Dennis Praet

[Farrington fox]

If I were Dennis I’d want out. He’s a quality player and should be playing regularly. That’s not going to happen for some reason. 

[ARM1968]

It can be the only explanation. Perez always seems just on the verge of doing good things, but it NEVER comes off - slightly delayed pass, moves too early or too late, touch just not quite good enough. He is not the answer and needs to go or sink back into the general squad and actually fight for his position. 
 

Denis is the better player. 

[Bert]

31 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Please say this doesn't role over into next season? That is honking from whoever agreed to that. 

I literally have no idea what the stipulations are other than he has a clause inserted. 

[Kilworthfox]

49 minutes ago, Bert said:

I think what a lot of people don’t know with Perez is that he has a clause in his contract stipulating he has to play x amount of games. 

I assume this is on a % basis of when he is available? Rather than say 25 a season?

[Dahnsouff]

52 minutes ago, Bert said:

I think what a lot of people don’t know with Perez is that he has a clause in his contract stipulating he has to play x amount of games. 

Not doubting you @Bert but what a bizarre clause for a player that cannot have been envisaged as an essential starter. (Could be a hindsight judgement though)

Any idea if its for the duration of the contract? Would explain why the-well-dressed-man has so little game time maybe  

[5waller5]

DP > AP

 

Should have started last night, would’ve slotted the chance Ayoze missed

[Hales]

Just now, Dahnsouff said:

Not doubting you @Bert but what a bizarre clause for a player that cannot have been envisaged as an essential starter. (Could be a hindsight judgement though)

Any idea if its for the duration of the contract? Would explain why the-well-dressed-man has so little game time maybe  

The well dressed man bit made me laugh! He could certainly teach a few of the others a thing or two 😁

[Bert]

5 minutes ago, Kilworthfox said:

I assume this is on a % basis of when he is available? Rather than say 25 a season?

I literally have no idea other than there’s a clause in his contract. 

[Always Next Year]

56 minutes ago, Bert said:

I think what a lot of people don’t know with Perez is that he has a clause in his contract stipulating he has to play x amount of games. 

Was he fully fit.

[Bert]

2 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Not doubting you @Bert but what a bizarre clause for a player that cannot have been envisaged as an essential starter. (Could be a hindsight judgement though)

Any idea if its for the duration of the contract? Would explain why the-well-dressed-man has so little game time maybe  

Again mate I have no idea of the finer details.  

[Kilworthfox]

Well he is contracted for another 2 seasons... so if he were a player the club wanted to keep you would assume that a new deal would be offered in the coming season, if not now... I wouldn't offer him a new deal, in fact I'd get rid ASAP.

[Mickyblueeyes]

59 minutes ago, Bert said:

I think what a lot of people don’t know with Perez is that he has a clause in his contract stipulating he has to play x amount of games. 

Do you know what happens if he’s doesn’t ?

[Bert]

17 minutes ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

Do you know what happens if he’s doesn’t ?

Nope.

[Dan LCFC]

1 hour ago, Bert said:

I think what a lot of people don’t know with Perez is that he has a clause in his contract stipulating he has to play x amount of games. 

What on earth were we thinking there, how did we get backed into a situation like that signing someone from Newcastle?

 

That is a joke and I've just bitten isn't it, surely?

 

As for Praet, I'd imagine he's probably off now.

[Bert]

7 minutes ago, Dan LCFC said:

What on earth were we thinking there, how did we get backed into a situation like that signing someone from Newcastle?

 

That is a joke and I've just bitten isn't it, surely?

 

As for Praet, I'd imagine he's probably off now.

Sadly no joke 

[Dan LCFC]

Just now, Bert said:

Sadly no joke 

I'm just baffled. Everything about the Perez transfer and his performances are in such contrast to virtually everything else we've done in recent years. I would only consider a clause like that for a player I thought was too good for us and even then I would probably decide against it, but we've done it for quite comfortably our poorest player. It's genuinely quite baffling.

[volpeazzurro]

4 hours ago, dayday said:

There’s always a reason why players don’t get played, you only have to look at Cengiz Under.

True, but we don't know why in either case do we. Could it be lack of consistent game time? Even though he'd score in a cup match, apart from the odd few minutes here and there, Rodgers clearly never fancied Iheanacho who it would seem was only eventually played out of desperation. Now look at him! Without Iheanacho, where exactly would we be? How could Rodgers get that so wrong, perhaps his eye for a player isn't as good as he and the media thinks it is. Every time Nacho scores again it must be an embarrassment to him. I  remember one interview where Rodgers was asked about his recent goalscoring record and he appeared almost reluctant to praise him but found time to mumble something about needing to improve certain aspects of his game. Does Vardy get similar comments or just even more honeyed praise because Rodgers can only be seen to tow the now recognised party line. If it's not broke, don't fix it. Nacho admittedly didn't have the best of games in the final, his first poor performance for weeks and yet he's dropped. Nonetheless, we find room for an out of form Maddison and a consistently shite non scoring Perez. Wouldn't a dual threat of Vardy and Iheanacho have helped to give a little bit of fear to the Chelsea backline and stop Rudiger rampaging forward at will perhaps? Iheanacho comes on and a short time later scores, what a surprise!

 

Under and Praet must have shown something to someone or they wouldn't have been brought here in the first place. Or could it just be that Rodgers and Congleton weren't involved in those signings perhaps? Have either had a fair crack of the whip like Iheanacho didn't get until there was no choice? If it comes down to what's viewed in training it has been a fairly common trait throughout football history that some players are notoriously poor in training but produce the goods on match days. There have been so many poor performances in recent weeks despite results and these and other players could have been selected rather than the continual playing of players out of their positions who subsequently don't perform to their best and then get criticised by some. At any time I'd suggest that Praet, Under, Tavares or Leshabela would have been a viable option to serial underachiever Perez for example. Rodgers persistent faith in his flop expensive signing with hindsight has brought what to the table exactly?

Edited 19 May 2021 by volpeazzurro

[Ric Flair]

I imagine the clause is, the more he plays and the crapper he is, the less we have to pay him.

[Stevosevic]

2 hours ago, Bert said:

I think what a lot of people don’t know with Perez is that he has a clause in his contract stipulating he has to play x amount of games. 

Behave. Surely clauses like that aren't a real thing

[Chocolate Teapot]

Come on @Bert there is absolutely no way that is true.

[volpeazzurro]

4 hours ago, coolhandfox said:

That he hardly gets a game for.........

 

He's got 10 caps but the competition of DeBruyne, Carrasco, Hazard, Tielemans et al is perhaps a little steeper ?

[Bert]

5 minutes ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

Come on @Bert there is absolutely no way that is true.

It is. 

[Ric Flair]

Praet has got his limitations but I just cannot get my head around how little he has been used since he came back from his injury in light of all the issues we've had with the form of Maddison and Perez.

 

It annoys me why subjects such as this or how diabolical Perez has been considering what he cost aren't put to Rodgers in press conferences to answer. Managers are given far too easy a ride.

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, Ric Flair said:

Praet has got his limitations but I just cannot get my head around how little he has been used since he came back from his injury in light of all the issues we've had with the form of Maddison and Perez.

 

It annoys me why subjects such as this or how diabolical Perez has been considering what he cost aren't put to Rodgers in press conferences to answer. Managers are given far too easy a ride.

Don’t disagree with the theory, but Rodgers hardly helps himself or the team by chucking players under the bus, he ain’t Jose, and knows he cannot get away with it.

[ClaphamFox]

22 minutes ago, Bert said:

It is. 

If that's the case, I'm astonished. I cannot believe our club would agree to a clause like that - especially for a player like Perez.