|
Post by CaptainHart on Dec 2, 2008 17:10:23 GMT 1
Except with players you typically know how much you have to pay to get rid of them, whereas you don't with managers. Yes you do, it’s the value of the contract. That’s all you’re legally obliged to pay.
|
|
|
Post by nseventee on Dec 2, 2008 17:16:55 GMT 1
You can't point at articles about Boothroyd NEGOTIATING the terms of his contract with one hand and use that as an excuse for the delay in getting him to Hudds, and then with the other hand state that 'pay-offs' are 'simply the value of the outstanding contract'.
|
|
|
Post by townatheart on Dec 2, 2008 17:26:50 GMT 1
You can't point at articles about Boothroyd NEGOTIATING the terms of his contract with one hand and use that as an excuse for the delay in getting him to Hudds, and then with the other hand state that 'pay-offs' are 'simply the value of the outstanding contract'. i have no idea who the next manager will be, who knows, maybe your right on adkins. but what you are saying here simple does not make sense. the only context in which in would make sense is a scenario along the lines of Luke Beckett. We accepted terminating his contract, but had to pay it up in order to allow him to go. This can and does happen with players, when the selling club wants to move on a player, but the player would have to accept a lower value contract, so in order to induce him to go, the selling club pays up his existing contract to keep the player whole in a financial sense. so, what you are saying is that first, scunthrope chairman has pulbically lied to the AGM (who knows, maybe), and what is happening is they are 'selling' us Adkins, and since the wage that HTAFC is paying him is lower than what his contract is at scunny (hmmm - how likely is that), than scunny have to negogitate to pay up his contract before they sell him to Town. Now, is that what is happening lad? Please clarify the position hear, we are all very curious.
|
|
|
Post by CaptainHart on Dec 2, 2008 17:34:01 GMT 1
You can't point at articles about Boothroyd NEGOTIATING the terms of his contract with one hand and use that as an excuse for the delay in getting him to Hudds, and then with the other hand state that 'pay-offs' are 'simply the value of the outstanding contract'. I haven’t pointed to any Boothroyd articles.
|
|
|
Post by nseventee on Dec 2, 2008 17:42:49 GMT 1
so, what you are saying is that first, scunthrope chairman has pulbically lied to the AGM (who knows, maybe), Thats not what I'm saying at all. You appear to have got confused. Everything made up beyond this point: Adkins is on £50k a year at Scunny and has 2 years remaining on his contract. The LMA code of conduct doesn't allow Adkins to enter into negotiations with Town relating to his employment without having first obtained the permission of his Club to do so - however, that's not to say that that hasn't happened PRIOR to last Monday evening. Subsequently, Town speak to Scunny and say, "can we speak to Adkins, and if he signs for us, we'll give you £150k" (which is more than the outstanding £100k on his 2 year deal at Scunny). Scunny say to Adkins, "You can go and speak to Hudds, and we'll talk about negotiating a contract settlement with you afterwards". Then Town speak to Adkins, and very quickly (conveniantly!) agree to a £75k a year 3 year contract with him. Then Scunny say to Adkins, "Ok, we don't really want you to go, but we'll give you £25k if you do (effectively out of the £150k that Town have given them) - giving Scunny a £125k pot of new cash but being in the position of having to find a manager. But Adkins goes, "But I want £100k..thats what you 'owe' me". And Scunny go, "Well you could stay here, we're not really bothered either way - you're doing a good job at the moment, how about we offer you £35k?". And Adkins goes, "Erm, £75k and its a done deal". And so on and so on... And that compo to Adkins is NOTHING TO DO WITH TOWN.
|
|
|
Post by CaptainHart on Dec 2, 2008 17:52:32 GMT 1
Scunny say to Adkins, "You can go and speak to Hudds, and we'll talk about negotiating a contract settlement with you afterwards". This is where your argument falls down. At this point Scunthorpe have the whip hand. The other two parties want the deal, Scunthorpe need persuading. You’re suggesting that they would be prepared to give up their bargaining rights. Much more likely they will say: 150k for us, his contract’s worth 100k, 250k he’s yours.
|
|
|
Post by nseventee on Dec 2, 2008 18:02:09 GMT 1
Ok whatever you say. I don't have the full details and am trying to fill in a few gaps to explain the story that could follow between the bits that I KNOW.
(and what I know is Adkins is next Town manager - and its been on the cards since AT LEAST as long ago as the 5th of November, quite possibly earlier - if you look through the 'new manager poll' back then, you'll see someone mention that Adkins was possibly spoken to TWO WEEKS prior to that, but I can't vouch for the credibility of that info - although I tend to believe it, given the stories I heard about Stans imminent removal a week before it happened).
|
|
betsvigi9
Jimmy Nicholson Terrier
[M0:2]
Posts: 1,554
|
Post by betsvigi9 on Dec 2, 2008 18:03:53 GMT 1
Adkins is the next Town manager. It'll be revealed in due course. And if he isn't, as previously promised, I'm willing to eat a Rogan Josh. If you are right, then I for one will be thoroughly underwhelmed.
|
|