Stitch_KTF Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Lardarse? that referring to Gregan? Come january you wont be saying that. he's the best defender we have at the club. I reckon he meant Crossley. Gregan was probably 'Greegs'. Bang on with him being best defender at the club though. He's one of the best players in the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razza699 Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I reckon he meant Crossley. Gregan was probably 'Greegs'. Bang on with him being best defender at the club though. He's one of the best players in the league. Arr right Crossley. Well i agree there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Lardarse? that referring to Gregan? Come january you wont be saying that. he's the best defender we have at the club. Yeah that'll be why I have Gregan 16 on the back of my shirt mate!!!! Doh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edhunteruk Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Yeah that'll be why I have Gregan 16 on the back of my shirt mate!!!! Doh! im not exactly sure on the ages and that but isnt it players under 24 you get a tribunal setting a compensation fee.....and only players over 28 can buy out the last year of there contract,thus making them a free agent,knowing full well that whatever club they end up at will give them the money back anyway..... i dont think we will see a huge increase in players in leagues 1 and 2 buying out contracts...i do think however that players will just let there contracts run out,then they are free to go where ever. i do beleive the clubs best players should be offered long term deals,as if they have good seasons back to back at least with being contracted it will mean a nice transfer fee and incentives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 im not exactly sure on the ages and that but isnt it players under 24 you get a tribunal setting a compensation fee.....and only players over 28 can buy out the last year of there contract,thus making them a free agent,knowing full well that whatever club they end up at will give them the money back anyway..... i dont think we will see a huge increase in players in leagues 1 and 2 buying out contracts...i do think however that players will just let there contracts run out,then they are free to go where ever. i do beleive the clubs best players should be offered long term deals,as if they have good seasons back to back at least with being contracted it will mean a nice transfer fee and incentives. It is currently about that (I'm not sure it didn't go down to 24 with Andy Webster, who was found guilty of cancelling his contract without just cause) but if the rule isn't available for any age it will soon be brought up by European Law. All it takes is one person to do it (and they will soon) and this ageist procedure will end all age related things in the sport, as it should. I like the idea of continuity of players at the club, it is what heroes are made of. But the game is changing for me and there aren't going to be many ways to not get caught with your pants down soon. Players contracts are so far from water tight it is daft. If the age restrictions go all our players can move on a free when contracts are up, most youngsters can buy out after two (as it will change to two soon enough) years of their contract (so Alessandra on a pittance will go for a pittance). I just fail to see how spending money on transfer fees (and large signing on fees) is anything other than foolhardy in the current climate. Long term contracts aren't too bad as the worst you would probably end up with would be a poor/injured (in a Chris Killen manner rather than retired) player for a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_mighty_bosh Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Hang on, I'm certain that Davies got a 3 year deal when he signed and I'm pretty sure that Hughes got the same length of contract also. Besides, I think that Hughes shouldn't look to move club again as his situation seems to be relatively good for him with us and I think it could be a lot worse at another club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razza699 Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Hang on, I'm certain that Davies got a 3 year deal when he signed and I'm pretty sure that Hughes got the same length of contract also. Besides, I think that Hughes shouldn't look to move club again as his situation seems to be relatively good for him with us and I think it could be a lot worse at another club. davies signed for 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razza699 Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Yeah that'll be why I have Gregan 16 on the back of my shirt mate!!!! Doh! My mistake!! lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daznathe Posted June 27, 2008 Author Share Posted June 27, 2008 because if we give him a new contract and he buys himself out then we get the dough. if we give him a contract and we sell him then we get the dough. if we dont and he leaves but stays within a certain pre set boundary we get a tribunal set mockery of a fee. then we need to find a replacement waste time signing him, waste time fitting him in and then hope it works. so to protect ourselves we need to give him a contract in advance, which is the basis of the conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daznathe Posted June 27, 2008 Author Share Posted June 27, 2008 some good posts and here but i might have to type FACT in a minute after i point out that.. a) leaving a key players contract to run down can in no way be more sensible than not doing. transfer fees are paid for a reason, usually because a few clubs are sniffing round the player as hes a potential freeby, so you pay a nominal fee to cut them out of the negotiations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daznathe Posted June 27, 2008 Author Share Posted June 27, 2008 that smiley is not deliberate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 because if we give him a new contract and he buys himself out then we get the dough. if we give him a contract and we sell him then we get the dough. if we dont and he leaves but stays within a certain pre set boundary we get a tribunal set mockery of a fee. then we need to find a replacement waste time signing him, waste time fitting him in and then hope it works. so to protect ourselves we need to give him a contract in advance, which is the basis of the conversation. I can understand the pro for giving him a contract now. A contract that binds him to the club for a longer period of time and therefore makes him an asset we are less likely to lose (or could gain more financially from). However, there are similar assets out there and losing him would not be the end of the world. Financially it makes little sense to pay players more than necessary. If it isn't necessary to up his salary until January then why should we bother? Alright, he might bob off to another club, but as I mentioned there are a million and one players of similar calibre available on free transfers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 (edited) some good posts and here but i might have to type FACT in a minute after I point out that.. a) leaving a key players contract to run down can in no way be more sensible than not doing. transfer fees are paid for a reason, usually because a few clubs are sniffing round the player as hes a potential freeby, so you pay a nominal fee to cut them out of the negotiations. a) It is sensible when you add up the costs. Knock on a grand on a player a week (and signing on fee) and it is a fair amount of money for a club this size. I suppose it depends on your definition of key also. Which players are key? Davies? Ratboy? Eardley? Taylor? Gregan? Hughes? Hazell? I don't have too much of a problem with keeping players under long contract, but I can certainly see the reason against it. I'm sticking with a club our size paying a transfer fee in today's climate is nothing short of idiocy (if money is important to the owners). NB. We should probably go with (i) and (ii) next time. Edited June 27, 2008 by OldhamSheridan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daznathe Posted June 27, 2008 Author Share Posted June 27, 2008 I can understand the pro for giving him a contract now. A contract that binds him to the club for a longer period of time and therefore makes him an asset we are less likely to lose (or could gain more financially from). However, there are similar assets out there and losing him would not be the end of the world. Financially it makes little sense to pay players more than necessary. If it isn't necessary to up his salary until January then why should we bother? Alright, he might bob off to another club, but as I mentioned there are a million and one players of similar calibre available on free transfers. but is there? can you find a full international pacy striker who scores 1 in 3(ish) for free and convince him to sign? not to mention signing fees agents fees bus fare etcetera and will he settle? will he get on with the existing players/ staff? i see and understand your point, i even agree with it on a whole BUT this is football theres always exceptions, davies is our diamond and should be looked after, polished and protected. not left on the front seat of the car with the windows down. obviously im making this point from my view that hes the best prospect at the club, if one thinks hes a headless chicken who never ever passes ever and sulks too much then im talking complete bollocks!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daznathe Posted June 27, 2008 Author Share Posted June 27, 2008 a) It is sensible when you add up the costs. Knock on a grand on a player a week (and signing on fee) and it is a fair amount of money for a club this size. I suppose it depends on your definition of key also. Which players are key? Davies? Ratboy? Eardley? Taylor? Gregan? Hughes? Hazell? I don't have too much of a problem with keeping players under long contract, but I can certainly see the reason against it. I'm sticking with a club our size paying a transfer fee in today's climate is nothing short of idiocy (if money is important to the owners). NB. We should probably go with (i) and (ii) next time. davies- as explained ratboy- yes but unlikely to be poached also supports oldham so prob wouldnt leave eardley- yes but his contract is longer taylor- yes but his contract is longer gregan- maybe, but not likely anyone else wants him due to age and probably a myriad of other reasons similar to why we got him in the 1st place hughes- yes but hes already more or less said hes offskis unless we go up and maybe even if we do hazell- yes but probably replacable ill leave the transfer fees part, we wouldnt have got him without it so im happy for nominal fees to continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankly Mr Shankly Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 but is there? can you find a full international pacy striker who scores 1 in 3(ish) for free and... ...loses his passport when he's on international duty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daznathe Posted June 27, 2008 Author Share Posted June 27, 2008 ...loses his passport when he's on international duty. lol and heres the pedantry, technically he lost it prior to international duty which is why he didnt go. thats assuming that story was true, he may have been at old trafford or anfield discussing a deal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorvik_latic Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 Clutching at straws now. How do you know that things aren't already in the pipeline. No wait, they already are. It's on the fishul page that announces ALL the goings on. Todays news..... John Smith of Royton buys an away shirt..........Tea Lady brews up...........Man walks dog past the stadium. Hmmmmmmm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daznathe Posted August 9, 2008 Author Share Posted August 9, 2008 obviously TTA dont need me to tell them this and i like to imagine wheels are in motion, probably only with davies if im being realistic. id say hes THE prospect at the club at the mo, ahead of eards and taylor. double hmmmm. remember, discussion board, used for discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 More than happy with that. Yet more asset within the club in terms of pound notes value just as TTA promised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetramfixer Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 (edited) just looked through this thread and didn't notice this... http://www.oldhamathletic.premiumtv.co.uk/...1361940,00.html seems the lad signed on for another 12 months Edited August 9, 2008 by thetramdriver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.