|
Post by 3Pipe on Sept 11, 2015 12:24:38 GMT 1
Either way it's a poor do.
|
|
|
Post by Frankiesleftpeg on Sept 11, 2015 12:25:09 GMT 1
One can only assume if he's played 49 games for the club he will be owed appearance bonus' if he reaches 50 either that or we will have to pay Norwich some sort of fee. He may well be injured it is likely that he is, but for the club it could be an easy way around paying bonus' etc by saying he's injured therefore can't play. He was fit when we played QPR (he confirmed it) but not even on the bench. I'm not sure about the appearance thing, but for a club that's hardly strapped for cash right now it would be a sad state of affairs if we weren't picking him because we might have to pay Norwich a few bob more.
|
|
|
Post by 3Pipe on Sept 11, 2015 12:26:26 GMT 1
This appearance clause thing was bandied about re Hammill and was debunked eventually.
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Sept 11, 2015 12:26:55 GMT 1
One can only assume if he's played 49 games for the club he will be owed appearance bonus' if he reaches 50 either that or we will have to pay Norwich some sort of fee. He may well be injured it is likely that he is, but for the club it could be an easy way around paying bonus' etc by saying he's injured therefore can't play. Since signing permanently, he's only made 45 starts and played a total of 55 games including substuitute appearances (according to Soccerbase). Hammill, if we are using his scenario as a rumoured comparison, had made 48 starts or 60 appearances including subs for us before being released.
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Sept 11, 2015 12:28:34 GMT 1
One can only assume if he's played 49 games for the club he will be owed appearance bonus' if he reaches 50 either that or we will have to pay Norwich some sort of fee. He may well be injured it is likely that he is, but for the club it could be an easy way around paying bonus' etc by saying he's injured therefore can't play. He was fit when we played QPR (he confirmed it) but not even on the bench. I'm not sure about the appearance thing, but for a club that's hardly strapped for cash right now it would be a sad state of affairs if we weren't picking him because we might have to pay Norwich (or him as per contract) a few bob more. fixed for you
|
|
|
Post by teddytheterrier on Sept 11, 2015 12:29:02 GMT 1
One can only assume if he's played 49 games for the club he will be owed appearance bonus' if he reaches 50 either that or we will have to pay Norwich some sort of fee. He may well be injured it is likely that he is, but for the club it could be an easy way around paying bonus' etc by saying he's injured therefore can't play. Since signing permanently, he's only made 45 starts and played a total of 55 games including substuitute appearances (according to Soccerbase). Hammill, if we are using his scenario as a rumoured comparison, had made 49 starts or 60 appearances including subs for us before being released. ok fair doos it must be something else then, thought he'd played 49.
|
|
|
Post by aksaiblue on Sept 11, 2015 12:29:21 GMT 1
Why on Earth would we not play a fit JV? A fit JV is/was on a different level to anything we have. Makes no sense to me Doc. Trying to move him on to Wigan made no sense to me either when he is an asset on the pitch but Town were hoping to do just that! Made no sense to me either, if we were trying to move JV on, then why did we send Hiwula there on loan?
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Sept 11, 2015 12:31:10 GMT 1
This appearance clause thing was bandied about re Hammill and was debunked eventually. I hope it was but I must have missed the debunking, when was this?
|
|
|
Post by royrace on Sept 11, 2015 12:32:23 GMT 1
One can only assume if he's played 49 games for the club he will be owed appearance bonus' if he reaches 50 either that or we will have to pay Norwich some sort of fee. He may well be injured it is likely that he is, but for the club it could be an easy way around paying bonus' etc by saying he's injured therefore can't play. I keep hearing this being banded about. So, we're happy to keep on paying his wages for another year, to have him sitting on his arse picking up a wage, rather than paying an "pure guesswork" bonus by allowing him to play? It's fairly obvious that he feels the club are mistreating him, with tweets like "treat me well and I will give my all". Hoyle has said things publically which should have been kept quiet. He then tried to punt him off on loan, when we only have 2 first team strikers. If that's how the club is being run, we really are in a mire. What if it would cost the club quarter of a million or more if he plays one more game and they know he'll probably be miles off match fit, he'll probably be injured again soon and he'll be worth zilch in the summer. If it were your money would you select him? Sorry but if there is a sizeable fee to pay if he plays one more game I don't blame the club one bit. They'd be idiots to play him. It's a no brainer....isn't it?? Sent from my GT-I9505 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by 3Pipe on Sept 11, 2015 12:36:34 GMT 1
This appearance clause thing was bandied about re Hammill and was debunked eventually. I hope it was but I must have missed the debunking, when was this? I read he hit the 50 appearance mark. Wiki confirms this too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2015 12:48:43 GMT 1
I keep hearing this being banded about. So, we're happy to keep on paying his wages for another year, to have him sitting on his arse picking up a wage, rather than paying an "pure guesswork" bonus by allowing him to play? It's fairly obvious that he feels the club are mistreating him, with tweets like "treat me well and I will give my all". Hoyle has said things publically which should have been kept quiet. He then tried to punt him off on loan, when we only have 2 first team strikers. If that's how the club is being run, we really are in a mire. What if it would cost the club quarter of a million or more if he plays one more game and they know he'll probably be miles off match fit, he'll probably be injured again soon and he'll be worth zilch in the summer. If it were your money would you select him? Sorry but if there is a sizeable fee to pay if he plays one more game I don't blame the club one bit. They'd be idiots to play him. It's a no brainer....isn't it?? Sent from my GT-I9505 using proboards He'll be worth zilch anyway, even if his contract hadn't come to an end (which I thought was next summer). I can't see him commanding a fee with his "injury" record, even with the rest of the season left on his contract. In the mean time however, we are paying him around half an million a year to sit on his arse, pretending to be injured. A stupid move by the club in alienating who is probably out biggest wage earner, to the stage where they have to make up bullsh1t injuries to excuse the fact he's not even in on the bench.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2015 14:00:36 GMT 1
Sums us up at the minute does the whole JV affair.
Best players sold off, replaced by an assortment of Scatterboard transfers in, imo.
Do Hoyle and co see us being a business that can be more sustainable in the league below where we can break even with crowds of 7.5K ?
Sadly I think they do.
|
|
Melc
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
Posts: 4,829
|
Post by Melc on Sept 11, 2015 14:17:26 GMT 1
Sums us up at the minute does the whole JV affair. Best players sold off, replaced by an assortment of Scatterboard transfers in, imo. Do Hoyle and co see us being a business that can be more sustainable in the league below where we can break even with crowds of 7.5K ? Sadly I think they do. . If he is looking for a buyer why should he care?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2015 14:36:30 GMT 1
But he said he wasn't actively looking to sell the club last week ?
All swings and roundabouts imo, If we are not playing JV again due to an appearance payment being made to Norwich, Its wrong, It was agreed when we signed him.
Cutting our nose off to spite our face.
If the above is true, I never want to hear us bleating when we are denied an extra payment due to a club we have sold a player to "shifting em on" before triggering a clause they agreed to when signing em off us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2015 14:37:31 GMT 1
I hope it was but I must have missed the debunking, when was this? I read he hit the 50 appearance mark. Wiki confirms this too. I've got to admit it looks remarkably coincidental that both Vaughan and Hammill have hit exactly 50 league games, their careers at Town apparently halted. Probably a load of baloney, but we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by terraceterrier on Sept 11, 2015 14:48:35 GMT 1
He was told to train with the U21's( a move meant to piss him off as he did to Hammill), so has he been 'injured' training with them ? Has JV tweeted 'the truth will come out'. this is simply not a win win situation like DH said at the Q&A...its an embarrassment and stupidity paying top money to someone who we are unwilling to play probably in the hope he accepts his contract being paid up like Hammill
|
|
|
Post by royrace on Sept 11, 2015 14:51:04 GMT 1
What if it would cost the club quarter of a million or more if he plays one more game and they know he'll probably be miles off match fit, he'll probably be injured again soon and he'll be worth zilch in the summer. If it were your money would you select him? Sorry but if there is a sizeable fee to pay if he plays one more game I don't blame the club one bit. They'd be idiots to play him. It's a no brainer....isn't it?? Sent from my GT-I9505 using proboards He'll be worth zilch anyway, even if his contract hadn't come to an end (which I thought was next summer). I can't see him commanding a fee with his "injury" record, even with the rest of the season left on his contract. In the mean time however, we are paying him around half an million a year to sit on his arse, pretending to be injured. A stupid move by the club in alienating who is probably out biggest wage earner, to the stage where they have to make up bullsh1t injuries to excuse the fact he's not even in on the bench. Yes we're still paying him a fortune, probably because he refused to move to Wigan for a pay cut but does that mean we should throw good money after bad and chuck another small fortune down the drain to see a shadow of the old Vaughan play a few then get injured again? If money wasn't an issue if agree but the club can't afford to be throwing away hundreds of thousands of pounds. If his attitude stinks that's another good reason not to throw more good money away on him. Lots of guess work and reading between the lines but that's my theory based on what I've seen and heard. Sent from my GT-I9505 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by swissterrier on Sept 11, 2015 14:56:52 GMT 1
Just for once it would be nice to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth from all parties involved.... And yes I know it will never happen
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2015 14:59:42 GMT 1
Just for once it would be nice to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth from all parties involved.... And yes I know it will never happen You could ask Josh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2015 14:59:45 GMT 1
He'll be worth zilch anyway, even if his contract hadn't come to an end (which I thought was next summer). I can't see him commanding a fee with his "injury" record, even with the rest of the season left on his contract. In the mean time however, we are paying him around half an million a year to sit on his arse, pretending to be injured. A stupid move by the club in alienating who is probably out biggest wage earner, to the stage where they have to make up bullsh1t injuries to excuse the fact he's not even in on the bench. Yes we're still paying him a fortune, probably because he refused to move to Wigan for a pay cut but does that mean we should throw good money after bad and chuck another small fortune down the drain to see a shadow of the old Vaughan play a few then get injured again? If money wasn't an issue if agree but the club can't afford to be throwing away hundreds of thousands of pounds. If his attitude stinks that's another good reason not to throw more good money away on him. Lots of guess work and reading between the lines but that's my theory based on what I've seen and heard. Sent from my GT-I9505 using proboards What hundreds of thousands of pounds would the club be throwing away? He's out of contract next summer and would be worth sod all to us. He's currently worth sod all as is, with less than a year left on the contract of an expensive player, constantly "injured". As for bonus payments to Norwich, presumably the club were aware of this when we game him a new contract. If we didn't want him to play past 50 games, why give him a contract? Personally, I think that Hoyle is trying to offload anyone on a high salary. Vaughan didn't want to play ball and be forced out to play for less money elsewhere. Now with Hoyle publically making comments which would have been best kept to himself, we are in a situation where Vaughan is just sitting out his expensive contract with a club he knows want shut of him. Not really his fault.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2015 15:11:41 GMT 1
Yes we're still paying him a fortune, probably because he refused to move to Wigan for a pay cut but does that mean we should throw good money after bad and chuck another small fortune down the drain to see a shadow of the old Vaughan play a few then get injured again? If money wasn't an issue if agree but the club can't afford to be throwing away hundreds of thousands of pounds. If his attitude stinks that's another good reason not to throw more good money away on him. Lots of guess work and reading between the lines but that's my theory based on what I've seen and heard. Sent from my GT-I9505 using proboards What hundreds of thousands of pounds would the club be throwing away? He's out of contract next summer and would be worth sod all to us. He's currently worth sod all as is, with less than a year left on the contract of an expensive player, constantly "injured". As for bonus payments to Norwich, presumably the club were aware of this when we game him a new contract. If we didn't want him to play past 50 games, why give him a contract? Personally, I think that Hoyle is trying to offload anyone on a high salary. Vaughan didn't want to play ball and be forced out to play for less money elsewhere. Now with Hoyle publically making comments which would have been best kept to himself, we are in a situation where Vaughan is just sitting out his expensive contract with a club he knows want shut of him. Not really his fault. That's how I read it. Vaughan has bigger balls and has less to gain from a move (evidenced by interest coming from down the ladder) than Smithies and Butterfield who still have long careers ahead, most likely at better clubs than ours. We'll never know though.
|
|
|
Post by portugalterrier on Sept 11, 2015 15:17:40 GMT 1
If you have someone on the payroll who is just not performing then you are best cutting your losses as having a negative influence on board,Hoyle would be better transferring Vaughan to DATM to join all the other negative influences on here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2015 15:49:21 GMT 1
One can only assume if he's played 49 games for the club he will be owed appearance bonus' if he reaches 50 either that or we will have to pay Norwich some sort of fee. He may well be injured it is likely that he is, but for the club it could be an easy way around paying bonus' etc by saying he's injured therefore can't play. Since signing permanently, he's only made 45 starts and played a total of 55 games including substuitute appearances (according to Soccerbase). Hammill, if we are using his scenario as a rumoured comparison, had made 48 starts or 60 appearances including subs for us before being released. According to Soccerbase Doc, since given contracts Vaughan has played 41 league games + 9 sub. Hammill has played 43 league games + 7 sub. Coincidence?
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Sept 11, 2015 15:59:47 GMT 1
Since signing permanently, he's only made 45 starts and played a total of 55 games including substuitute appearances (according to Soccerbase). Hammill, if we are using his scenario as a rumoured comparison, had made 48 starts or 60 appearances including subs for us before being released. According to Soccerbase Doc, since given contracts Vaughan has played 41 league games + 9 sub. Hammill has played 43 league games + 7 sub. Coincidence? I certainly hope it is Codd, because if it isn't then it would be cheap to say the least and not only that but we would soon get a reputation within the game as a club that doesn't field a player because of a contract bonus/trigger payment to selling club (in these cases for league appearances over 50) rather than ability. I shudder to think that the finances were that tight enough to dictate the team sheet over a player's single appearance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2015 16:04:54 GMT 1
I see this as a stupid waste of around half a million quid by the club. He's clearly not happy about the way he's been treated and hopes that one day the truth will be known.
Hopefully, the idea of the club pushing players into loans and transfers will be one we leave in the past after this shambles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2015 16:09:49 GMT 1
According to Soccerbase Doc, since given contracts Vaughan has played 41 league games + 9 sub. Hammill has played 43 league games + 7 sub. Coincidence? I certainly hope it is Codd, because if it isn't then it would be cheap to say the least and not only that but we would soon get a reputation within the game as a club that doesn't field a player because of a contract bonus/trigger payment to selling club (in these cases for league appearances over 50) rather than ability. I shudder to think that the finances were that tight enough to dictate the team sheet over a player's single appearance. I must admit to being a bit disillusioned over this whole business, leaves a bit of a nasty taste.
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Sept 11, 2015 16:11:29 GMT 1
I see this as a stupid waste of around half a million quid by the club. He's clearly not happy about the way he's been treated and hopes that one day the truth will be known. Hopefully, the idea of the club pushing players into loans and transfers will be one we leave in the past after this shambles. Good to see you are looking at this in a balanced way marcus, like on all the other threads ( ie town are in the wrong ) ... Let me tell you that whilst nothing tends ever to be black and white but rather shades of grey, I can tell you that you are wrong on this one ( and the Butterfield one ) .. If you are prepared to listen then I'm happy to PM you
|
|
|
Post by 3Pipe on Sept 11, 2015 16:14:36 GMT 1
Bloody hell Marcus, he kept us up for 2 seasons alongside your buddy Jermaine for one of them. For half a million in fees plus wages that was good business.
|
|
|
Post by stevvy on Sept 11, 2015 16:14:44 GMT 1
I see this as a stupid waste of around half a million quid by the club. He's clearly not happy about the way he's been treated and hopes that one day the truth will be known. Hopefully, the idea of the club pushing players into loans and transfers will be one we leave in the past after this shambles. I'd imagine once his contract is done and he joins another club (if he does), he'll be free to say what he wants, as it's not like we're sacking him and therefore forcing him to agree to what would in effect be a gagging order to make sure we get rid.
|
|
|
Post by teddytheterrier on Sept 11, 2015 16:16:47 GMT 1
Always enjoyed watching James and Jermaine, best pairing since Rhovak.
|
|