|
|
Post by happyclapper52 on Jan 24, 2018 21:36:43 GMT
At least 2 players have contract clauses about to apply that state if they play 30 games they get one year extensions.
Put this to the meeting tomorrow, name the players and put this to the vote to approve or not ? Can we afford this yes or no?
|
|
|
|
Post by dmcnally on Jan 24, 2018 22:06:35 GMT
Doesn’t need a vote. We can’t afford it.
|
|
|
|
Post by nealseal on Jan 24, 2018 22:14:16 GMT
Vote would be a landslide.
I hear it has already been agreed that 2 of these players have agreed and understand that this will not be invocked (if they exceed 30 games)
|
|
|
|
Post by sumo on Jan 24, 2018 22:15:27 GMT
you dont get to vote, you pay 12 quid, for nothing, when will you realize this ?.
|
|
|
|
Post by nealseal on Jan 24, 2018 23:06:07 GMT
Since reformation bud
|
|
|
|
Post by dmcnally on Jan 25, 2018 0:02:22 GMT
Vote would be a landslide. I hear it has already been agreed that 2 of these players have agreed and understand that this will not be invocked (if they exceed 30 games) Halls and McCombe are the two players with the 30 games clause - are you saying they’ve agree to remove this clause and play on regardless? |
|
|
|
Post by norwegianblue on Jan 25, 2018 7:13:13 GMT
At least 2 players have contract clauses about to apply that state if they play 30 games they get one year extensions. Put this to the meeting tomorrow, name the players and put this to the vote to approve or not ? Can we afford this yes or no? With all of the injuries and Bignot Bingo, I'll be surprised if any players are close to 30 games ! |
|
|
|
Post by Hannibal on Jan 25, 2018 7:52:42 GMT
Do non-playing sub appearances count?
|
|
|
|
Post by nealseal on Jan 25, 2018 8:11:33 GMT
Don't know about non playing subs, but I heard that there was an agreement to play anyway without triggering the clause. Something to clarify tonight maybe.
Fair play to the individuals if they have committed to that.
|
|
|
|
Post by billyw on Jan 25, 2018 12:52:09 GMT
Don't know about non playing subs, but I heard that there was an agreement to play anyway without triggering the clause. Something to clarify tonight maybe. Fair play to the individuals if they have committed to that. Bignot has implied that is the case, so as you say, fair doos to the players involved. |
|
|
|
Post by devadiva on Jan 25, 2018 12:59:47 GMT
Don't know about non playing subs, but I heard that there was an agreement to play anyway without triggering the clause. Something to clarify tonight maybe. Fair play to the individuals if they have committed to that. Bignot has implied that is the case, so as you say, fair doos to the players involved. Absolutely agree if that’s the case |
|
|
|
Post by cfcforme on Jan 25, 2018 13:06:14 GMT
At the end of the day, if they're on 29 games and the club can't afford to activate the 30 game clause then they have two choices:
1. Not play again for the rest of the season - which ultimately will leave them out of match practice.
or
2. Agree with the club to remove the clause, leep playing and put themselves in the shop window for next season.
Added into that, do appearance / goal / win bonuses apply at our level? If not playing then (presumably) they miss out on those too, so another reason to lose the clause and keep playing.
|
|
|
|
Post by englishred on Jan 25, 2018 14:01:16 GMT
Genuinely sorry to read about your current problems guys.
Obviously this is similar to a situation we were in last year. Paul Rutherford was one for us who agreed to waive that clause as it appears your players. I think a lot of the time the clauses are put on by the club and/or agents and the players aren't bothered. It's in their interests to keep playing, whether they think they will be retained or not.
John Rooney, being a bit of a mercenary as you know, refused to do this which was why he got shipped off to Guiseley!
Good luck for the rest of the season!
|
|
|
|
Post by loskasleftfoot on Jan 25, 2018 17:49:58 GMT
I don't think that this is the sort of thing to be voted on by the members. Team selection should be the preserve of the manager at all times.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lime on Jan 25, 2018 18:38:58 GMT
I don't think that this is the sort of thing to be voted on by the members. Team selection should be the preserve of the manager at all times. Disagree on this case. If selecting a player will cost the club a year's wages we can't afford, the Board should give him an instruction not to select them. The manager could look after himself, rather than the club. |
|
|
|
Post by gezzer on Jan 25, 2018 18:45:50 GMT
Hope TA has done some homework on this as an "implication" from Bignot or the players verbally agreeing to continue without triggering the clauses could end up with us not having a leg to stand on legally
|
|
