Micky aint playing with the full dec !

[Steven]

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.

I don't know whether I whinge, maybe, maybe not, but I do feel that these clause are not good business practice. I say this particularly on the day that Deloitte publish a report showing that increases in player wages are the smallest almost since the inception of the PL (8%) and that WBA paid 11.5 million for their wage bill when in the PL. Moreover only 6 clubs made a profit, with Brum being one of them :!:

The point I am trying to make is that all the cards in the deck are not held by players given that we can look throughout the UK and EU. What needs to happen at City is a change in attitude to the type of player signed and the deal offered (not necessarily in terms of money).

Moreover I am not the least bit certain that the current City management are being "realistic". The talk last year was about how little money was in the game (ITV collapse and cheapish Sky deal), yet we ended up having a bigger wage bill than WBA and opt out clauses.

The realism we need is that which looks at the type of player we sign and the terms and conditions under which we sign them. The one thing that knackers your argument more than any other, is that even after we bent over backwards for these players, we still got relegated. Not a fair deal and no more like them please.

 

[webmaster]

The talk last year was about how little money was in the game (ITV collapse and cheapish Sky deal), yet we ended up having a bigger wage bill than WBA and opt out clauses.

The reason we had a bigger wage bill than WBA was nothing to do with the players we signed last summer. It was because of the players we still had on long contracts on high wages, like Izzet, Elliott, Walker, Scowcroft, Jones, Benjamin, Lewis, Davidson, Impey etc.

 

[Redditch Fox]

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.

We don't know what processes took place in those negotiations;we do know that the outcomes have been very detrimental.

I would have thought that the club was in a stronger position 12 months ago to negotiate better deals than those which offered an actual benefit to some players if we were relegated. Not many businesses operate along the lines of positively rewarding failure.

 

[webmaster]

I would have thought that the club was in a stronger position 12 months ago to negotiate better deals than those which offered an actual benefit to some players if we were relegated. Not many businesses operate along the lines of positively rewarding failure.

The contracts didn't reward failure, and they didn't give a benefit to players who were relegated.
The contracts reduced their wages if we were relegated, but with the chance to move to another club. Those players who 'failed' last season will end up getting paid less next season. Those who didn't fail may end up earning more at a different club.
So the incentive for the players was to play well, or suffer a drop in wages.

 

[Redditch Fox]

I would have thought that the club was in a stronger position 12 months ago to negotiate better deals than those which offered an actual benefit to some players if we were relegated. Not many businesses operate along the lines of positively rewarding failure.

The contracts didn't reward failure, and they didn't give a benefit to players who were relegated.
The contracts reduced their wages if we were relegated, but with the chance to move to another club. Those players who 'failed' last season will end up getting paid less next season. Those who didn't fail may end up earning more at a different club.
So the incentive for the players was to play well, or suffer a drop in wages.

Absolutely not. The arrangements were such that the better players knew that they could leave at the end of the season & their agents would have been looking for that opportunity from the outset. If you haven't yet noticed ,Webmaster, allow me to enlighten you:agents get their money from their clients leaving their existing clubs. Whether it was the only set of options available or not -no one could reasonably deny that the club helped to create a situation where the agents would seek to persuade their clients to move on.

The bulk of the squad (Walker, Thatcher, Scimeca, Izzet, Dickov, Bent, Ferdinand being the exceptions) was not up to the mark anyway & would not make a great deal of difference whether they stayed or went. How many of the 7 talented players do you think we shall see wearing a Leicester shirt next season, Webmaster - that is some sort of measure of the success of these policies.?

 

[webmaster]

The arrangements were such that the better players knew that they could leave at the end of the season

Only if they'd played well enough during the season for another club to want them!
If they'd had a crap season no one would want them anyway, so they'd end up having to take a pay cut.

How is that rewarding failure?

 

[Redditch Fox]

The arrangements were such that the better players knew that they could leave at the end of the season

Only if they'd played well enough during the season for another club to want them!
If they'd had a crap season no one would want them anyway, so they'd end up having to take a pay cut.

How is that rewarding failure?

But overall we did have a crap season - with just one bright spell in November. Its just that everyone knew that we had a number of useful players with bottom half of Prem squad member potential plus one class player - Muzzy Izzet. We just made it easier & cheaper for three of those players to get picked off - thereby making it less likely that other decent players would want to stay and making it more difficult to attract other decent players into the club.

It might seem an odd thing to say but when a team is relegated, it might be a good idea to strengthen the set up rather than denude the squad of any quality - I just hope that whoever thinks they are running Leicester City has some smart moves up their sleeves to bring in that quality - because we seem to have lost the knack of spotting younger potential. Let's hope that things can be turned round. I realise that this is becoming boring & repetitive but I am sorry that you cannot recognise that something has happened that will be looked back on as a lesson to be learned rather than good stewardship.

 

[webmaster]

OK, so what would you have differently last summer?

bearing in mind:

1. We needed to sign loads of players because the squad was very small

2. We couldn't afford to buy players, we had to look for free transfers (effectively ruling out good young players)

3. Players would not accept a contract with a pay cut in the event of relegation, without a release clause that would allow them to leave for a small fee.

 

[weluvulesta]

As ive said before waiting till the signings come before i judge Micky.

um... i haven't said that b4 but I am aggreeing wit u.

 

[San]

I can recall Micky saying last year everyone associated with the club including himself will take a paycut if they suffered relegation. Now we have gone down, in terms of finance, how much would the likes of Adams, Bassett and other backroom staff lose in £?

 

[webmaster]

I can recall Micky saying last year everyone associated with the club including himself will take a paycut if they suffered relegation.

Not everyone. Players like Walker, Scowcroft, Benjamin etc won't, because their contracts are from the days before administration.
And I'm sure not all the back room staff will take a pay cut, because they may not have had an increase when we got promoted.

 

[Redditch Fox]

OK, so what would you have differently last summer?

bearing in mind:

1. We needed to sign loads of players because the squad was very small

2. We couldn't afford to buy players, we had to look for free transfers (effectively ruling out good young players)

3. Players would not accept a contract with a pay cut in the event of relegation, without a release clause that would allow them to leave for a small fee.

I don't have a problem with 1 & 2 above because I accept that the club was under-funded to cope with the need to strengthen the squad with sufficient quality players to be viable in the Premiership.

Its item 3 which has been the point of my postings. What evidence have you got that the 3 players insisted on such derisory fees? Assuming that is the case then given that relegation was the probability it might have been better to have terms that encouraged the few quality players to remain in the event of relegation - the income loss incurred through being uncompetitive in Division 1 would be greater than the costs of paying higher wages to the few decent players. You have previously implied that we wouldn't know who the decent performers would be -I disagree with that - Dickov, Scimeca & Thatcher have track records that indicate that they would be quality in Division 1 (and fringe in the Premiership). As I have stated previously, the likes of Hignett, Gillespie, Brooker, Dabizas, Coyne fall into a different category & basically make up the numbers in the squad so there was no need to be too concerned about whether they stayed -quite the reverse in most those cases.

I fail to see how you can build a decent squad even in Division 1 without some quality & making discerning judgements on who to try to keep through incentives.

I hope I am wrong but we appear to be in a downward spiral - like Derby, Forest & Wednesday have experienced - lets hope I am completely off track & we see an influx of talent in the next few weeks. We will need it because there is going to be little of that left from last year's set up.

 

[webmaster]

What evidence have you got that the 3 players insisted on such derisory fees?

No evidence.
But if I was a player in the same situation, I'd have wanted the fee to be as low as possible. and I don't think the club is stupid enough to do things like that without a good reason.
It's not just Leicester who have done this. Real Madrid have done it too, with Ronaldo being allowed to leave on the cheap after he took a pay cut.

You have previously implied that we wouldn't know who the decent performers would be -I disagree with that - Dickov, Scimeca & Thatcher have track records that indicate that they would be quality in Division 1 (and fringe in the Premiership). As I have stated previously, the likes of Hignett, Gillespie, Brooker, Dabizas, Coyne fall into a different category & basically make up the numbers in the squad so there was no need to be too concerned about whether they stayed -quite the reverse in most those cases.

When we bought him Thatcher, Dickov and Scimeca they had all played less Premiership games than Gillespie, Hignett and Dabizas. So your 'track record' is obviously not based on appearances. So what is it based on?
Being an international maybe. Thatcher and Scimeca weren't internationals. But Gillespie Dabizas and Coyne were. So it's not based on being an international.

So based on provable facts (rather than opinion), your 'proven track record' theory doesn't hold any water.

 

[Steven]

What evidence have you got that the 3 players insisted on such derisory fees?

No evidence.
But if I was a player in the same situation, I'd have wanted the fee to be as low as possible. and I don't think the club is stupid enough to do things like that without a good reason.
It's not just Leicester who have done this. Real Madrid have done it too, with Ronaldo being allowed to leave on the cheap after he took a pay cut.

You have previously implied that we wouldn't know who the decent performers would be -I disagree with that - Dickov, Scimeca & Thatcher have track records that indicate that they would be quality in Division 1 (and fringe in the Premiership). As I have stated previously, the likes of Hignett, Gillespie, Brooker, Dabizas, Coyne fall into a different category & basically make up the numbers in the squad so there was no need to be too concerned about whether they stayed -quite the reverse in most those cases.

When we bought him Thatcher, Dickov and Scimeca they had all played less Premiership games than Gillespie, Hignett and Dabizas. So your 'track record' is obviously not based on appearances. So what is it based on?
Being an international maybe. Thatcher and Scimeca weren't internationals. But Gillespie Dabizas and Coyne were. So it's not based on being an international.

So based on provable facts (rather than opinion), your 'proven track record' theory doesn't hold any water.

If those three didn't have a 'proven track record', would you care to speculate on the reasons why MA/DB wanted them?

 

[Babylon]

What evidence have you got that the 3 players insisted on such derisory fees?

No evidence.
But if I was a player in the same situation, I'd have wanted the fee to be as low as possible. and I don't think the club is stupid enough to do things like that without a good reason.
It's not just Leicester who have done this. Real Madrid have done it too, with Ronaldo being allowed to leave on the cheap after he took a pay cut.

You have previously implied that we wouldn't know who the decent performers would be -I disagree with that - Dickov, Scimeca & Thatcher have track records that indicate that they would be quality in Division 1 (and fringe in the Premiership). As I have stated previously, the likes of Hignett, Gillespie, Brooker, Dabizas, Coyne fall into a different category & basically make up the numbers in the squad so there was no need to be too concerned about whether they stayed -quite the reverse in most those cases.

When we bought him Thatcher, Dickov and Scimeca they had all played less Premiership games than Gillespie, Hignett and Dabizas. So your 'track record' is obviously not based on appearances. So what is it based on?
Being an international maybe. Thatcher and Scimeca weren't internationals. But Gillespie Dabizas and Coyne were. So it's not based on being an international.

So based on provable facts (rather than opinion), your 'proven track record' theory doesn't hold any water.

i agree completely with you webbo

 

[Redditch Fox]

What evidence have you got that the 3 players insisted on such derisory fees?

]

When we bought him Thatcher, Dickov and Scimeca they had all played less Premiership games than Gillespie, Hignett and Dabizas. So your 'track record' is obviously not based on appearances. So what is it based on?
Being an international maybe. Thatcher and Scimeca weren't internationals. But Gillespie Dabizas and Coyne were. So it's not based on being an international.

So based on provable facts (rather than opinion), your 'proven track record' theory doesn't hold any water.

Of course, football is all about opinions & judgements - & its interesting over the many, many years I have been following City how many times the supporters gut reactions to players have proved valid.

My opinions are based on the following observations:

Dickov -bought cheap -gained is confidence - had a track in Div 1 - 2002/03;
Scimeca -mid 20's -shown versatility, important player to Forest in their good season 2002/03;
Thatcher - always a name that cropped up when clubs interested in a a left back - appeared out of favour with Hoddle -but obvious potential with a 'smaller' club.

Now:
Gillespie - showed initial talent very early in his career -failed since everywhere he has gone -maybe not focussed on football;
Hignett - way,way, way past his sell buy date -amazing signing;
Dabizas - reputation for recklessness - mistake prone -just what we didn't need;
Coyne - just too small to be a first rate keeper - we've seen his good skills as a shot stopper - but because of his lack of height, he flaps.

Membership of the Wales & N Ireland squads is not -sadly - a benchmark for assessing footballing ability.

All the above was in my view common football 'knowledge' - there is hardly any such thing as a 'fact' in assessing players but I would have thought my views were pretty widely shared.

 

[ajj]

Hignett - way,way, way past his sell buy date -amazing signing;

The reason he came was because he was at Bassett's former club, Barnsley and Bassett rated him when was there. The same with Curtis.

 

[webmaster]

If those three didn't have a 'proven track record', would you care to speculate on the reasons why MA/DB wanted them?

If Hignett, Gillespie etc didn't have a proven track record, would you care to speculate on the reasons why MA/DB wanted them?

 

[Steven]

Now we have rehearsed the arguments, let's go over them again with Thatcher going. :roll:

 

[Dunc]

Think us four will have to agree to disagree!

One reason I have some confidence in what happens is through a strong link to the club on the admin side.

Trust me, the 3 players dickov, scimeca and thatcher wouldn't have signed without the clause. The argument I do think Redditch & Steven have is whether they should have been signed at all. I think it was worth a punt on the offchance we stayed up with them.

Time to move on?