Hamill has gone

[Yorkshire Vixen]

good luck to him

 

[MHS]

good luck to him

Hamill has gone. Sylla has been involved in the last couple of games....maybe he has proved himself to Kelly?

As for De Vries - haven't seen him, or heard anything about him. Maybe it's a sign that he could be on his way out as well.

 

[highland fox]

Hamill has gone. Sylla has been involved in the last couple of games....maybe he has proved himself to Kelly?
As for De Vries - haven't seen him, or heard anything about him. Maybe it's a sign that he could be on his way out as well.

Won't last long I guarantee it,once as alazy no good fecker always a no good lazy fecker.When the going gets tough Momo goes missing.

 

[maccfox]

Good. Less wages to pay for a player who was always too lightweight for this league. Another CL misfit out of the door!

Bit harsh i think, all our decent players such as Paddy and fryatt and Hume were signed by CL

 

[joe501]

Bit harsh i think, all our decent players such as Paddy and fryatt and Hume were signed by CL

I didn't say all CL signings were poor, in fact some of the young talent brought in has been exceptional.

He did bring some real 'misfits' with him from scotland though, Hammil, De Vries, Sylla and Douglas spring to mind.

 

[highland fox]

I didn't say all CL signings were poor, in fact some of the young talent brought in has been exceptional.

He did bring some real 'misfits' with him from scotland though, Hammil, De Vries, Sylla and Douglas spring to mind.

Our joint Top Goalscorer...hes what it says on the label a £75,000 Striker.CL also cleared out a hell of a lot of shite.

 

[joe501]

Our joint Top Goalscorer...hes what it says on the label a £75,000 Striker.CL also cleared out a hell of a lot of shite.

It shows how poor our season was when MDV was our joint top scorer with 8 goals, if I remember correctly. We also played poor football when he was on the field.

You are right CL did what he was told, lower the average age of the squad and lower the wage bill, but you or I could have walked into the club at that time and released a bunch of Adams & Basset's overpaid oldies!

 

[bocadillo]

Balderdash!

Do you think when Villa and O'Leary parted company last week by 'mutual consent' there was no pay-off there either?

Yes, he does.

 

[Lboro fox]

Yes, he does.

No i dont, the part where O'Leary was offered a compensation package suggests he probably got some cash. However, the official statement for Joe Hamill does little to suggest the same thing. There is little point arguing however, as we are unlikely to ever be told the full dealings, maybe he got a free steak and kidney pie for his troubles?

 

[bocadillo]

I would guess we paid him roughly 50% of what he was due in wages if he'd seen his contract out.

Hamill will have an agent. In the absence of an agent, he will have had advice from the PFA. Without advice either from an agent or the PFA, the club would not agree to cancelling his contract by mutual consent. Th is is in siimilar fashion to when a 'compromise agreement' is made in more ordinary employment, whereby a person is paid by an employer to leave his post but first must take the advice of a solicitor. Without seeing sight of proof that the employer had consulted a solicitor, no wise employer would enter into a compromise agreement because an Employment Tribunal would still be likely to judge that the dismissal was unfair despite the employee having agreed to it.

For that reason we can be certain that Hamill will have taken advice. Neither an agent nor the PFA would advise a player to settle for anything less than the amount of money that the player will lose due to the termination of his contract. If Hamill is to return to Scottish football, as seems likely, he will not get half the amount that City have been paying him - therefore the payment is likely to be somewhat more than half of the amount still owing on his contract. The club is likely to have saved very little.

 

[bocadillo]

Truth is we will be unlikely to know the cost of releasing Hamill, but as Boc says the likelihood is that wee Joe is more than likely to sign on for a new club within the next few days.

I would have thought that a deal was agreed with his new club and agent regarding personal terms and contract length, then he returns to City to negotiate a settlement figure that allows the club to terminate the contract.

Wonder if this deal could be repeated with MDV, will be interesting to see if this allows RK further room to manouvre in the transfer market.

Exactly!

 

[webmaster]

will be interesting to see if this allows RK further room to manouvre in the transfer market.

Doubt it will allow him to do much, I'm sure we won't have saved much by getting rid of Hamill.

Hamill would have been one of our lowest earners, he was signed from Hearts reserves, he won't have been on much there, so it wouldn't have taken a great deal for him to sign for us. It's not like he was signed to be a first team player.

But that may be the reason why it was so easy to get rid of him, the payoff wouldn't have been too much, and it won't cost a new club too much to sign him.

If we were to try the same thing with MdV on the other hand, I'm sure he's one of the higher earners, and it could be much more difficult for him to find a club willing to pay him anything like what he's on now. It could be a lot more costly if we were to pay him off. But not as costly as keeping him if he's never going to play a game for us.

 

[Tamworth Fox]

Was crap good to see him go

 

[The Voice From Above]

Livingston is his destination..........

 

[bocadillo]

Livingston is his destination..........

Their manager, John Robertson, used to be CL's coach at Hearts so knows what he should be able to expect from Hamill.

 

[lcfcrules]

Their manager, John Robertson, used to be CL's coach at Hearts so knows what he should be able to expect from Hamill.

a pile of sh!te?

 

[Jedi]

Exactly!

Yes but not 50% of his wages left, as some have suggested, on his contract as LCFC wouldn't be better off financially. After all it has to benefit both sides! As in the case with Gerrbrand. If we are paying off big sums of money then we are going to be closer to financial ruin again! The idea being the player is wanted by someone else who doesn't want to pay a fee and he isn't going to get football at his current club.

 

[bocadillo]

Yes but not 50% of his wages left, as some have suggested, on his contract as LCFC wouldn't be better off financially. After all it has to benefit both sides! As in the case with Gerrbrand. If we are paying off big sums of money then we are going to be closer to financial ruin again! The idea being the player is wanted by someone else who doesn't want to pay a fee and he isn't going to get football at his current club.

You have no idea whether the deal cost us more or less than 50% of the amount that was still due under his contract. Why do you keep going on about it?

 

[Jedi]

You have no idea whether the deal cost us more or less than 50% of the amount that was still due under his contract. Why do you keep going on about it?

Because if we paid anything like that amount then we are going to end up close to financial ruin and it bothers me if that is the case.

 

[bocadillo]

Because if we paid anything like that amount then we are going to end up close to financial ruin and it bothers me if that is the case.

Have you ever thought that the payment of any compensation is likely to be spread across the whole contract period?

There is no reason for this to bother you and there is no reaon to think that we are any nearer "financial ruin" than we already were. The club will have saved some money - we can only guess how much - your guess is just different from mine.