Jason Roberts

Log in to stop seeing adverts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Matt_B said:
Surely Roberts would just be another big name on high wages; something I thought we were trying to get away from?
Click to expand...
Surely we are not silly enough to think all established, well known players will be shit, surely we take them on individual merit?
 
Lako42 said:
Surely we are not silly enough to think all established, well known players will be shit, surely we take them on individual merit?
Click to expand...

No, not Leicester fans. I take your point, but this guy is the opposite of the hungry players we want.
 
If the situation is as described, and JR just wants to play, then he could waive the extended years contract himself? No thought not. Footballers are excellent at playing the victim.

By the way, isn't this is why both Howard and Oakley got an extra years contract when they would never have got them otherwise?
 
Brown Nose said:
If the situation is as described, and JR just wants to play, then he could waive the extended years contract himself? No thought not. Footballers are excellent at playing the victim.

By the way, isn't this is why both Howard and Oakley got an extra years contract when they would never have got them otherwise?
Click to expand...

I just assumed Sven had had a stroke. The only two of his decisions I disagreed with at the time.
 
Brown Nose said:
If the situation is as described, and JR just wants to play, then he could waive the extended years contract himself? No thought not. Footballers are excellent at playing the victim.

By the way, isn't this is why both Howard and Oakley got an extra years contract when they would never have got them otherwise?
Click to expand...

In all fairness why should he? If the club agreed to that clause in the contract and he fulfills the amount of games to activate it, then he' held up his side of the bargain. A club that wants to worm its way out of a pre agreed arrangement, or steadfastly refuse to play someone based on this, even though they would be making appearances were it not there, are at fault and not the player. If they were in danger of going into administration then I would understand as they would need to cut any unnecessary costs but they're not in this situation. This is the same club that tried to get Raul in the summer.
 
gregs_y2k said:
In all fairness why should he? If the club agreed to that clause in the contract and he fulfills the amount of games to activate it, then he' held up his side of the bargain. A club that wants to worm its way out of a pre agreed arrangement, or steadfastly refuse to play someone based on this, even though they would be making appearances were it not there, are at fault and not the player. If they were in danger of going into administration then I would understand as they would need to cut any unnecessary costs but they're not in this situation. This is the same club that tried to get Raul in the summer.
Click to expand...

A contractual stipulation adding an extra year to a contract subject to appearances would only be requested by the players agent. It is of no benefit to the club. So JR wanted the clause.

The clause demands that the club eventually do not play him if they determine that it isn't beneficial to them to be saddled with an ageing, injury prone player and a wage commitment of at least a couple of million. I can't see anything wrong with that. The club are well within their rights to make decisions in their best interests and not those of one player. If JR had demonstrated a value to BRFC for 2012/13 he would be playing and getting his contract.

JR can sit on his backside and collect cash until the summer and then try to find another club or he can waive the extra year, play a bit and improve his reputation and get himself a better contact elsewhere in the summer.

What I object to is him wanting his cake and eat it. If I'm right about Oakley being paid for 2011/12 on the basis of the number of performances in 2010/11, we've paid him the best part of a million quid with no return whatsoever because, as a player at this level, he's past it. I'd rather we hadn't bothered and he was now an ex player as he should be.
 
The club might have offered the clause as a reward if he proved useful enough to play a set amount of games. He is clearly of use to them else he'd be nowhere near the trigger.

It could work both ways. To expect a player to take the hit is as daft as expecting the club to. Impasse.
 
If the club are not happy to give him what it agreed to give him then they never should have entered into that agreement in the 1st place.
 
Seems like the agreement is working out exactly as designed to me.

The player has met his end of the deal, the club have met theirs. Each has made a decision based on the terms of the contract.
 
Brown Nose said:
A contractual stipulation adding an extra year to a contract subject to appearances would only be requested by the players agent. It is of no benefit to the club. So JR wanted the clause.

The clause demands that the club eventually do not play him if they determine that it isn't beneficial to them to be saddled with an ageing, injury prone player and a wage commitment of at least a couple of million. I can't see anything wrong with that. The club are well within their rights to make decisions in their best interests and not those of one player. If JR had demonstrated a value to BRFC for 2012/13 he would be playing and getting his contract.

JR can sit on his backside and collect cash until the summer and then try to find another club or he can waive the extra year, play a bit and improve his reputation and get himself a better contact elsewhere in the summer.

What I object to is him wanting his cake and eat it. If I'm right about Oakley being paid for 2011/12 on the basis of the number of performances in 2010/11, we've paid him the best part of a million quid with no return whatsoever because, as a player at this level, he's past it. I'd rather we hadn't bothered and he was now an ex player as he should be.
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree with what you've said in principle, we have no idea what the circumstances were when he signed the contract. He may have been offered two very similar contracts 2 years ago, one that was 3 years long and one that was 2 years (plus another year if he'd been playing), in which case he has just cause to feel frustrated.
 
Roberts scores for Reading today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Log in to stop seeing adverts

P Pld Pts
1Liverpool1128
2Manchester C  1123
3Chelsea1119
4Arsenal1119
5Nottm F1119
6Brighton1119
7Fulham1118
8Newcastle1118
9Aston Villa1118
10Tottenham 1116
11Brentford1116
12Bournemouth1115
13Manchester U1115
14West Ham1112
15Leicester1110
16Everton1110
17Ipswich118
18Palace117
19Wolves116
20Southampton114

Latest posts

Back
Top