Thatcher - Good Bit of Business for Man City

[davieG]

Thatcher moves to Fulham for between £500,000 to £750,000 depending on which TV text you read.

Bloody awful bit of business for LCFC

Report

[Ash]

I'm a big fan of Thatcher's & im glad to see him move to a team which is alot nearer his family , which will help him as a player

[Scow]

That's what you get when a Cowboy/Dinosaur (Bassett) negotiates contracts.

Now the understanding is that if we didn't offer these get out clauses, then we wouldn't have got these players in the first place, or even get them to agree new contracts. However, why obtain in the first place if they were already showing signs of a lack of committment?

Saying that, I don't think many clubs were queuing up to sign the likes of Thatcher, Dickov and Scimeca in the summer of 2003...

[Anish]

That's what you get when a Cowboy/Dinosaur (Bassett) negotiates contracts.

Now the understanding is that if we didn't offer these get out clauses, then we wouldn't have got these players in the first place, or even get them to agree new contracts. However, why obtain in the first place if they were already showing signs of a lack of committment?

Saying that, I don't think many clubs were queuing up to sign the likes of Thatcher, Dickov and Scimeca in the summer of 2003...

57450[/snapback]

Exactly - we had more bargaining power when they signed for us because nobody else showed any interest in them. So if they would have turned down a contract without a get-out clause, they wouldn't have received any offers from any other clubs anyway...in the end we should have been able to sign them without the get out clauses.

[Scow]

That's what you get when a Cowboy/Dinosaur (Bassett) negotiates contracts.

Now the understanding is that if we didn't offer these get out clauses, then we wouldn't have got these players in the first place, or even get them to agree new contracts. However, why obtain in the first place if they were already showing signs of a lack of committment?

Saying that, I don't think many clubs were queuing up to sign the likes of Thatcher, Dickov and Scimeca in the summer of 2003...

57450[/snapback]

Exactly - we had more bargaining power when they signed for us because nobody else showed any interest in them. So if they would have turned down a contract without a get-out clause, they wouldn't have received any offers from any other clubs anyway...in the end we should have been able to sign them without the get out clauses.

57456[/snapback]

Agreed - You don't see any other club adopting this. We were in administration the previous season, and finances were tight, so I can see it from the perspective that we could shift them from the wage bill easily in the event of relegation. Another reason for inserting release clauses was that players would have had to take wage cuts if the club were relegated. It was the wrong approach IMO. We needed players who were committed to playing for the club, not players who had the comfort of knowing they had an escape route if matters went pear shaped.

[stez]

That's what you get when a Cowboy/Dinosaur (Bassett) negotiates contracts.

Now the understanding is that if we didn't offer these get out clauses, then we wouldn't have got these players in the first place, or even get them to agree new contracts. However, why obtain in the first place if they were already showing signs of a lack of committment?

Saying that, I don't think many clubs were queuing up to sign the likes of Thatcher, Dickov and Scimeca in the summer of 2003...

57450[/snapback]

Exactly - we had more bargaining power when they signed for us because nobody else showed any interest in them. So if they would have turned down a contract without a get-out clause, they wouldn't have received any offers from any other clubs anyway...in the end we should have been able to sign them without the get out clauses.

57456[/snapback]

Agreed - You don't see any other club adopting this. We were in administration the previous season, and finances were tight, so I can see it from the perspective that we could shift them from the wage bill easily in the event of relegation. Another reason for inserting release clauses was that players would have had to take wage cuts if the club were relegated. It was the wrong approach IMO. We needed players who were committed to playing for the club, not players who had the comfort of knowing they had an escape route if matters went pear shaped.

57461[/snapback]

i can see why the clauses were there, but why such a ridiculously low asking price? 4-500k a piece would of been more use than the cost of elliots wages for a few weeks

edit

[Little Nicky]

That's what you get when a Cowboy/Dinosaur (Bassett) negotiates contracts.

Now the understanding is that if we didn't offer these get out clauses, then we wouldn't have got these players in the first place, or even get them to agree new contracts. However, why obtain in the first place if they were already showing signs of a lack of committment?

Saying that, I don't think many clubs were queuing up to sign the likes of Thatcher, Dickov and Scimeca in the summer of 2003...

57450[/snapback]

Exactly - we had more bargaining power when they signed for us because nobody else showed any interest in them. So if they would have turned down a contract without a get-out clause, they wouldn't have received any offers from any other clubs anyway...in the end we should have been able to sign them without the get out clauses.

57456[/snapback]

Agreed - You don't see any other club adopting this. We were in administration the previous season, and finances were tight, so I can see it from the perspective that we could shift them from the wage bill easily in the event of relegation. Another reason for inserting release clauses was that players would have had to take wage cuts if the club were relegated. It was the wrong approach IMO. We needed players who were committed to playing for the club, not players who had the comfort of knowing they had an escape route if matters went pear shaped.

57461[/snapback]

i can see why the clauses were there, but why such a ridiculously low asking price? 4-500k a piece would of been more use than the cost of elliots wages for a few weeks

edit

57463[/snapback]

I'm fooking outraged, Thatch was easily our most solid defender last season, we revived his career, after a dismal couple of seasons at spurs we brought him back into the limelight, and I honestly thought he'd stay here! Then these silly get out clauses emerged and we've lost easily a million or so as this transfer shows, bassett and co, ought to have been shot for such shortsightedness! Dickov leaving was a tragedy and I was really mad that he did after pledging his future to us for this season, Scimeca, well he's a flaming tree hugger if ever I saw one, good ridence to the cocknose! But thatch I thought he could be our new hero, the next Muz, but in the backline, alas no

[shen]

Well it made sense for Thatch to move on, especially as it was Man City, who ARE bigger than us, that approached. We were a stepping stone, and I think that's the fact that hurts the most. We're not that attractive a club anymore and it's got to take at least a local heart to stay here and be loyal to a club that's just come out of administration and playing in the 2nd best league... Unfortunately there aren't many Muzzies around anymore who stay 'loyal' to their club (or contract)

[Guest]

That's what you get when a Cowboy/Dinosaur (Bassett) negotiates contracts.

Now the understanding is that if we didn't offer these get out clauses, then we wouldn't have got these players in the first place, or even get them to agree new contracts. However, why obtain in the first place if they were already showing signs of a lack of committment?

Saying that, I don't think many clubs were queuing up to sign the likes of Thatcher, Dickov and Scimeca in the summer of 2003...

57450[/snapback]

Exactly - we had more bargaining power when they signed for us because nobody else showed any interest in them. So if they would have turned down a contract without a get-out clause, they wouldn't have received any offers from any other clubs anyway...in the end we should have been able to sign them without the get out clauses.

57456[/snapback]

Agreed - You don't see any other club adopting this. We were in administration the previous season, and finances were tight, so I can see it from the perspective that we could shift them from the wage bill easily in the event of relegation. Another reason for inserting release clauses was that players would have had to take wage cuts if the club were relegated. It was the wrong approach IMO. We needed players who were committed to playing for the club, not players who had the comfort of knowing they had an escape route if matters went pear shaped.

57461[/snapback]

My sentiments exactly. It just makes the previous regime look like panic buyers now.