but wed have taken a hit had he been sulking around the club for 4 months too Berahino'ing his way for a move and out league form dipping. The contract may just have been enough of a way to shut the agent and Vardy up for a bit to concentrate on the football. Obviously, we might not have won the title, but maybe the contract offer played a large part in his happiness, and thus great form for us.
WengersWingMan Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 If that were the case then why'd no one move for him in January? Either the offers were 'only' 80k-100k, or there weren't any offers and maybe his agent hadn't put him on the market yet or maybe he was convinced to finish what was already a very good season for Leicester that turned out to be a great one. For all of us that don't know it's speculation and football manager chat.
whoareyaaa Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 Let's not forget he's been with the England squad, Rooney will be giving him some tips
WengersWingMan Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 You would just ruin him and he would be in the medical room within 6 months. He doesn't want to play for you he is just trying to get the best deal from our owners silly. Can't argue with this, our medical staff will prob suggest cosmetic surgery of replacing his knee bone in his nose and his nose bone in his knee joint because science.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.