Club policy on wages in Times

SpaceCruiser · by **SpaceCruiser** » 06 Jul 2007 15:50

nivek elyod Its strange how many threads get back to Sidders still. Some people really need to move on...

Indeed, it's my fault, and I was only using him as an example of player greed rather than actually setting out to berate him. I suppose it's both players and clubs who are to blame for the rising wages.

Huntley & Palmer · by **Huntley & Palmer** » 06 Jul 2007 16:50

holsgrove breaks a leg
Huntley & Palmer
Dirk Gently
Huntley & Palmer
starbug indeed, it wasn't a coincidence Sidwell ended the season with no contract, it was all planned from the start of the last season if not before - more likely from the day we got promotion unfortunately.

Him and his agent took a huge gamble the season before we got promoted when the original offer was on the table. It paid off in this instance and fair play to themx

And to the club, who took great advantage of the situation.

Quite apart from not giving into his wage demands which would have resulted in the whole squad demanding similar increases. By keeping Sidwell on a lower contract and in a position where he knew he was in the shop window, he was challenged to prove to other clubs he was worth the money. We won from that as much as he did.

Wholeheartedly agree with you, it was win/win for both parties. I suppose the only slight sour point is that we were unable to recoup any compensation for his services over the years from a financial standpoint. It still makes me laugh when fans get in such a hissy fit about these types of scenario

I would on the whole agree with the above as well, though the lack of transfer fee for Sidwell still frustrates me a little. He could have agreed our offer and put himself in a position where a fee was required for his services. In a situation similar to Thierry Henry he could have then decided to move on to pastures new the following season with the knowledge that Reading would get a fee for him. Theres no secret that players will not always seek to honour their contracts in todays environment so player loyalty is not really an issue here, rather the fee we deserved for nurturing his talent. I suppose Sidwell's arguement against this would be that he had the interest from clubs there and then and didnt want to miss the opportunity, but a player of his ability should keep clubs interested no matter what contractual status

Would a club of the size of Chelsea come in for Sidwell if they had to pay a transfer fee as well as his wages and signing on amount? Very doubtful. Let's face it, he was a nice cheap answer to their player issues when the African Nations comes around next year.

Behindu · by **Behindu** » 06 Jul 2007 17:04

If Sidwell had cost a million it wouldn;t have made him less attractive to Chelsea. They get fined that for nicking kids off other clubs so paying it as fee for a decent player wouldn;t rock the boat.

Huntley & Palmer · by **Huntley & Palmer** » 06 Jul 2007 17:10

Sidwell would have been tied up for more than Â£1 million in wages for the duration of his contract, so they would not have been interested. Look at their spending so far this season, all on the cheap.

Behindu · by **Behindu** » 06 Jul 2007 17:15

Huntley & Palmer Sidwell would have been tied up for more than Â£1 million in wages for the duration of his contract, so they would not have been interested. Look at their spending so far this season, all on the cheap.

Fair point, although hard to prove either way.
If Sidwell had cost them a million (not that he'd have been available for a million) I don;t think it would have been an issue. They've just spent Â£30 million on a new training facility so aren;t reigning in too much !). But if they can get the players for nothing then of course they won;t be interested in paying out cash....

Dirk Gently · by **Dirk Gently** » 06 Jul 2007 18:13

Although in practice I wouldn't be surprised if much of the million they "saved" was given t him as a signing-on fee. That's usually the way it works with Bosman deals.

Woodcote Royal · by **Woodcote Royal** » 07 Jul 2007 00:09

floyd__streete
Woodcote Royal Thank God we saved 25k a week in wages for someone (Shorey) whose performances more than justify that kind of wage.......................and if Spacey needs a life , so do you.

Although isn't Hughes > Shorey according to you in a previous life?

Yep, Hughes never had a bad game at left or right back for us and, last I heard, he was doing the same for Norwich, in the Championship.

Do you remember me saying that Hughes would be a Premiership full back?

The fact remains that when Shorey was out with a career threatening injury he wasn't missed because Hughes did an excellant job in his absence.

working class hero · by **working class hero** » 09 Jul 2007 09:53

The idea that Sidwell should have signed just so we could get a fee is risible.

Mr MAd would have held him to the contract [as he did last season]. We could have sold him last Summer but chose not too.

Remember RFC ALWAYS honour contracts [ask Salako if you want proof....]

Behindu · by **Behindu** » 09 Jul 2007 10:02

working class hero Remember RFC ALWAYS honour contracts [ask Salako if you want proof....]

Remind us how the club breached Salako's contract ?

I'd agree that it's a bit of a nonsense to expect a player to sign a new deal with a club he intends to leave just to allow his ex employer to extract cash from his new employer...
The club have been pretty good in offering injured players new deals to cover their recovery periods but generally contracts aren;t signed on charitable grounds by either party.

Doyler · by **Doyler** » 09 Jul 2007 10:09

Behindu
working class hero Remember RFC ALWAYS honour contracts [ask Salako if you want proof....]

Remind us how the club breached Salako's contract ?

I'd agree that it's a bit of a nonsense to expect a player to sign a new deal with a club he intends to leave just to allow his ex employer to extract cash from his new employer...
The club have been pretty good in offering injured players new deals to cover their recovery periods but generally contracts aren;t signed on charitable grounds by either party.

The club breached salako's contract because it had a clause stating that if he played 25 games that season he would be offered a new deal. when he reached 23 games the club insisted he remove this clause. How is this not a breach of his contract?

Silver Fox · by **Silver Fox** » 09 Jul 2007 10:19

Because he didn't get to the 25 game mark and then not get offered a new deal?

MartinRdg · by **MartinRdg** » 09 Jul 2007 10:27

Silver Fox Because he didn't get to the 25 game mark and then not get offered a new deal?

Exactly. The club just tried to re-negotiate his contract when it looked likely that he would make the 25 game mark. Still a bit underhand IMHO.

Woodcote Royal · by **Woodcote Royal** » 09 Jul 2007 11:05

Silver Fox Because he didn't get to the 25 game mark and then not get offered a new deal?

Simple really, isn't?

But, then again, we're not short on "simple" fans.

Lower West · by **Lower West** » 09 Jul 2007 16:01

Perhaps we should let the top 6 clubs in the premiership join a European super league. Even if this league has the best players in the world will it be enjoyable to watch? May be there's a danger that the teams will cancel each other out as no one will be able to afford to lose.

How many supporters can afford to travel all around Europe let alone afford the ticket prices ? Without spectators the elite game will die a death. Its all us Joe Bloggs that create atmosphere in the grounds not prawn sandwich billionaires with their must get the tee shirt entourages.

I would enjoy watching a highly competetive premier league every season. So ok one team may stand out but if there's say eight clubs vying for 3 UEFA cup spots at the end of the season, it'll make good entertainment.

Behindu · by **Behindu** » 09 Jul 2007 17:10

Doyler How is this not a breach of his contract?

We've breached Stephen Hunt's contract today apparantly....

Club policy on wages in Times

Who is online