Micky aint playing with the full dec !

[Macky]

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"

and what exactly is the OS forum?
sorry if i'm bein thick

 

[webmaster]

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?

The point I was trying to make is that who knew who our 'decent' players were going to be last summer when these contracts were drawn up?

A lot of people thought Gillespie was a good signing, and if he'd been our best player last season I'm sure he'd be in the same position as Dickov, with a get out clause and other clubs trying to sign him. As it is no one will want to sign him, but at least he'll be on lower wages next season.

And we have the reverse situation with Dickov, a lot of people said he wasn't good enough for the Premiership, so if our promotion season turned out to be a one off for him we'd have looked stupid giving him a better contract than other players.


What a lot of people are moaning about is these get out clauses allowing players to go 'on the cheap', but those that we sell are going for more than we paid for them, and if they'd only signed a one year contract we'd get nothing for them.

If the choice was between signing players on a one year contract, a two year contract with a get out clause, or not at all, which would you have chosen?

 

[homer]

What a lot of people are moaning about is these get out clauses allowing players to go 'on the cheap', but those that we sell are going for more than we paid for them,

Very true, but we took players who were at that time of little value at all. Their careers were going nowhere. Dickov could not get a game to save his life, Thatcher was not wanted at spurs, and Scimeca was stuck at Forest.

All going nowhere fast, with no value.

We have resurrected their careers and given them a stage in the premiership. Some of them, like Hignett and Gillespie, showed that they really are worth nothing. But Dickov, Thatcher and Scimeca have put themselves back in the frame and there is now an added value placed on their heads because of the risk we were prepared to take and the opportunity that they were afforded.

To say we get more in than we paid is an irrelevance, given the amounts concerend. Two quid is double the value of one quid, but it's still f*ck all.

It is the relative value to the club that should dictate his sale value, not what he cost. igt will cost us a good half a million to replace Dickov, if not more, and it would be the same for Thatcher.

I don't believe that Thatch and Dickov wouldn't have played for us without the clause set at that pitiful amount, and Scimeca says he didn't know about it.

 

[Malf]

What a lot of people are moaning about is these get out clauses allowing players to go 'on the cheap', but those that we sell are going for more than we paid for them,

Very true, but we took players who were at that time of little value at all. Their careers were going nowhere. Dickov could not get a game to save his life, Thatcher was not wanted at spurs, and Scimeca was stuck at Forest.

All going nowhere fast, with no value.

We have resurrected their careers and given them a stage in the premiership. Some of them, like Hignett and Gillespie, showed that they really are worth nothing. But Dickov, Thatcher and Scimeca have put themselves back in the frame and there is now an added value placed on their heads because of the risk we were prepared to take and the opportunity that they were afforded.

To say we get more in than we paid is an irrelevance, given the amounts concerend. Two quid is double the value of one quid, but it's still f*ck all.

It is the relative value to the club that should dictate his sale value, not what he cost. igt will cost us a good half a million to replace Dickov, if not more, and it would be the same for Thatcher.

I don't believe that Thatch and Dickov wouldn't have played for us without the clause set at that pitiful amount, and Scimeca says he didn't know about it.

Also we might have made money on these players, but as Homer said these players weren't wanted when we signed them, they have not become desirable. When has a team ever sold one of their quality players for a piss poor fee even if we've made money on them?

 

[webmaster]

When has a team ever sold one of their quality players for a piss poor fee even if we've made money on them?

It happens all the time when players are nearing the end of their contract.

It is the relative value to the club that should dictate his sale value, not what he cost.

But the players (or more likely their agents) would have been the ones to insist on the get out clause (and the size of the fee), so the club would have had very little option.
The other options would have been to sign them on a one year contract (and get nothing for them at the end of the year), or not to sign them at all.

 

[Dunc]

I've already said all this Webbo, about 4 times but no one seems to understand that the lure of playing for Leicester isn't that great, unless you are a leicester fan - like us.

Stop thinking from a leicester fan's perspective for a second.

 

[homer]

The lure was never about playing for Leicester City, and I am not naiive enough to think it is. Quite why you think everyone is that thick, or that blind, is beyond me.

It was about playing regular first team football in the Premier League - which is why Dickov has left now.

 

[Malf]

This lure is quite high when your a player that's been bum raped by your current club and you are desperate to re-ignite your career. Thatcher didn't have a leg to stand on, Tottenham reserves and the same with Dickov. They jumperd at the chance to sign us, it was Thatchers agent who contacted Leicester in the summer!!!!!!!!!

Anyway these clauses stink, even if we had no choice the value could have been a tad higher and even you know that.

 

[Redditch Fox]

I've already said all this Webbo, about 4 times but no one seems to understand that the lure of playing for Leicester isn't that great, unless you are a leicester fan - like us.

Stop thinking from a leicester fan's perspective for a second.

Let's just take the case of Dickov - 2002/03, he scored 20 goals - its was clear that he had found his confidence & was a valuable asset - that fact should have influenced the setting of a minimum fee.

On Gillespie, Hignett & co - I have posted a number of times - I am surprised that either was signed - neither had looked like a decent player for a very long time & frankly I'm not impressed that they were brought here - the same applies to Dabizas. How many people actually believe that Dabizas is any better than Matt Elliott? On the otherhand Thatcher was 'out of favour' at Spurs but -but I guess that most followers of the game would see him as a likely main man at the Walkers & presumably that is why he came here.

These are the factors that should have mattered in fixing get out fee levels.

Frankly, since the departure of MON there has been a severe lack of acumen at the club & its time the management & board raised its own game a bit.

 

[Dunc]

I wasn't saying you were thick homer, I know you aren't.

It is the relative value to the club that should dictate his sale value, not what he cost.

That is a fan's bias though. What player ever goes for his value in relation to the club. Would Muzzy have gone to Boro 2yrs ago for 5million?! You could even describe him as priceless to us, when he didnt play we were really bad instead of just bad.

I'm afraid there is not a lot we can do for the reasons listed before about these clauses. I agree with Webbo, we either had them or didn't get certain players, and they had to be low fees to make them attractive for other clubs (not a value to us).

Its not our choice they left, they wanted to play Premier League footy as you say, so why would they sign a contract with a 'get out clause' stating Leicester City dictate how much I can move for. All we would have done is price them out the market and kept them on Div 1 wages.

Its not possible. Agents rule the players and they are in it to make money. If their clients move, they get a cut. If the clients don't, they don't.

The only argument you can make about all this, is whether or not LCFC should have signed the players who wanted clauses. I thought at the time it was worth a gamble, and still think it was the right thing to do (without hindsight). As webbo says, either that or only give a 1 yr contract and get nothing for them.

 

[Dunc]

Redditch,

Interested to know, would you not have offered any contracts to Scimeca, Dickov or Thatcher then?

They are the ones who have the clauses, and probably wanted them to protect their wages if we had got relegated.

As stated elsewhere, they wouldn't have signed if the trigger fee's were higher than they are. so would you have:

a) not signed them at all - losing them and perhaps not giving ourselves as good a chance of staying up?

b) offered a one year contract and not got anything for them when we went down?

And yes Dabizas is not the liability Elliott was in every game he played this year. he is a better player (at this moment) than Elliott, although Matty was a better player 3/4 years ago.

 

[Malf]

Redditch,

Interested to know, would you not have offered any contracts to Scimeca, Dickov or Thatcher then?

They are the ones who have the clauses, and probably wanted them to protect their wages if we had got relegated.

As stated elsewhere, they wouldn't have signed if the trigger fee's were higher than they are. so would you have:

a) not signed them at all - losing them and perhaps not giving ourselves as good a chance of staying up?

b) offered a one year contract and not got anything for them when we went down?

And yes Dabizas is not the liability Elliott was in every game he played this year. he is a better player (at this moment) than Elliott, although Matty was a better player 3/4 years ago.

Are you telling me Dunc that if Dickov had a release clause of £250,000 he wouldn't have signed? and the same with Thatcher who was just desperate to get his career going again? I think not, it was in Leicester's interests as much as the players and their agents that we could get rid of these players at the drop of a hat. These clauses make it look like the club was helpless, but I disagree. They are being far to cautious and these clauses were another way out for them, i'm sick of it. We will have to take risks again if we want to develop as a club again, we can't let what Taylor and Elsom did to us prevent us from being a force again.

 

[Joe_Fox]

We will become a force again, do not worry.

 

[Dunc]

Who knows malf. Point being I would be very surprised if there wasn't any bartering over the trigger fee.

As I say, the agents want a low price, the club would want a high price, and the player wants Prem wages (especially at 31!).

None of us know the facts, none of us ever will, and this constant speculating that the club has been mis managed when in reality its covered its back over relegation isn't helping anyone.

I believe that the people who run the club have its long term interests at heart and that the financial mire of 24 months ago won't rear its head again.

 

[Malf]

Who knows malf. Point being I would be very surprised if there wasn't any bartering over the trigger fee.

As I say, the agents want a low price, the club would want a high price, and the player wants Prem wages (especially at 31!).

None of us know the facts, none of us ever will, and this constant speculating that the club has been mis managed when in reality its covered its back over relegation isn't helping anyone.

I believe that the people who run the club have its long term interests at heart and that the financial mire of 24 months ago won't rear its head again.

We can safely say we'll not be in the shit again, whether this hinders us in taking a few risks i'm not sure. I suppose this is our punishment for getting greedy. Just glad to still have a team I suppose.

 

[Dunc]

We can safely say we'll not be in the shit again, whether this hinders us in taking a few risks i'm not sure. I suppose this is our punishment for getting greedy. Just glad to still have a team I suppose.

I'd rather that than get into admin because we didn't have get out clauses or wage reductions on relegation.

 

[Steven]

Are you telling me Dunc that if Dickov had a release clause of £250,000 he wouldn't have signed? and the same with Thatcher who was just desperate to get his career going again? I think not, it was in Leicester's interests as much as the players and their agents that we could get rid of these players at the drop of a hat. These clauses make it look like the club was helpless, but I disagree.

Spot on. Are we to accept the fact that Leicester City get no credit for resurrecting their carrers and placing them in the shop window. :? :?

 

[Dunc]

Spot on. Are we to accept the fact that Leicester City get no credit for resurrecting their carrers and placing them in the shop window.

Does any club? Accept the fact, get over it.

 

[Steven]

Spot on. Are we to accept the fact that Leicester City get no credit for resurrecting their carrers and placing them in the shop window.

Does any club? Accept the fact, get over it.

Accept the fact that the person negotiating these contracts is incompetent and that we are likely to be a serial offender. No thank you. You seem very supine, willing to accept whatever rubbish is thrown up in front of you. :roll:

 

[Dunc]

I've made my points and feelings known about this for weeks on various posts, but every day someone comes on whinging about these clauses. Just getting fed up of the constant negativity.

I don't believe everything, I don't believe Scimeca didn't know about these clauses etc, but I do believe that clauses and wage reductions are the only way we had of protecting the club against the financial implications of relegation.

You say players would sign 2 yr contracts with wage reductions, without a get out clause, I don't agree. I can live with that. I don't think its being supine as you put it, just realistic.