[Archived] Lucas Neill And Professional Contracts

[OscarRaven]

Nicko's thread. Must be true then.

[RevidgeBlue]

You lost what little credibility you had after that first line.

Neill was a decent player for us - certainly better than any of the specialist right-backs we currently have at the club. Do I want him back? Probably not, as I don't think he would be worth the money we'd have to pay for him (fee & wages), but he would certainly improve the current squad.

It's quite astounding to me that anyone could possibly rate the positionally inept, error prone Neill as a better RB than the generally reliable Emerton.

Just goes to show it's a game of extremely diverse opinion.

[RevidgeBlue]

Indeed and many in the 'Neill is a bstard' corner will no doubt talk about getting rid / getting shot of / booting out / cashing in on etc etc the likes of Mokoena, MGP, Bentley, Andrews, Roberts etc as if they were cattle in a cattle market. Doubtless the same types screaming for loyalty that hounded the likes of Sherwood, Wilcox, Carsley et al out of the club. I must admit to doing the same re: Fowler but he was never the option of a sane man was he?

We can't just get rid of them though can we? Stuck with any players who aren't performing until their contracts expire or someone takes them off our hands.

As for your oft quoted view that Neill acted "honourably" wouldn't the "honourable" course of action have been to sign a new contract with the Club that gave him his chance in the top flight, thereby ensuring them a decent fee when he left?

He didn't do anything he wasn't technically entitled to but do you think it's a morally strong position to come from the point of view that you're a greedy so and so who is going to dump on your employers to maximise your own earning potential? But that it's OK because you've openly announced your intention to do it?

[cruz]

Lucash was nothing more than a slightly above average right back when he was at Ewood. Since his move his career and performances have regressed. His tendency to be stripped naked by opposition wingers has increased along with his very high penalty conceding rate.

Rovers have moved on since getting rid of Lucash and he is best left in the past

[CrazyIvan]

Nicko's thread. Must be true then.

Have you actually read the first post?

[OscarRaven]

Have you actually read the first post?

Yes. I also read most of the 70+ pages of the 'Lucash' thread. Some time ago. He no longer has any relevance to Rovers apart from being slightly annoying in a pub in Blackburn a few months back and being linked via the crappy times...

....oh yeah and of course in a messageboard thread lovingly dedicated to a clearly bored, freelance tabloid journo who works for a paper that publishes stories suggesting Blackburn Rovers are racists.

You don't think he is comming back. I don't think he is coming back.

So your point is?

[CrazyIvan]

Yes. I also read most of the 70+ pages of the 'Lucash' thread. Some time ago. He no longer has any relevance to Rovers apart from being slightly annoying in a pub in Blackburn a few months back and being linked via the crappy times...

....oh yeah and of course in a messageboard thread lovingly dedicated to a clearly bored, freelance tabloid journo who works for a paper that publishes stories suggesting Blackburn Rovers are racists.

You don't think he is comming back. I don't think he is coming back.

So your point is?

So what do you think about contracts and loyalty? Leave Lucas out of it because that was also my point which is why this is called Lucas Neill and Professional Contracts...

[RibbleValleyRover]

Yes. I also read most of the 70+ pages of the 'Lucash' thread. Some time ago. He no longer has any relevance to Rovers apart from being slightly annoying in a pub in Blackburn a few months back and being linked via the crappy times...

He's been linked with a return to the club by numerous sources so i don't see why you think this thread is irrelevant. I can't see us wanting him either but you can never rule anything out in football.

And btw it wasn't Nicko who said Neill might be coming back or published a story saying Rovers were interested, he in fact said he doesn't see such a deal happening.

[OscarRaven]

And btw it wasn't Nicko who said Neill might be coming back or published a story saying Rovers were interested, he in fact said he doesn't see such a deal happening.

Which is why I said in a 'messageboard thread...' and not by '...a clearly bored, freelance tabloid journo who works for a paper that publishes stories suggesting Blackburn Rovers are racists'

Subtle, I grant you.

So go on then for those of us with better things to do than trawl the Nick thread... which major players have linked us with a return for Neill?

Tribal?

[stuwilky]

Lucas Neill was offered and accepted a contract for a specific duration - this also works both ways. The theory being if the club dont require his services they can dispense with the wages at the end of the defined period. It works both ways of course.

I have never understood why people expect loyalty from paid sportsmen, it simply does not exist in an immensely high percentage - some would argue that it never did (although I am probably not one of those).

In the matter of Mr Neill, who actually cares? He went years ago, hes not coming back.

[47er]

The thing is, Lucas maximised his potential earnings at the expense of Rovers finances - if he had signed a new contract and then moved we would have made more but he would have been unable to command as big a salary. He used the system to his advantage and Rovers disadvantage, obviously some people didn't like that.

Personally I couldn't care less about that. He's just not a very good footballer, and no way would I want him back. We don't have Brad any more to save all the penalties he'd give away.

You've said it all for me!

[thenodrog]

You love lucas dont you?

How do you make that out? Just 2 posts above yours I agreed with RVR that I did not really want him back. I just don't like the way you introduced inaccuracies intentionally to validate an immature, incorrect and mischievous point.

Staying until only 6 months was left wasn't his decision. He could have been sold earlier for more money.

Please explain how American? He couldn't be sold against his wishes if he was determined to run his contract down. The only way we could have sold him early was if we had done a deal with him and made it worth his while.

[thenodrog]

We can't just get rid of them though can we? Stuck with any players who aren't performing until their contracts expire or someone takes them off our hands.

As for your oft quoted view that Neill acted "honourably" wouldn't the "honourable" course of action have been to sign a new contract with the Club that gave him his chance in the top flight, thereby ensuring them a decent fee when he left?

He didn't do anything he wasn't technically entitled to but do you think it's a morally strong position to come from the point of view that you're a greedy so and so who is going to dump on your employers to maximise your own earning potential? But that it's OK because you've openly announced your intention to do it?

Hey I didn't make the rules you know Simon. Lucas Neill played it by the book totally. The man is a professional footballer i.e. he sells his talents to the highest bidder. We knew that when we offered him a 4 year contract post Bosman / freedom of contract, so we knew the implications of the new rules well enough, he signed it, we signed it, he was willing to see it out and give his best whilst he did, despite boos and catcalls from the stupid. We did a deal with him and kept him until we had a replacement lined up. Nice, honest and clean. Compare that with so many players AND MANAGERS for whom a contract with their sig on is deemed worthless. Compare that also with injury struck players who sit tight and leach until their fitness is resolved and then leave asap ..... Le Saux, Ferguson and Amoruso spring to mind. I know who I'd rather enter into business with.

[thenodrog]

So what do you think about contracts and loyalty?

The two words do not go together. So it depends if the word 'loyalty' is actually mentioned in said contracts. Do you think it ever is Ivan?

Lucas Neill was offered and accepted a contract for a specific duration - this also works both ways. The theory being if the club dont require his services they can dispense with the wages at the end of the defined period. It works both ways of course.

I have never understood why people expect loyalty from paid sportsmen, it simply does not exist in an immensely high percentage - some would argue that it never did (although I am probably not one of those).

In the matter of Mr Neill, who actually cares? He went years ago, hes not coming back.

It appears that there are lots on here who still cannot understand the implications of Bosman / Freedom of contract, so it's likely that we'll have to endure stupid and gormless comment for time immemorial. Just why is the situation so difficult to understand?

[47er]

The two words do not go together. So it depends if the word 'loyalty' is actually mentioned in said contracts. Do you think it ever is Ivan?

It appears that there are lots on here who still cannot understand the implications of Bosman / Freedom of contract, so it's likely that we'll have to endure stupid and gormless comment for time immemorial. Just why is the situation so difficult to understand?

We all know about all that, its how you can regard him as honourable that beats me.Plus thinking others sre gormless and stupid. Getting it right about Ince (as if you were the only one) has gone to your head.

[American]

Please explain how American? He couldn't be sold against his wishes if he was determined to run his contract down. The only way we could have sold him early was if we had done a deal with him and made it worth his while.

He said he wasn't going to sign a new contract, not that he was going to let it run down. He said this when he had at least a year left (it might have been 18 months) so should have been sold at that time.

[CrazyIvan]

There is no loyalty left in football. Not from the fans of the players, from the players themselves or from the management around them. We fans are loyal to our club that is all. It's a professional game. There is no loyalty in professionalism.

Vilifying Lucas Neill is all well and good if there is a genuine point to it. Bentley deserves vilifying when you compare his antics to Neill. Neill was professional through and through, Bentley is a self-serving narcissist with delusions of grandeur.

[accyrover]

Neill was professional through and through, Bentley is a self-serving narcissist with delusions of grandeur.

You don't like Bentley then ?

Accyrover

[Mr Creosote]

We all know about all that, its how you can regard him as honourable that beats me.Plus thinking others sre gormless and stupid. Getting it right about Ince (as if you were the only one) has gone to your head.

You clearly aren't familiar with the board rules. Let me clarify - if your point of view differs from that of Thenodrog then you are stupid and gormless. No arguments, nobody knows stupid and gormless like him.

[47er]

You clearly aren't familiar with the board rules. Let me clarify - if your point of view differs from that of Thenodrog then you are stupid and gormless. No arguments, nobody knows stupid and gormless like him.

I see it now!

[CrazyIvan]

You don't like Bentley then ?

Accyrover

I should qualify my statement to be specifically about transfer dealings and the way the two players dealt with them. Neill, quite prepared to do the professional thing and wait until his contract ended to sort his move out. Bentley, he gobbed off in front of TV and press people at someone's party about how wonderful he was and how he needs a bigger stage to perform because his head wouldn't quite fit through the gates at Ewood any more. No, I don't really like Bentley.

[philipl]

Agree with the 'drog and Ivan on this one.

Lucas was absolutely straight and clear about his intentions- he wanted to maximise his income.

He went to West Ham on £55k and a promise of £75k. The promise was never fulfilled- tough luck but if you play that game, those things happen. Nobody is going to pay him more so he is on about the same he would have been paid at Liverpool and this time its the club running down his contract, not the player because they cannot afford him any longer.

[dave birch]

Agree with the 'drog and Ivan on this one.

Lucas was absolutely straight and clear about his intentions- he wanted to maximise his income.

He went to West Ham on £55k and a promise of £75k. The promise was never fulfilled- tough luck but if you play that game, those things happen. Nobody is going to pay him more so he is on about the same he would have been paid at Liverpool and this time its the club running down his contract, not the player because they cannot afford him any longer.

Absolutely agree.

Neill said from about 18 months out that he was not going to sign another contract with the Rovers. He often said in the aussie media that wanted to make enough to fund an interest in an "A" league team here.

That's nothing more than Brad ever wanted to do with his academy in the US, is it? Or did Brad not want the extra moolah in his kick?

Hughes could have sold Neill at any point in the windows in that period and only chose to do so when he had cover and was certain that Neill was going to go. Hughes did try hard to get him to stay.

Would I have Neill back, NO! but he was better for us than a lot of you are making out.

[thenodrog]

He said he wasn't going to sign a new contract, not that he was going to let it run down. He said this when he had at least a year left (it might have been 18 months) so should have been sold at that time.

Moving logically forward American.......... And if he had simply refused to officially talk to another club before his contract ran out cos he thought that as a free agent he could earn more?

The fact is that running the risk of serious injury (Jaskelainen) is the only drawback to demanding an even more lucrative deal to sign on elsewhere. Thats why so many 'mysterious' injuries can appear in these situations. imo Neill played a very straight bat with us even if so few want to accept the fact.

[thenodrog]

You clearly aren't familiar with the board rules. Let me clarify - if your point of view differs from that of Thenodrog then you are stupid and gormless. No arguments, nobody knows stupid and gormless like him.

Agree with the 'drog and Ivan on this one.

Absolutely agree.

Au contraire Creosote.................. It appears that philip and Dave Birch know stupid and gormless equally well.