Much has been made of Fisher and Waggott allegedly renegotiating the contracts of the senior squad over the close-season term; and the apparent negative effect it's had on motivation of the team.
Many have heralded their tougher stance as worthy and met it with applause. One question though; they are the latest in a long line of SISU's representatives given a crack at running the club. But aren't they trying to change the terms of contracts awarded by SISU themselves?
Is there a single player at the club, who hasn't joined according to the terms of a SISU contract, or had a SISU-agreed extension?
I do agree with them on the new bonus thing especially only getting it in the top 6 as it rewards them doing well. What I never understood was why they were handing out ridiculously long contracts to average players last season.
My point is simple. Most clubs include clauses in contracts which give rise to wage reductions or losses in bonuses when faced with relegation. Then both parties understand all four corners of the contract before agreeing to proceed.
If they haven't included such in contracts, and then wish to retrospectively negotiate it, it seems somewhere between amateurish and duplicitous.
Add to the mix the withholding of rent to ACL from a signed tenancy agreement, and there's a tendency developing here that should be cause for alarm
My concern isn't for the financial well-being of the Gary McSheffery's of this world, believe me. But I'm less that confortanle with the owners of the club reneging on contractual terms when it suits them to do so.
Grendel: how did you feel in your position as described though?
That's got to be to do with increasing value of the assetts surely? If you have a player signed for 1 season they are worth less than a player signed for 3 seasons. Ala Bigi would have been worth a lot less than we got for him on a 1 year contract.
If they are worthless to begin with, for example Bell, Baker, McSheffrey, then why would they increase the asset's? Something is only worth what someone is willing to pay.
If they are worthless to begin with, for example Bell, Baker, McSheffrey, then why would they increase the asset's? Something is only worth what someone is willing to pay.
It was a good move, they are trying to rectify the mistakes the likes of Duleiu and Ranson made. I don't believe it is the reason for poor performances
Weren't the renegotiations of contracts to do with bonuses, not to do with negotiating the basic wage reduction on relegation. So they wanted to remove things such as appearance/goal fee's bonus which is right. The club employ you on a basic wage to represent and play for the club, yet the players then want extra bonuses to actually play for the club.
But we have removed the financial incentive to actually being in the team, rather than sitting on your arse every week. I'm pretty certain that has had a negative effect. Apart from those players who refused, and ironically now find themselves sitting on their arse...despite being our only goal threat :facepalm:
But we have removed the financial incentive to actually being in the team, rather than sitting on your arse every week. I'm pretty certain that has had a negative effect. Apart from those players who refused, and ironically now find themselves sitting on their arse...despite being our only goal threat :facepalm:
An assett is worth what it's worth. This is regardless of if anyone wants to buy said assett. A £4million commercial unit in Tile Hill is worth that whether someone wants to buy it or not, where banks are concerned.
You were talking about players contract. I believe an asset is classed as ownership of a product which can be traded/sold for financial gain. Having a short term contract on something nobody would be willing to buy is throwing money away in my eyes.
As far as I'm aware the financial incentive to being in the team, and doing well, has actually increased.
The bonuses for failing to do well have disappeared though.
Can't disagree with that, and any player who doesn't agree with that can fuck off and find a better job somewhere else if they can.
Suspect they can't though.
I am talking about the business assetts. The players are these. Sideways Sammy is still worth a few hundred k even though he can't get a club.
Once again, like last season's budget slashing, we the fans are the ones who ultimately bear the brunt of poYorer fare on the pitch as a result.
Poorer than what? Are you saying the previous structure was effective last season?
I'm gald someone said Sidewards Sammy: I was thinking about this whilst watching Shearer's analysis of Joe Allen on Saturday's MOTD. We'd bloody hate Allen at CCFC, wouldn't we?!
My point is simple. Most clubs include clauses in contracts which give rise to wage reductions or losses in bonuses when faced with relegation. Then both parties understand all four corners of the contract before agreeing to proceed.
If they haven't included such in contracts, and then wish to retrospectively negotiate it, it seems somewhere between amateurish and duplicitous.
Add to the mix the withholding of rent to ACL from a signed tenancy agreement, and there's a tendency developing here that should be cause for alarm
You make the assumption that players would sign up to such terms at the point of transfer.
Why should you be paid a bonus for appearing for a club when that is your job.But we have removed the financial incentive to actually being in the team, rather than sitting on your arse every week. I'm pretty certain that has had a negative effect. Apart from those players who refused, and ironically now find themselves sitting on their arse...despite being our only goal threat :facepalm:
No, relative to if they hadn't fucked around with the bonus system this season I THINK WITH NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE we'd be doing better. If every other team has an incestive system and we don't, of course we'll suffer.
Why should you be paid a bonus for appearing for a club when that is your job.
It is like me saying sure I will take that job for x amount salary but I want an extra bonus for actually turning up and doing my job
FTFY.
You have no idea why we're doing so badly. Of the likely team today, the following all signed up to these terms from day one, not renegotiated:
Edje, Jennings, Kilbane, Barton, Elliot, Fleck, McGoldrick
Some of them have been some of the worst performing players this season. Some of our decent performers have been players who did renegotiate. There's no logic to your position, just a pre-conceived notion that if the club (and therefore in your eyes Sisu) do something it must be bad. Ultimately, it's this kind of view that means that we will never be united as fans because the more reasonable majority will not want to be associated with those that foam at the mouth at anything and everything.
Pick your battles.
Well somebody's in a ranty mood!
Jennings/Elliott/Barton-missed preseason
Fleck-has been injured
McGoldrick-looks our best player, certainly the hungriest
Kilbane-is just plain old.
Plenty of other reason's why that lot are playing crap!
What is FTFY, BTW?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?