Micky aint playing with the full dec !

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ashov

New Member
I just dont get him sometimes :roll:

- He releases 13 players of which he bought over half of them that season
- The players he signs , he but STUPID get out causes in there contracts, when he knows there was a good chance we mite go back down !
-Some of last seasons subsitutions
- Sends Elliott off on loan for the one season we needed him the most , then wants him back the following season and wants to build the squad around him (Build a squad around a 34 year old :? )
- Keeps players like Dabizas,Benjamin and gets rid of player like Sinclair,Priet and Freund


He is REALLY starting to puzzle me
 

Joe_Fox

Well-Known Member
It's all part of Micky's masterplan Ashov, don't worry. O'Neill used to puzzle me aswell and look what happened there.
 

Tom W

New Member
I bet he has pretty much no input whatsoever into players contracts, and certainly not in the release clauses for them. I'd be surprised if he even knew about these clauses before towards the end of the season.

as for the players released - they either won't sign and won't play in div 1 (eg. Freund), will want wages too high (eg. Sinclair), or are total dogshit (eg. Lewis).
 

buzzer_b

New Member
Ashov said:
I just dont get him sometimes :roll:

- He releases 13 players of which he bought over half of them that season
- The players he signs , he but STUPID get out causes in there contracts, when he knows there was a good chance we mite go back down !
-Some of last seasons subsitutions
- Sends Elliott off on loan for the one season we needed him the most , then wants him back the following season and wants to build the squad around him (Build a squad around a 34 year old :? )
- Keeps players like Dabizas,Benjamin and gets rid of player like Sinclair,Priet and Freund


He is REALLY starting to puzzle me
Micky Adams has really started to puzzle me too. What he his doing at the minute seems bad but I guess that he will do what it takes to make things better, hopefully :?
 

Leigh

Well-Known Member
Ashov said:
- Sends Elliott off on loan for the one season we needed him the most , then wants him back the following season and wants to build the squad around him (Build a squad around a 34 year old :? )
- Keeps players like Dabizas,Benjamin and gets rid of player like Sinclair,Priet and Freund
He has to keep Benjamin, he's still got a year on his 17k pw contract, no-one is going to buy him on those wages. Same with Elliott, we'd only manage to loan them out, and probably only to a rival Div 1 team that would only pay part of their contracts, might as well keep them, seeing as they'll do a job for us in Div 1. Dabizas still might go.
 

Scowcroft

New Member
- He releases 13 players of which he bought over half of them that season
The players which Micky bought in, that were released, only had contracts until the end of the season anyway. Either their wage demands would have been too high, or Micky simply wants to rebuild. Most likely the second option.
 

webmaster

Moderator
The manager signed so many players last summer because the squad needed to be stronger, and he decided the best thing to do was to get in a lot of experienced premiership players.
Obviously there would be players that didn't work out, because they were all players who weren't wanted by other clubs. But the sensible thing to do in that situation was to either offer them one year contracts (eg Ferdinand), or contracts where the wages would drop if we got relegated. The players agents would have insisted on a get out clause, so players could move on if another club came in for them, rather than take a pay cut. The alternative would have been to offer these players just a one year contract.

If the manager had the choice of signing players like Dickov and Thatcher for one year, two years with a get out clause, or not at all, what option do you think he should have made?

If he'd had to guarantee these players Premiership money for two years, rather than a reduction if we got relegated, but with a get out clause, he'd have had to do the same thing for those players like Gillespie, Brooker etc, who were not good enough in the premiership last season. Then we'd be in a financial mess again.


A lot of people are reacting emotionally to these get out clauses without thinking about the reason for them, and the possible consequences if they hadn't been there. If it wasn't for the get out clauses I'm sure we'd have had a much weaker squad last season.
 

Redditch Fox

Well-Known Member
webmaster said:
The manager signed so many players last summer because the squad needed to be stronger, and he decided the best thing to do was to get in a lot of experienced premiership players.
Obviously there would be players that didn't work out, because they were all players who weren't wanted by other clubs. But the sensible thing to do in that situation was to either offer them one year contracts (eg Ferdinand), or contracts where the wages would drop if we got relegated. The players agents would have insisted on a get out clause, so players could move on if another club came in for them, rather than take a pay cut. The alternative would have been to offer these players just a one year contract.

If the manager had the choice of signing players like Dickov and Thatcher for one year, two years with a get out clause, or not at all, what option do you think he should have made?


If he'd had to guarantee these players Premiership money for two years, rather than a reduction if we got relegated, but with a get out clause, he'd have had to do the same thing for those players like Gillespie, Brooker etc, who were not good enough in the premiership last season. Then we'd be in a financial mess again.


A lot of people are reacting emotionally to these get out clauses without thinking about the reason for them, and the possible consequences if they hadn't been there. If it wasn't for the get out clauses I'm sure we'd have had a much weaker squad last season.
Not really -there are no grounds for you saying that he would have had to treat the likes of Gillespie & Brooker in the same way as his decent players. Since when has professional football been run like that?

This is a mess and no apologist type justifications are going to explain away the ridiculously low fees attached to the get out clauses of players like Dickov. That is a particular issue -the more general concern is the overall direction of squad building - leaving aside the inconsistencies in statements made about the merits of individual players e.g. Priet, Elliott - there is a lot of doubt in my mind as to whether we are building or disintegrating. I don't expect to see a challenge for promotion this coming season but it would be reasssuring to see some evidence of a longer term development strategy. The type of signings made this month will tell us a lot & I am not especially optimistic at present.
 

Macky

Gruntled Member
does anybody remember PT and the shockingly high value contracts he handed out to average players that nearly sent the club down the river when we got relegated last.

thankfully the same mistakes weren't made again, but if you put a clause in a players contract saying that they'll hav to take a paycut if we go down to div1, it's hardly surprising their agents hav insisted on a get out clause. it has to work both ways.
 

Malf

New Member
We are being too cautious now and with this approach and these stupid get out clauses if we keep the yo yo scenario up then we will never be able to build a team as the good ones will be sold at a ridiculously low price. Where's the stability anymore at our club? If we HAVE to have these clauses then at least set them at a respectable price, such as £400k for Dickov (which teams would pay) and %00k for Thatcher, these are figures that teams would pay for the quality of the player. You struggle to buy a player of this quality for anything less unless their contracts have ran out.

I'm thinking that if we keep being too cautious we won't develop as a club, in business it's all about enterprize and risk taking at the right time. Just because two people nearly ruined this club, doesn't mean we should let it effect the growth of this club in the future. If this is the case I would rather us stay in division one forever atleast we will have a stable team that we can cheer on with continuity. At the minute with these players coming and going it doesn't feel the same as there's no relationship building up between the players and fans which takes place over a few years.
 

Dunc

New Member
I repeat about the low transfer fees in relation to the get out clause.

i) The agent who organises the clause wants his player to move to earn himself and his client money.
ii) Most Prem clubs won't want to pay much money for an average Prem/good Div 1 player as a load of players are on bosmans at this time of year.
iii) The Agent knows this so insists on a low fee to ensure a Prem club will come in and activate the clause.

I agree that they are low prices, but that is good agent work to ensure his client will get the opportunity to move. I would imagine that DB/MA/Tim Davies (whoever) held out for a bigger fee but the agent refused, knowing that even an average player (Scimeca) could then get a club.
 

Steven

Active Member
Dunc said:
I repeat about the low transfer fees in relation to the get out clause.

i) The agent who organises the clause wants his player to move to earn himself and his client money.
ii) Most Prem clubs won't want to pay much money for an average Prem/good Div 1 player as a load of players are on bosmans at this time of year.
iii) The Agent knows this so insists on a low fee to ensure a Prem club will come in and activate the clause.

I agree that they are low prices, but that is good agent work to ensure his client will get the opportunity to move. I would imagine that DB/MA/Tim Davies (whoever) held out for a bigger fee but the agent refused, knowing that even an average player (Scimeca) could then get a club.
Two points.

1) Let us not sign anymore players who insist on specifying an amount in any get out clause. The quality of player that insist on this type of clause did not help us stay in the PL, so logically they cannot be worth such consideration.

2) Let the market decide the worth of a player. Rather than specify a set amount, let clubs who are interested in securing the services of that player decide the price. It might also be prudent to set a minimum figure. If there were truly nine clubs after Dicktwat then surely we would have got more for him than we did.
 

Malf

New Member
Steven said:
Dunc said:
I repeat about the low transfer fees in relation to the get out clause.

i) The agent who organises the clause wants his player to move to earn himself and his client money.
ii) Most Prem clubs won't want to pay much money for an average Prem/good Div 1 player as a load of players are on bosmans at this time of year.
iii) The Agent knows this so insists on a low fee to ensure a Prem club will come in and activate the clause.

I agree that they are low prices, but that is good agent work to ensure his client will get the opportunity to move. I would imagine that DB/MA/Tim Davies (whoever) held out for a bigger fee but the agent refused, knowing that even an average player (Scimeca) could then get a club.
Two points.

1) Let us not sign anymore players who insist on specifying an amount in any get out clause. The quality of player that insist on this type of clause did not help us stay in the PL, so logically they cannot be worth such consideration.

2) Let the market decide the worth of a player. Rather than specify a set amount, let clubs who are interested in securing the services of that player decide the price. It might also be prudent to set a minimum figure. If there were truly nine clubs after Dicktwat then surely we would have got more for him than we did.
Probably the best post you have ever made Steven, I totally agree with that. Infact I think Mr Adams needs to read that post.
 

Dunc

New Member
I agree with your points as well, and I would imagine there is little chance of the clauses being activated for the players he is bringing in over the next 8 weeks.

Let the market decide the worth of a player. Rather than specify a set amount, let clubs who are interested in securing the services of that player decide the price. It might also be prudent to set a minimum figure
The market worth one is a nice idea, but unlikely to happen. Dickov moved because he was cheap, if he was priced at perhaps the £500k mark he is worth he wouldn't have got any interest and wouldn't have gone. I realise that is exactly what we all want, but not what the player puts it in the contract for.

His agent (and Dickov) want the clause to ensure a number of clubs come in for him, and the minimum fee was in place - £75k (?). Unfortunately for us the players hold the key so if WBA had bid £400k and he still wanted to move to Rovers for £100k then we would be in the same situation as now.

In essence the 2nd point did happen, different clubs bid different prices but all exceeded the minimum price so all could offer a contract. If you want to make sure the player can only move to the highest bidder, you simply won't get a player to sign the contract. FACT.
 

Malf

New Member
Dunc said:
I agree with your points as well, and I would imagine there is little chance of the clauses being activated for the players he is bringing in over the next 8 weeks.

Let the market decide the worth of a player. Rather than specify a set amount, let clubs who are interested in securing the services of that player decide the price. It might also be prudent to set a minimum figure
The market worth one is a nice idea, but unlikely to happen. Dickov moved because he was cheap, if he was priced at perhaps the £500k mark he is worth he wouldn't have got any interest and wouldn't have gone. I realise that is exactly what we all want, but not what the player puts it in the contract for.

His agent (and Dickov) want the clause to ensure a number of clubs come in for him, and the minimum fee was in place - £75k (?). Unfortunately for us the players hold the key so if WBA had bid £400k and he still wanted to move to Rovers for £100k then we would be in the same situation as now.

In essence the 2nd point did happen, different clubs bid different prices but all exceeded the minimum price so all could offer a contract. If you want to make sure the player can only move to the highest bidder, you simply won't get a player to sign the contract. FACT.
Fair point me duck. It's frustrating though because teams would pay £250-400k for Dickov because you struggle to get a striker who will score you 15 goals in the premiership for under a few million. Also Thatcher at £100k is a disgrace, the man commanded a £5 million transfer fee not so long ago and after a solid season for us and at 28 years of age you could get half a million for him.
 

Redditch Fox

Well-Known Member
Malf said:
Dunc said:
I agree with your points as well, and I would imagine there is little chance of the clauses being activated for the players he is bringing in over the next 8 weeks.

Let the market decide the worth of a player. Rather than specify a set amount, let clubs who are interested in securing the services of that player decide the price. It might also be prudent to set a minimum figure
The market worth one is a nice idea, but unlikely to happen. Dickov moved because he was cheap, if he was priced at perhaps the £500k mark he is worth he wouldn't have got any interest and wouldn't have gone. I realise that is exactly what we all want, but not what the player puts it in the contract for.

His agent (and Dickov) want the clause to ensure a number of clubs come in for him, and the minimum fee was in place - £75k (?). Unfortunately for us the players hold the key so if WBA had bid £400k and he still wanted to move to Rovers for £100k then we would be in the same situation as now.

In essence the 2nd point did happen, different clubs bid different prices but all exceeded the minimum price so all could offer a contract. If you want to make sure the player can only move to the highest bidder, you simply won't get a player to sign the contract. FACT.
Fair point me duck. It's frustrating though because teams would pay £250-400k for Dickov because you struggle to get a striker who will score you 15 goals in the premiership for under a few million. Also Thatcher at £100k is a disgrace, the man commanded a £5 million transfer fee not so long ago and after a solid season for us and at 28 years of age you could get half a million for him.
I think that the main difficulty with the club's position is that relegation was a probability before a ball was kicked - MA acknowledged that the bookies odds were usually justified. The scenario of the contracts was ok along as we were not relegated but in the event means that assets are being stripped off and we can't afford that either. If it took such disadvanteous terms to sign or retain these players then I don't think it was worth it - in any case we heard a lot about the skills of Dave Bassett in negotiating player deals -I can't see what is particularly skilful about persuading players to come to Leicester or stay on for another season by offering such unbalanced terms in their favour. The end product has been to supply other struggling Prem clubs with cut price squad players & to denude LCFC of more or less any quality outfield players. I wait to see the developments which will restore my faith & watch with interest the pattern of season ticket sales.
 

Joe_Fox

Well-Known Member
This is perhaps the most intelligent thread I've witnessed in the last 3-4 months. Thanks for everyone's input, thoroughly enjoyed reading this beast. I think it should be printed out, or edited into an essay and sent to LCFC, special delivery.
 

Malf

New Member
Joe_Fox said:
This is perhaps the most intelligent thread I've witnessed in the last 3-4 months. Thanks for everyone's input, thoroughly enjoyed reading this beast. I think it should be printed out, or edited into an essay and sent to LCFC, special delivery.
Sign on arrival and all that? Micky Adams has to sign for it or Royal Mail won't give it to them. Let's do it, i'm going to send them a porno aswell.
 

Joe_Fox

Well-Known Member
Malf said:
Joe_Fox said:
This is perhaps the most intelligent thread I've witnessed in the last 3-4 months. Thanks for everyone's input, thoroughly enjoyed reading this beast. I think it should be printed out, or edited into an essay and sent to LCFC, special delivery.
Sign on arrival and all that? Micky Adams has to sign for it or Royal Mail won't give it to them. Let's do it, i'm going to send them a porno aswell.
I don't see why not, it's as intelligent a script you will see from a Leicester fans forum. The OS letter would be rubbish in comparison IMO. "Dear Micky, I like pies, do you, Yours sincerely, OS forum" :wink:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Log in to stop seeing adverts

Premier League

P Pld Pts
Leicester  9
Liverpool  9
Everton  9
Aston Villa  6
Arsenal  6
Palace  6
Leeds Utd  6
Tottenham   4
Chelsea  4
10 Newcastle Utd  4
11 West Ham Utd  3
12 Brighton  3
13 Manchester City  3
14 Manchester Utd  3
15 Southampton  3
16 Wolves  3
17 West Brom  1
18 Burnley  0
19 Sheffield Utd  0
20 Fulham  0
Top