[Archived] Wharton

[davulsukur]

Great news.

Lets hope he gets (and takes) a chance this season.

[RV Blue]

12 minutes ago, Give 'Em the Axe said:

What kind of a centre half is he, fellas? Silk or Steel?

Silk. He's a really good footballer technically but he's not the strongest or best in the air (yet).

Good news. He just needs to get fit and stay fit, he seems to be very injury prone, which as we have seen countless times, can easily ruin a career.

[Give 'Em the Axe]

Thanks for the info!

[JBiz]

5 minutes ago, tomphil said:

As always the truth is likely to be somewhere in the middle as because of the huge vacuum you mention at Rovers nothing is straightforward and potential for manipulation of situations is multi layered right from the very top. Given that it's almost impossible to lay blame for certain things in one direction and that's what leads to all the various scenarios of suspicion. 

One good thing here it seems to have been resolved before we lose another young player with potential. However i wouldn't be surprised if he gets loaned out again as TM has brought in his back up now but I'll back him on that if it goes that way because at least some well paid agency connected has been isn't blocking his way in the squad and it would clearly be a football decision now we know his contract is sorted.

Somehow think we might need him though ive a feeling we are going a long way in the Checktrade !

Exactly - on the "vacuous" ownership thing, I've heard plenty of rumours I'd never share here that could have substance, from the academy, from the community trust, et al - it's not difficult to just accept them when you've had the scenarios we've had! 

Its easy just to accept and peddle. It's more difficult to wait for some proper insight, or better still, ask the questions and decipher your own perceived reality from different answers, from different perspectives. I've absolutely no doubt you do the same, it's just our end results differ!

We've had the discussion on "conflicts of interest" at the club before, and whilst we probably differ on lots of individual details - I'm sure that we both agree, the defining factor is always success. One thing I'm probably more acceptant of; this "agents" thing is just part of the game these days, and whilst I absolutely despise what it is doing to football - we probably would never even heard of SEM (like Coyle ) had certain things been different along the way.

Quick example, Mourinho and many of his signings share the same agent, Jorge Mendes. Now, this is a different level but I refuse to believe that this isn't a "conflict of interest" in terms of the running of Man Utd. Also foreign owned and likely run by consultants. If they succeed will any of that matter?

Ofcourse, I'm not ignorant of the absolute plethora of mistakes and "miss-advice" this lot have had. I may disagree with you on the principle that the owners are deliberately complicit in the downfall though, but each to there own opinion.

Finally, to be successful, (or relevant success to BRFC 2017/18) you need to be signing your more promising youth players down to longer deals. Glad to see this has happened here, hopefully someone in the club has learned from the Mahoney debacle.

[Commondore]

Good news. I wonder what's best for his development at this stage; more time on loan in League 2 or staying here and train with the first team as 5th (?) choice centre-back? 

[Dreams of 1995]

3 hours ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

I thought he couldn't play as he was due a pay rise

They must have negotiated that out 

Great news. Nice long deal. 

Yes they must have because it was true. I think even Parsonblue confirmed this.

It's strange folks like you & Biz have come on here to so strongly deny there's any truth to this. It isn't even shocking, it probably happens in every club that certain players will have wage rises for first team appearances. Nobody who has brought it up as used it as a reason to "beat the club" with or even berate our clueless owners. They've only said the reason Wharton was let out on loan last year was due to this contractual obligation. It's not a conspiracy, it's not further evidence that our owners are bad (like we need it) it's just what happened.

[Bigdoggsteel]

1 hour ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Yes they must have because it was true. I think even Parsonblue confirmed this.

It's strange folks like you & Biz have come on here to so strongly deny there's any truth to this. It isn't even shocking, it probably happens in every club that certain players will have wage rises for first team appearances. Nobody who has brought it up as used it as a reason to "beat the club" with or even berate our clueless owners. They've only said the reason Wharton was let out on loan last year was due to this contractual obligation. It's not a conspiracy, it's not further evidence that our owners are bad (like we need it) it's just what happened.

So answer me this. What would they give him a new 3 year deal, at higher wages I'd imagine, but not play him because he will get a pay rise?

 

[Dreams of 1995]

42 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

So answer me this. What would they give him a new 3 year deal, at higher wages I'd imagine, but not play him because he will get a pay rise?

 

Circumstances seem to have changed. Perhaps there was some financial fair play obligation that stood in his way last season; perhaps Coyle had spent up his budget on his own signings and simply couldn't afford the pay rise. I can't answer the question because I don't know what conversations have been had. What I do know is that the contractual obligation is what stood in front of him making more appearances for Rovers last season. People far more "in the know" than myself have confirmed it on these messageboards too. It's only you and Biz that are so bizarrely denying it, for whatever reason. 

Again I'll point out that I am in no way saying it's a conspiracy or evidence of 'meddling' at Rovers - it seems as if you have to make that point these days to stop people like yourself jumping all over the comment.

[JBiz]

45 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

So answer me this. What would they give him a new 3 year deal, at higher wages I'd imagine, but not play him because he will get a pay rise?

 

And if bothered or hindered by his contract, why would they sign Wes Brown on probably 5k+ a week because an 18 year old might be due an upgrade on probably basic first professional/u23 terms?

[tomphil]

There could be many many reasons maybe he was due hefty appearance bonuses on his original contract if he played for the first team or something. If they've sat down and said we won't pay that but we'll extend your terms for 3 years and give you a modest pro wage and you will play for the first team if selected instead of being frozen out for the remainder of your original contract he'd find that acceptable.

A long shot but maybe the lad really wants to stay and was happy to find some middle ground after realizing he was stalling his career by asking for too much.

Then again there might have been some greedy agents involved who have now backed down a bit.

The most likely is clown pants using the budget last year on his rubbish and hoping to use any more available on Giles flippin Barnes !

[Bigdoggsteel]

6 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Circumstances seem to have changed. Perhaps there was some financial fair play obligation that stood in his way last season; perhaps Coyle had spent up his budget on his own signings and simply couldn't afford the pay rise. I can't answer the question because I don't know what conversations have been had. What I do know is that the contractual obligation is what stood in front of him making more appearances for Rovers last season. People far more "in the know" than myself have confirmed it on these messageboards too. It's only you and Biz that are so bizarrely denying it, for whatever reason. 

Again I'll point out that I am in no way saying it's a conspiracy or evidence of 'meddling' at Rovers - it seems as if you have to make that point these days to stop people like yourself jumping all over the comment.

It was at most a couple of hundred quid a game. It doesn't make sense. 

[Bigdoggsteel]

6 minutes ago, Biz said:

And if bothered or hindered by his contract, why would they sign Wes Brown on probably 5k+ a week because an 18 year old might be due an upgrade on probably basic first professional/u23 terms?

Ya, it doesn't make sense considering the small amount of money it would have involved  

[Dreams of 1995]

6 minutes ago, Biz said:

And if bothered or hindered by his contract, why would they sign Wes Brown on probably 5k+ a week because an 18 year old might be due an upgrade on probably basic first professional/u23 terms?

See my above reply to BDS that says exactly this. I think it was more a Coyle error than it was a "Venky error". Youth contracts usually have clauses that mean wage rises once first team appearances start to happen - I think Coyle spent his budget on rubbish and therefore couldn't afford to have another pay rise. Either way, it's the truth.

Just now, Bigdoggsteel said:

It was at most a couple of hundred quid a game. It doesn't make sense. 

That's pure speculation. It wouldn't be "per game" either, that's the appearance fee, it was a wage rise meaning it would have been paid if he hadn't played another game after regardless. Perhaps that was why he wasn't played; Coyle didn't have him featured in his plans and didn't think he deserved the pay rise and he had set the money aside for somebody else. Maybe Cheston had told Coyle he couldn't play him again because of the pay rise.

Maybe they both added up the money it would have cost them to play him one more time and earmarked it for another Balaji-bash. We'll never know I imagine.

[JBiz]

5 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

See my above reply to BDS that says exactly this. I think it was more a Coyle error than it was a "Venky error". Youth contracts usually have clauses that mean wage rises once first team appearances start to happen - I think Coyle spent his budget on rubbish and therefore couldn't afford to have another pay rise. Either way, it's the truth.

That's pure speculation. It wouldn't be "per game" either, that's the appearance fee, it was a wage rise meaning it would have been paid if he hadn't played another game after regardless. Perhaps that was why he wasn't played; Coyle didn't have him featured in his plans and didn't think he deserved the pay rise and he had set the money aside for somebody else. Maybe Cheston had told Coyle he couldn't play him again because of the pay rise.

Maybe they both added up the money it would have cost them to play him one more time and earmarked it for another Balaji-bash. We'll never know I imagine.

Don't you think that's a lot to assume based on Coyle using Hoban, Mulgrew, Greer and Brown instead? This speculation based on nothing is likely to be met with the same replies that "jump on" your posts.

 

[Bigdoggsteel]

20 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

See my above reply to BDS that says exactly this. I think it was more a Coyle error than it was a "Venky error". Youth contracts usually have clauses that mean wage rises once first team appearances start to happen - I think Coyle spent his budget on rubbish and therefore couldn't afford to have another pay rise. Either way, it's the truth.

That's pure speculation. It wouldn't be "per game" either, that's the appearance fee, it was a wage rise meaning it would have been paid if he hadn't played another game after regardless. Perhaps that was why he wasn't played; Coyle didn't have him featured in his plans and didn't think he deserved the pay rise and he had set the money aside for somebody else. Maybe Cheston had told Coyle he couldn't play him again because of the pay rise.

Maybe they both added up the money it would have cost them to play him one more time and earmarked it for another Balaji-bash. We'll never know I imagine.

Or maybe it wasn't true

[Blueandwhitemike]

Good grief, will you two give it a rest.  Biz, what you say may be true about some other rumours but you've chosen the wrong one here.  Rarely do so many different posters with different views post that they believe this to be the case as we see here, even Parsonblue agrees.

BDS another thread where you are trying I told you so, if you are trying to appear clever it's having the opposite affect on me.

[JacknOry]

SkipDonohoe on the Academy thread a couple of weeks back, it think, said that is a common and generic clause that is in the contracts of young players at this club with bonuses and pay rises which automatically come into affect after 5 games/10 sub appearances from sub or something like that. Says its different at all clubs but thats how Rovers does it. Cant be bothered to find the post but its there somewhere.

This is not even a conspiracy really - there were contractual obligations in play. They have now come to a conclusion contractually that pleases both parties.

[Stuart]

 

12 hours ago, davulsukur said:

Great news.

Lets hope he gets (and takes) a chance this season.

From Mowbray's comments it doesn't sound like he is even on his radar. 

“As time rolls on, I'm pretty sure his physicality and his game knowledge will grow. Whether that is by staying here and getting the odd game for us or playing for the Under-23s, or whether we send him out on loan again at some stage to play more league football, we'll wait and see, but I'm very confident that he'll be a fixture in the team over the coming years."

 

1 hour ago, JacknOry said:

SkipDonohoe on the Academy thread a couple of weeks back, it think, said that is a common and generic clause that is in the contracts of young players at this club with bonuses and pay rises which automatically come into affect after 5 games/10 sub appearances from sub or something like that. Says its different at all clubs but thats how Rovers does it. Cant be bothered to find the post but its there somewhere.

This is not even a conspiracy really - there were contractual obligations in play. They have now come to a conclusion contractually that pleases both parties.

But why incentivise players if you are not only going to not reward them but actually stop them in their tracks because of it?

[JBiz]

1 hour ago, Blueandwhitemike said:

Good grief, will you two give it a rest.  Biz, what you say may be true about some other rumours but you've chosen the wrong one here.  Rarely do so many different posters with different views post that they believe this to be the case as we see here, even Parsonblue agrees.

BDS another thread where you are trying I told you so, if you are trying to appear clever it's having the opposite affect on me.

Why not post something on topic rather than just bitching. Why must people agree, it's irrelevant.

I simply believe the contract was not the single reason for his lack of inclusion, rather than "playing dad" why not make some sort of compelling argument that supports your view. 

[Bigdoggsteel]

16 minutes ago, Biz said:

Why not post something on topic rather than just bitching. Why must people agree, it's irrelevant.

I simply believe the contract was not the single reason for his lack of inclusion, rather than "playing dad" why not make some sort of compelling argument that supports your view. 

Well said.

It seems you cant disagree with someone on this board without being labelled a wind up merchant or being accused of "point scoring". Whatever that means.  So many snowflakes! 

[Dreams of 1995]

20 minutes ago, Biz said:

Why not post something on topic rather than just bitching. Why must people agree, it's irrelevant.

I simply believe the contract was not the single reason for his lack of inclusion, rather than "playing dad" why not make some sort of compelling argument that supports your view. 

He did post something on the topic in fairness to him.

 

10 hours ago, Biz said:

Don't you think that's a lot to assume based on Coyle using Hoban, Mulgrew, Greer and Brown instead? This speculation based on nothing is likely to be met with the same replies that "jump on" your posts.

 

Nope. It just further backs up my prediction that the clown had spent his budget on rubbish and that left Wharton surplus to requirements and unable to make another first team appearance that season in case he triggered a rise they couldn't afford.

Just now, Bigdoggsteel said:

 

It seems you cant disagree with someone on this board without being labelled a wind up merchant or being accused of "point scoring". Whatever that means.  So many snowflakes! 

Not true at all. There's many disagreements that happen on this board between various posters - it's when people start getting smarmy that people take issue with it.

[JWUpper]

Just to try and help clear the 'rumour' up about Wharton's previous contract...he was definitely due a weekly wage increase if he made another competitive senior appearance and said he was loaned out because of it. Was told so by my good friend who up until last season played cricket with him at Salesbury who he is still mates with (the club made him stop playing other sports at amateur/semi-pro level when he was included in the first team squad).

i don't know exactly what the increase would have been but obviously at the time it was significant enough with either FFP or the actual wage budget after bringing in the wastes of space like Brown et al that we couldn't/didn't want to pay it. 

Luckily now lessons seem to have been learned from the Mahoney debacle and the clause as others have said may have been sensibly negotiated out with (you'd imagine) a smaller overall increase instead relative to his age and development.

Also he has genuinely been injured up until now too in case anyone thinks he was conveniently 'injured' to stop him being in the frame for the first team...

[JBiz]

30 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Nope. It just further backs up my prediction that the clown had spent his budget on rubbish and that left Wharton surplus to requirements and unable to make another first team appearance that season in case he triggered a rise they couldn't afford.

Not true at all. There's many disagreements that happen on this board between various posters - it's when people start getting smarmy that people take issue with it.

1. Nothing anyone says "backs your prediction" when you are speculating on issues and you have no actual facts.

2. Smarmy? Im not sure you understand the definition. Believe me, I'm being sincere when I say I disagree. Maybe one should learn to deal with that scenario.

5 minutes ago, schoey said:

Just to try and help clear the 'rumour' up about Wharton's previous contract...he was definitely due a weekly wage increase if he made another competitive senior appearance. Was told so by my good friend who up until last season played cricket with him at Salesbury who he is still mates with (the club made him stop playing other sports at amateur/semi-pro level when he was included in the first team squad).

i don't know exactly what the increase would have been but obviously at the time it was significant enough with either FFP or the actual wage budget after bringing in the wastes of space like Brown et al that we couldn't/didn't want to pay it. 

Luckily now lessons seem to have been learned from the Mahoney debacle and the clause as others have said may have been sensibly negotiated out with (you'd imagine) a smaller overall increase instead relative to his age and development.

Also he has genuinely been injured up until now too in case anyone thinks he was conveniently 'injured' to stop him being in the frame for the first team...

As Skip alludes to - most clubs will have standard amateur to pro clauses. It's been dresses up as a scandal, an example of "dark forces" or even an excuse for a Balaji party, that this lad didn't play...

The point is, I don't buy it. I also don't exactly buy Whartons opinion, because I very much doubt any player would publicly say "gaffers said I'm not good enough yet, so I'm off on loan.."

Its a very simple scenario for me. Poor manager doesn't trust youngster, spends rest of budget on more centre halves instead, sends youngster on loan. Poor manager is sacked, next manager offers player new contract (even after signing 12 players and likely spending his budget)

 

[Dreams of 1995]

6 minutes ago, Biz said:

1. Nothing anyone says "backs your prediction" when you are speculating on issues and you have no actual facts.

2. Smarmy? Im not sure you understand the definition. Believe me, I'm being sincere when I say I disagree. Maybe one should learn to deal with that scenario.

As Skip alludes to - most clubs will have standard amateur to pro clauses. It's been dresses up as a scandal, an example of "dark forces" or even an excuse for a Balaji party, that this lad didn't play...

The point is, I don't buy it. I also don't exactly buy Whartons opinion, because I very much doubt any player would publicly say "gaffers said I'm not good enough yet, so I'm off on loan.."

Its a very simple scenario for me. Poor manager doesn't trust youngster, spends rest of budget on more centre halves instead, sends youngster on loan. Poor manager is sacked, next manager offers player new contract (even after signing 12 players and likely spending his budget)

 

1. You said why would they do it if they were prepared to spend money on players like Brown et al. Perhaps 'backs up' is the wrong phrase but I think that's the case - they spent their money on Brown et al and couldn't afford a pay rise.

2. I was speaking to BDS then, not you. I didn't accuse you of being smarmy. Apologies if it came across that way.

3. I have said this continuously in my posts. Nobody has tried to dress it up as a scandal. I said the Balaji-bash thing tongue-in-cheek. In fact, everybody that has alluded to this contractual obligation has constantly stated it's not a scandal.

4. You are probably right. However, the fact still remains that Wharton didn't play another senior league game for us last season due to a contractual obligation that Rovers wouldn't meet. It's as simple as that. I don't understand why yourself and BDS are making such a big deal out of it.

[JWUpper]

5 minutes ago, Biz said:

As Skip alludes to - most clubs will have standard amateur to pro clauses. It's been dresses up as a scandal, an example of "dark forces" or even an excuse for a Balaji party, that this lad didn't play...

The point is, I don't buy it. I also don't exactly buy Whartons opinion, because I very much doubt any player would publicly say "gaffers said I'm not good enough yet, so I'm off on loan.."

Its a very simple scenario for me. Poor manager doesn't trust youngster, spends rest of budget on more centre halves instead, sends youngster on loan. Poor manager is sacked, next manager offers player new contract (even after signing 12 players and likely spending his budget)

 

Apologies, should have been clearer in my post...Wharton said he was sent out on loan because of the clause in his contract, not that the clueless manager didn't think he was good enough (have updated my original).