The Contract Situation

[riverholmes]

With the talk of at least of one new forward coming in, I'd be interested to know what the general view is on the club trying to keep Dan Butterworth or letting him go this year or next.

I can only guess that he rejected an offer of a new deal, thus far. It'd be madness from the club to extend Dan Pike and Louis Annesley's deals last summer (U23 defenders now on loan in non-league) and not seek to do so with Butterworth. However, the club seems to work in mysterious ways, so who knows.

I think he has done enough to earn a new deal. I don't like the idea of relying on any potential 1 year unilateral extension, as that increases the likelihood of the player leaving on a free, even if they make a impact, as we are seeing with others.

Edited January 15, 2022 by riverholmes

[roversfan99]

He is a weird one, ideally we could sign him for a couple of years and loan him out. He has suffered from injury problems and even since he could have done with a loan. He sometimes comes on and looks bright but any excitement is short lived and often lacking end product. Throw Dack, Dolan, Markanday if signed and perhaps a third extra attacker and he will struggle to get near squads, but if he doesn't sign then perhaps sell for a nominal fee with a sell on.

[Trinidad Rover]

For anyone who hasn't listened to TM's latest interview on 'Rovers Player', he all but confirms the out of contract players will be leaving the club at the end of the season.

For all intents and purposes the club/the owners are putting all of our chips on going up. 

People will have different views, but I see this as a statement of intent. I don't buy the argument the owners wont stump up cash for new contracts. If that was the case why did they reject £4.5m for a player out of contract in 4 months.

Like it or not, FFP means we simply cant go above an existing wage structure and with modern football the way it is that is our reality. See Derby for the alternative.

Unless of course you get parachute payments. We, or more accurately he who must be named, wasted ours.

We better enjoy the ride and keep our fingers crossed!!!

[JHRover]

How about a different theory on this. What if Steve Waggott is paid or bonused on how much he saves?

If he is then why would he make any serious effort to pay these players more? Keep on driving the wage bill down = better figures on his performance.

Just a possibility which wouldn't surprise me.

[briansol]

9 minutes ago, JHRover said:

How about a different theory on this. What if Steve Waggott is paid or bonused on how much he saves?

If he is then why would he make any serious effort to pay these players more? Keep on driving the wage bill down = better figures on his performance.

Just a possibility which wouldn't surprise me.

While it's not uncommon for a CEO to have bonus tied into cost-saving measures, I'm not sure if that is the case here. The contracts is about protecting your assets, and no company likes to loose their investments for free. 

At the same time it's clear that FFP is a major obstacle, and this club does not run in a healty economicly way. The solution to all is of course promotion which would solve all problems...

[JHRover]

4 minutes ago, briansol said:

While it's not uncommon for a CEO to have bonus tied into cost-saving measures, I'm not sure if that is the case here. The contracts is about protecting your assets, and no company likes to loose their investments for free. 

At the same time it's clear that FFP is a major obstacle, and this club does not run in a healty economicly way. The solution to all is of course promotion which would solve all problems...

Two major issues I have with the FFP 'obstacle'.

1) Lets look at the income and savings made over the last 6 months. We have sold Adam Armstrong for a fee of between £15 and 20 million, perhaps spent £1 million on Edun, Markandy and signing on fees and the rest has gone. Even with Newcastle's slice we are looking at £10 million. Then there is the massive savings made on the wages since the summer. Getting rid of Armstrong, Williams, Mulgrew,  Bell, Bennett, Evans, Holtby and the loans from last season must represent a saving of going £100,000 per week. Stretch that across 7-8 months and we must be looking at savings of £3-4 million. Lumped together there is no way we could not find scope in there to pay these players more whilst still achieving substantial savings.

The way it works is that you pay Rothwell, Nyambe, Lenihan, Kaminski, Travis more and then when you sell Brereton in the summer a portion of that fee immediately covers the total cost of those pay rises.

2) It is ridiculous to use FFP as a reason - suggesting the club is willing and able to pay the players what is required but is being prevented from doing so by the rules - when we have seen the best way of quickly dealing with FFP is to have a big player sale from time to time. We are meant to believe that Armstrong was the sale that 'dealt' with FFP last summer and no doubt Brereton will be the next one. The only way that production line continues is by having players under contract.

It is a complete contradiction of itself. You can't use FFP as a reason for not keeping your best players, miss out on their value and then complain about FFP rules stopping you doing business. You have to get ahead of the curve - which to be fair is what we did with Armstrong - and ensure the asset is under contract for a sale which addresses FFP. What we have at present is going to ensure we are always playing catch up with it.

[tomphil]

I always suspected the idea was to grow another team to sell and pay down previous few years running costs. Promotion being the outside 1 in 100 chance if the chips fell our way.

Now they have so far and its created a very unexpected conundrum for the various people down there. From the outside looking in it very much seems it's the ownership who have stomped their feet down to prevent the cashing in exercise.

There'll be some very disappointed agents, middlemen and a few others i expect.

Edited February 1, 2022 by tomphil

[RevidgeBlue]

1 minute ago, tomphil said:

I always suspected the idea was to grow another team to sell and pay down previous few years running costs. Promotion being the outside 1 in 100 chance if the chips fell our way.

Now they have so its created a very unexpected conundrum for the various people down there. From the outside looking in it very much seems it's the ownership who have stomped their feet down to prevent the cashing in exercise.

 

Not much of a cashing in exercise with only 6 months to go on their contract though is there? By that time it's relatively pointless unless you're in absolutely no danger of either going up or down.

In summer they must have thought they could still persuade all 3 to sign new contracts at some point. Unsurprisingly Waggott has failed to deliver.

[tomphil]

9 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Not much of a cashing in exercise with only 6 months to go on their contract though is there? By that time it's relatively pointless unless you're in absolutely no danger of either going up or down.

In summer they must have thought they could still persuade all 3 to sign new contracts at some point. Unsurprisingly Waggott has failed to deliver.

I'm thinking more of Waggots early season waffle on whoever won't sign will be sold. That fella had £££ in his eyes, not that i'm suggesting he benefits personally.

There was though a nice wedge of income there for the club which would reflect well on him with the bean counters when it comes to income boosting bonuses. Nyambe, Rothwell and possibly another or two for a few million each would've been a nice boost to the coffers if we were sat in our usual comfort zone in the league.

Then a few freebie replacements on similar wages and not a pay rise in sight, all handy for the books. Oh and those doing the dealing.

[briansol]

1 hour ago, JHRover said:

Two major issues I have with the FFP 'obstacle'.

1) Lets look at the income and savings made over the last 6 months. We have sold Adam Armstrong for a fee of between £15 and 20 million, perhaps spent £1 million on Edun, Markandy and signing on fees and the rest has gone. Even with Newcastle's slice we are looking at £10 million. Then there is the massive savings made on the wages since the summer. Getting rid of Armstrong, Williams, Mulgrew,  Bell, Bennett, Evans, Holtby and the loans from last season must represent a saving of going £100,000 per week. Stretch that across 7-8 months and we must be looking at savings of £3-4 million. Lumped together there is no way we could not find scope in there to pay these players more whilst still achieving substantial savings.

The way it works is that you pay Rothwell, Nyambe, Lenihan, Kaminski, Travis more and then when you sell Brereton in the summer a portion of that fee immediately covers the total cost of those pay rises.

2) It is ridiculous to use FFP as a reason - suggesting the club is willing and able to pay the players what is required but is being prevented from doing so by the rules - when we have seen the best way of quickly dealing with FFP is to have a big player sale from time to time. We are meant to believe that Armstrong was the sale that 'dealt' with FFP last summer and no doubt Brereton will be the next one. The only way that production line continues is by having players under contract.

It is a complete contradiction of itself. You can't use FFP as a reason for not keeping your best players, miss out on their value and then complain about FFP rules stopping you doing business. You have to get ahead of the curve - which to be fair is what we did with Armstrong - and ensure the asset is under contract for a sale which addresses FFP. What we have at present is going to ensure we are always playing catch up with it.

I was probably poor at expressing my opinion. Agree with FFP cannot be used as an excuse if the players demands are somewhat reasonable.

And yes, even under financial restrictions it seems like the contract situation has been handled poorly.

[Guest]

Good to hear positive noise on Travis' contract. His deal is up in 2023, but we have an option to 2024 and it's looking at being extended beyond that too.

[Bigdoggsteel]

11 minutes ago, Mellor Rover said:

Good to hear positive noise on Travis' contract. His deal is up in 2023, but we have an option to 2024 and it's looking at being extended beyond that too.

Ya and talks seem positive 

[JHRover]

Hopefully so, but I'll be very cautious on that front until I see a result.

Wasn't long ago Waggott was going round telling people Lenihan was days away from signing. 

Should be an absolute no brainer - mainstay of the side and we've seen how much we struggle without him there and how little tenacity there is without him. Should also be an easy deal to do if he is happy as he should be given a rise commensurate with his increased value and importance.

Lets just get it done and worry about other issues. 

[jim mk2]

On 02/01/2022 at 20:33, SIMON GARNERS 194 said:

Venkys now face THE biggest Acid test of their tenure at this Club...we are in a fantastic position and our hand is strong.

They either back us for Promotion,and the financial riches that would follow,or they sell for short term gains and wreck our best chance in a decade.

January.....do or die.

 

Looking back to this post in January and it's even more pertinent now

Venky's didn't invest, and we could be out of the top 6 by 5pm on Saturday

[Bigdoggsteel]

25 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

 

Looking back to this post in January and it's even more pertinent now

Venky's didn't invest, and we could be out of the top 6 by 5pm on Saturday

Ya, or we could be 2nd , or even still 3rd

This is a fun game! 

[rigger]

2 hours ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Ya, or we could be 2nd , or even still 3rd

This is a fun game! 

I was going to post the same.

[only2garners]

2 hours ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Ya, or we could be 2nd , or even still 3rd

This is a fun game! 

 

Edited February 23, 2022 by only2garners
Wrong!

[MarkBRFC]

1 minute ago, only2garners said:

We can't be second - Bournemouth are 4 points ahead of us.

They are talking about where we will be at 5pm Saturday though.

So if we won tonight and on Saturday, and Bournemouth slipped up on sat as they don't play this midweek, we could be 2nd.

We won't be though 😆

[only2garners]

42 minutes ago, MarkBRFC said:

They are talking about where we will be at 5pm Saturday though.

So if we won tonight and on Saturday, and Bournemouth slipped up on sat as they don't play this midweek, we could be 2nd.

We won't be though 😆

That's why I removed my post!

[rigger]

1 hour ago, only2garners said:

That's why I removed my post!

It's still there.

[only2garners]

34 minutes ago, rigger said:

It's still there.

Not on my screen it isn't?

[RoversClitheroe]

Lancs Telegraph saying Nyambe set to leave in the summer. 

Massive shame.

Absolutely mental Deyo Zeefuik is going to to cost £3.5m and then probably be on a wage 3 times the current wage Nyambe is on. 

Makes zero financial sense.

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, RoversClitheroe said:

Lancs Telegraph saying Nyambe set to leave in the summer. 

Massive shame.

Absolutely mental Deyo Zeefuik is going to to cost £3.5m and then probably be on a wage 3 times the current wage Nyambe is on. 

Makes zero financial sense.

Don’t think we’ll be signing him permanently. 

[cesus]

What are the chances Nyambe has already signed a contract elsewhere? I mean I'm not in the know but surely he could have signed one for somebody else already as under the rules he is perfectly entitled to.

[Butty]

1 hour ago, RoversClitheroe said:

Lancs Telegraph saying Nyambe set to leave in the summer. 

Massive shame.

Absolutely mental Deyo Zeefuik is going to to cost £3.5m and then probably be on a wage 3 times the current wage Nyambe is on. 

Makes zero financial sense.

I think the fact it’s £3.5 million means we definitely won’t be signing Zeefuik. It’s an option to buy not an obligation to buy. We ain’t gunna be paying that.