|
Post by Sergeant Muttley on Sept 1, 2015 19:08:35 GMT
From the papers it seems like Stoke and Jedinak had a deal in place, but Jedinak's representatives then upped their demands. The club wouldn't accept that the goalposts were moved and the deal fell through. I must say I agree to how Stoke have handled this if this is the truth! The deal was all in place until palace refused to pay him his loyalty payment. Mile refused to leave without it and told stoke they would have to incorporate the amount he would lose into the deal. Stoke refused and the deal fell through How much was is loyalty payment?
|
|
|
Post by slpmarc on Sept 1, 2015 19:10:59 GMT
The deal was all in place until palace refused to pay him his loyalty payment. Mile refused to leave without it and told stoke they would have to incorporate the amount he would lose into the deal. Stoke refused and the deal fell through How much was is loyalty payment? No idea, but must of been quite a bit for a deal to fall through for it, unless Scholes just refused on principle as it's not our payment to pay it was Palace's
|
|
|
Jedinak
Sept 1, 2015 19:10:58 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 1, 2015 19:10:58 GMT
From the papers it seems like Stoke and Jedinak had a deal in place, but Jedinak's representatives then upped their demands. The club wouldn't accept that the goalposts were moved and the deal fell through. I must say I agree to how Stoke have handled this if this is the truth! The deal was all in place until palace refused to pay him his loyalty payment. Mile refused to leave without it and told stoke they would have to incorporate the amount he would lose into the deal. Stoke refused and the deal fell through Yeah that's what I was hearing earlier in the day Marc. Weird thing is we now have a player who doesn't want to be here (Walters) and probably won't play much this season but we still have to pay every week and Palace also have a player there who doesn't want to be there (Jedinak) and who probably won't play much this season but they'll still have to play every week. And of course we weren't having to pay Walters a loyalty payment anyway.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Sept 1, 2015 19:11:25 GMT
From the papers it seems like Stoke and Jedinak had a deal in place, but Jedinak's representatives then upped their demands. The club wouldn't accept that the goalposts were moved and the deal fell through. I must say I agree to how Stoke have handled this if this is the truth! Here here, well done Stoke. There is no long term benefit in caving in to excessive demands.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Sept 1, 2015 19:21:08 GMT
Why is it that greedy footballers and agents can't understand that loyalty payments are for those loyal to the club and a 5 year contract means you are contracted to a club for 5 years? These greedy people want it both ways.
|
|
|
Post by GeneralFaye on Sept 1, 2015 19:24:14 GMT
Tony Scholes is sick to the back teeth of "loyalty payments" as it's the very reason why Matt Jarvis isn't a Stoke City player.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2015 19:25:06 GMT
Tony Scholes is sick to the back teeth of "loyalty payments" as it's the very reason why Matt Jarvis isn't a Stoke City player. Lucky Norwich hey?
|
|
|
Post by GeneralFaye on Sept 1, 2015 19:28:49 GMT
Tony Scholes is sick to the back teeth of "loyalty payments" as it's the very reason why Matt Jarvis isn't a Stoke City player. Lucky Norwich hey? Huge talent, can be the difference for them no doubt. Tony Scholes has had to take a few days off due the strain it has put him under.
|
|
|
Jedinak
Sept 1, 2015 20:46:37 GMT
via mobile
Post by whydelilah on Sept 1, 2015 20:46:37 GMT
We're making do with Glenn then?
Brilliant
|
|
|
Jedinak
Sept 1, 2015 20:49:34 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 1, 2015 20:49:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 1, 2015 20:54:19 GMT
Tony Scholes is sick to the back teeth of "loyalty payments" as it's the very reason why Matt Jarvis isn't a Stoke City player. So sick of them he includes them in every contract he offers to new signings. They're a default, wallpaper, part of every players contract and the fact we had to pay Amir fucking Begovic a loyalty payment sticks in my craw to this day but we use them like every other club does so Mr Scholes is being a bit disingenuous. What a surprise.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Sept 1, 2015 20:55:59 GMT
Tony Scholes is sick to the back teeth of "loyalty payments" as it's the very reason why Matt Jarvis isn't a Stoke City player. So sick of them he includes them in every contract he offers to new signings. They're a default, wallpaper, part of every players contract and the fact we had to pay Amir fucking Begovic a loyalty payment sticks in my craw to this day but we use them like every other club does so Mr Scholes is being a bit disingenuous. What a surprise. He's joking Momo!
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 1, 2015 20:57:00 GMT
So sick of them he includes them in every contract he offers to new signings. They're a default, wallpaper, part of every players contract and the fact we had to pay Amir fucking Begovic a loyalty payment sticks in my craw to this day but we use them like every other club does so Mr Scholes is being a bit disingenuous. What a surprise. He's joking Momo! Have I been whooshed?!
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Sept 1, 2015 20:57:28 GMT
He's joking Momo! Have I been whooshed?! 'fraid so.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2015 20:59:06 GMT
He's joking Momo! Have I been whooshed?!
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 1, 2015 21:00:14 GMT
People shouldn't joke about Tony Scholes. It's not fair (unless its pizza related, they're really funny)
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Sept 1, 2015 21:01:36 GMT
Am I missing something here?
If Mile Jedinak had a legally binding contract with Crystal Palace which they've agreed to release him from in return for a compensation payment from Stoke, then why the hell should Stoke have to pay what Crystal Palace legally owe him?
Surely this is something he should take up himself with his legal team?
Or am I being a bit thick?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Sept 1, 2015 21:03:37 GMT
Am I missing something here? If Mile Jedinak had a legally binding contract with Crystal Palace which they've agreed to release him from in return for a compensation payment from Stoke, then why the hell should Stoke have to pay what Crystal Palace legally owe him? Surely this is something he should take up himself with his legal team? Or am I being a bit thick? Seems reasonable to me.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 1, 2015 21:04:21 GMT
Am I missing something here? If Mile Jedinak had a legally binding contract with Crystal Palace which they've agreed to release him from in return for a compensation payment from Stoke, then why the hell should Stoke have to pay what Crystal Palace legally owe him? Surely this is something he should take up himself with his legal team? Or am I being a bit thick? I've definitely heard of the buying club paying the 'loyalty' payment before (going back years as in Marks column on Saturday) but no idea how it works.
|
|
|
Post by Linx on Sept 1, 2015 21:10:02 GMT
I've worked for my employer for over 30 years. Do I qualify for one of them loyalty payment thingies?
|
|
|
Jedinak
Sept 1, 2015 21:12:16 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 1, 2015 21:12:16 GMT
Am I missing something here? If Mile Jedinak had a legally binding contract with Crystal Palace which they've agreed to release him from in return for a compensation payment from Stoke, then why the hell should Stoke have to pay what Crystal Palace legally owe him? Surely this is something he should take up himself with his legal team? Or am I being a bit thick? Said as much at the time Dave - surely there's a binding contract in place? Having said that, it never ceases to amaze me, how such a global, multi-pound business that is football, seems to be consistently managed it such an utterly, appalling and unprofessional manner. It seems that regularly there is deal to be done outside of the original contract, incredible really.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Sept 1, 2015 21:13:13 GMT
Am I missing something here? If Mile Jedinak had a legally binding contract with Crystal Palace which they've agreed to release him from in return for a compensation payment from Stoke, then why the hell should Stoke have to pay what Crystal Palace legally owe him? Surely this is something he should take up himself with his legal team? Or am I being a bit thick? I've definitely heard of the buying club paying the 'loyalty' payment before (going back years as in Marks column on Saturday) but no idea how it works. Yeah, Mark wrote about Gordon Banks demanding a loyalty payment from Leicester, but was it written into his contract that he was entitled to it or did he just demand it because he'd played for them for so long. I know that clubs encourage players to put in written transfer requests so that they forfeit bonuses owed to them (ie Jon Walters) but I don't think Jedinak asked for a transfer.
|
|
|
Post by GeneralFaye on Sept 1, 2015 21:18:17 GMT
I apologise if my summer long tales of Tony Scholes' fictional (or is it?) obsession with Matt Jarvis have caused any kind of confusion.
|
|
|
Post by baystokie on Sept 1, 2015 21:41:38 GMT
The deal was all in place until palace refused to pay him his loyalty payment. Mile refused to leave without it and told stoke they would have to incorporate the amount he would lose into the deal. Stoke refused and the deal fell through Yeah that's what I was hearing earlier in the day Marc. Weird thing is we now have a player who doesn't want to be here (Walters) and probably won't play much this season but we still have to pay every week and Palace also have a player there who doesn't want to be there (Jedinak) and who probably won't play much this season but they'll still have to play every week. And of course we weren't having to pay Walters a loyalty payment anyway. Tbh I think that Walters will Not mind staying, I don't think he REALLY wanted to leave and he got caught up in the deadline day madness. From what has been said about him over time, he seems the type who will give everything for whoever employs him, knuckle down whenever he's called upon and worry about moving when the subject crops up again - if even then. Solid, conscientious pro to his finger tips. Glad he's staying. I would even go so far as to say the 'transfer request' was intended to help the club and prevent the financial problems that came to light in the Jedinak move - ie no talk of loyalty bonus etc Is it a bit obvious that I rate the lad very highly
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 1, 2015 21:43:02 GMT
I've definitely heard of the buying club paying the 'loyalty' payment before (going back years as in Marks column on Saturday) but no idea how it works. Yeah, Mark wrote about Gordon Banks demanding a loyalty payment from Leicester, but was it written into his contract that he was entitled to it or did he just demand it because he'd played for them for so long. I know that clubs encourage players to put in written transfer requests so that they forfeit bonuses owed to them (ie Jon Walters) but I don't think Jedinak asked for a transfer. Found this. www.skysports.com/football/news/11065/7339197/the-art-of-negotiation"However, when it comes to severing any existing contract, the selling club will regularly claim that the player has tried to engineer a transfer (through media comments) and therefore forfeits any rights to a loyalty bonus. In a cut throat industry clubs hate nothing more than having to shell out loyalty bonuses to players who'd swear black was white if it earned them an extra few quid every pay-packet."Seems selling clubs weaselling out of their obligations is all part of the negotiation process. Presumably Palace said he engineered any potential move and said it was up to him or us pay up the loyalty term of his existing contract. Quite why this wasnt's established earlier in the day, then fuck knows but I guess it boils down to the fact that Jedinak (and his agent) would rather he sit on the bench and pick up his full whack at Palace than having a go with us or the alternative view we just didn't want him that much or times remain fairly tight?
|
|
|
Jedinak
Sept 1, 2015 21:49:01 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 1, 2015 21:49:01 GMT
Yeah that's what I was hearing earlier in the day Marc. Weird thing is we now have a player who doesn't want to be here (Walters) and probably won't play much this season but we still have to pay every week and Palace also have a player there who doesn't want to be there (Jedinak) and who probably won't play much this season but they'll still have to play every week. And of course we weren't having to pay Walters a loyalty payment anyway. Tbh I think that Walters will Not mind staying, I don't think he REALLY wanted to leave and he got caught up in the deadline day madness. From what has been said about him over time, he seems the type who will give everything for whoever employs him, knuckle down whenever he's called upon and worry about moving when the subject crops up again - if even then. Solid, conscientious pro to his finger tips. Glad he's staying. I would even go so far as to say the 'transfer request' was intended to help the club and prevent the financial problems that came to light in the Jedinak move - ie no talk of loyalty bonus etc Is it a bit obvious that I rate the lad very highly He wasn't getting caught up in deadline day madness when he was doing TV and radio interviews a week before the window ended, was he? He sounded like a man who was very much pissed off, if you're honest about it.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Sept 1, 2015 21:51:22 GMT
Claridge on 5 Live the other night was on about loyalty payments and he was on about them being actually part of the initial signing on fee. So if the the player stays the length of the contract he will get all of the signing on fee i.e. a loyalty payment.
Let's face it, it's a minefield.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 1, 2015 21:52:45 GMT
Tbh I think that Walters will Not mind staying, I don't think he REALLY wanted to leave and he got caught up in the deadline day madness. From what has been said about him over time, he seems the type who will give everything for whoever employs him, knuckle down whenever he's called upon and worry about moving when the subject crops up again - if even then. Solid, conscientious pro to his finger tips. Glad he's staying. I would even go so far as to say the 'transfer request' was intended to help the club and prevent the financial problems that came to light in the Jedinak move - ie no talk of loyalty bonus etc Is it a bit obvious that I rate the lad very highly He wasn't getting caught up in deadline day madness when he was doing TV and radio interviews a week before the window ended, was he? He sounded like a man who was very much pissed off, if you're honest about it. Well he was prepared to effectively pay to get out of the club by handing in a transfer request so it's hard to see him doing a jig of delight tonight. He's a good pro but its a far from ideal situation.
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Sept 1, 2015 21:55:01 GMT
I've worked for my employer for over 30 years. Do I qualify for one of them loyalty payment thingies? Yes, it's called redundancy!
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 1, 2015 21:56:09 GMT
Claridge on 5 Live the other night was on about loyalty payments and he was on about them being actually part of the initial signing on fee. So if the the player stays the length of the contract he will get all of the signing on fee i.e. a loyalty payment. Let's face it, it's a minefield. I think its paid pro rata so Walters will have already earned three quarters of his. No idea how long Jedinak had on his contract and how much he was looking at 'losing' by handing in a transfer request.
|
|