|
Post by baystokie on Sept 1, 2015 21:57:02 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. Quite likely that he was pissed off but even Hughes is on record as saying that he saw nothing wrong in what Walters had been quoted as saying. Making comments about a situation does not necessarily mean you want to chuck it in. I made many comments to my boss and employer when I thought things were 'not right' but never contemplated throwing up the job.
|
|
|
Jedinak
Sept 1, 2015 22:00:58 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 1, 2015 22:00:58 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. It's bollocks mate. Adebayor's transfer to West Ham fell through because Spurs only wanted to pay a PART of his loyalty payment, they expected West Ham to pay the rest or for the player to take the hit. However they've now got a player who they could have a got a fee for and who they've got to pay a £100k a week to, who they aren't ever going to even play! Whilst at the same time they missed out on their main transfer target because they didn't bid enough for him! And Levy is apparently one of the more astute businessmen in football!
|
|
|
Post by palace123 on Sept 1, 2015 22:02:43 GMT
Palace fan here
I have to say I think the loyalty payment is a real loads of crazy rubbish
Jedinak had 2 options, he either stays at palace and collects his palace wage and bonuses or he decides to leave and join you at Stoke
Its out of order to want the best of both worlds, the saying you cant have your cake and eat it comes to mind.
Steve Parish was on local palace radio and he said that Stoke made Palace a very good offer and Palace said to Mile to speak to stoke and see if its something he wants to do but its fine if he doesnt want to go.
|
|
|
Jedinak
Sept 1, 2015 22:03:51 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 1, 2015 22:03:51 GMT
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. Quite likely that he was pissed off but even Hughes is on record as saying that he saw nothing wrong in what Walters had been quoted as saying. Making comments about a situation does not necessarily mean you want to chuck it in. I made many comments to my boss and employer when I thought things were 'not right' but never contemplated throwing up the job. I think Walters wanted to leave Stoke City.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 1, 2015 22:04:06 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. It's bollocks mate. Adebayor's transfer to West Ham fell through because Spurs only wanted to pay a PART of his loyalty payment, they expected West Ham to pay the rest or for the player to take the hit. However they've now got a player who they could have a got a fee for and who they've got to pay a £100k a week to, who they aren't ever going to even play! Whilst at the same time they missed out on their main transfer target because they didn't bid enough for him! And Levy is apparently one of the more astute businessmen in football! It depends how much you want a player I suppose, it all brinkmanship. The ridiculous thing is, this isn't hammered out right at the start of the negotiation as seems apparent with our messing about with Jedinak today.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 1, 2015 22:05:22 GMT
Palace fan here I have to say I think the loyalty payment is a real loads of crazy rubbish Jedinak had 2 options, he either stays at palace and collects his palace wage and bonuses or he decides to leave and join you at Stoke Its out of order to want the best of both worlds, the saying you cant have your cake and eat it comes to mind. Steve Parish was on local palace radio and he said that Stoke made Palace a very good offer and Palace said to Mile to speak to stoke and see if its something he wants to do but its fine if he doesnt want to go. If Parish considered it a 'very good offer', he should have honoured the contractual obligation and paid him his loyalty bonus, surely?
|
|
|
Post by palace123 on Sept 1, 2015 22:08:09 GMT
Palace werent bothered either way, we put the decision entirely in the players hands but if he did decide to then its his decision so he cant expect a palace loyalty bonus.
|
|
|
Jedinak
Sept 1, 2015 22:10:03 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 1, 2015 22:10:03 GMT
It's bollocks mate. Adebayor's transfer to West Ham fell through because Spurs only wanted to pay a PART of his loyalty payment, they expected West Ham to pay the rest or for the player to take the hit. However they've now got a player who they could have a got a fee for and who they've got to pay a £100k a week to, who they aren't ever going to even play! Whilst at the same time they missed out on their main transfer target because they didn't bid enough for him! And Levy is apparently one of the more astute businessmen in football! It depends how much you want a player I suppose, it all brinkmanship. The ridiculous thing is, this isn't hammered out right at the start of the negotiation as seems apparent with our messing about with Jedinak today. I really think it shouldn't need hammering out mate. In any other profession your contract is spelled out in black and white at the beginning. The criteria required for certain clauses to be triggered aren't left open to interpretation when that point is reached. But somehow in football it never seems to work out like this, it really seems like a lot of the time, the game is being run by cowboys.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 1, 2015 22:20:32 GMT
It depends how much you want a player I suppose, it all brinkmanship. The ridiculous thing is, this isn't hammered out right at the start of the negotiation as seems apparent with our messing about with Jedinak today. I really think it shouldn't need hammering out mate. In any other profession your contract is spelled out in black and white at the beginning. The criteria required for certain clauses to be triggered aren't left open to interpretation when that point is reached. But somehow in football it never seems to work outcome like this, it really seems like a lot of the time, the game is being run by cowboys. Agreed mate, it wouldn't happen with such regularity in any other industry. The way I read it if our Palace visitor is to be believed is that we've offered a little over the odds as its last day to get it done and assuming that Palace would take care of any outstanding bonuses. Palace have not played ball and Jedinak, (it not being a lifetime dream to play for Stoke) wants paying by someone (he doesn't care) and we've said 'fuck it then'. The player keeps getting his bonus and neither club gets what they want. Seems standard practice sadly
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 1, 2015 22:30:06 GMT
I really think it shouldn't need hammering out mate. In any other profession your contract is spelled out in black and white at the beginning. The criteria required for certain clauses to be triggered aren't left open to interpretation when that point is reached. But somehow in football it never seems to work outcome like this, it really seems like a lot of the time, the game is being run by cowboys. Agreed mate, it wouldn't happen with such regularity in any other industry. The way I read it if our Palace visitor is to be believed is that we've offered a little over the odds as its last day to get it done and assuming that Palace would take care of any outstanding bonuses. Palace have not played ball and Jedinak, (it not being a lifetime dream to play for Stoke) wants paying by someone (he doesn't care) and we've said 'fuck it then'. The player keeps getting his bonus and neither club gets what they want. Seems standard practice sadly Exactly. And the only caveat I would add to that, is that by Palace not honouring the agreement and us saying 'fuck it' (and I'm not saying that we shouldn't have) we are both now left with players who we have to pay wages to but are players who don't want to be here/there and who aren't actually likely to be even used that much. It's a strange way of doing business to me.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 1, 2015 22:44:50 GMT
Agreed mate, it wouldn't happen with such regularity in any other industry. The way I read it if our Palace visitor is to be believed is that we've offered a little over the odds as its last day to get it done and assuming that Palace would take care of any outstanding bonuses. Palace have not played ball and Jedinak, (it not being a lifetime dream to play for Stoke) wants paying by someone (he doesn't care) and we've said 'fuck it then'. The player keeps getting his bonus and neither club gets what they want. Seems standard practice sadly Exactly. And the only caveat I would add to that, is that by Palace not honouring the agreement and us saying 'fuck it' (and I'm not saying that we shouldn't have) we are both now left with players who we have to pay wages to but are players who don't want to be here/there and who aren't actually likely to be even used that much. It's a strange way of doing business to me. To be fair to Walters he was prepared to give up what was owed him in order to smooth the process and get the ultimate contract he wanted. Jedinak would rather sit on his arse. May be its a bullet dodged?
|
|
|
Post by realstokebloke on Sept 1, 2015 22:49:56 GMT
It's all bollox.
Why does football think it has a free pass on what seem to be, or at least, should be, clear legal obligations?
And as well put above, we & Palarse are both stuck paying players we don't really want.
Worse, we have missed a player that I think we'll badly need in the run up to Christmas.
Step forward GCam into that same role for me, which leaves Wilson or Woolly covering in behind.
Gulp.
|
|
|
Jedinak
Sept 1, 2015 22:54:09 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 1, 2015 22:54:09 GMT
Exactly. And the only caveat I would add to that, is that by Palace not honouring the agreement and us saying 'fuck it' (and I'm not saying that we shouldn't have) we are both now left with players who we have to pay wages to but are players who don't want to be here/there and who aren't actually likely to be even used that much. It's a strange way of doing business to me. To be fair to Walters he was prepared to give up what was owed him in order to smooth the process and get the ultimate contract he wanted. Jedinak would rather sit on his arse. May be its a bullet dodged? Who knows mate, whatever it is, it's certainly a very strange profession that they all inhabit. The very fact that the clubs are expected to pay the players' agents fees seems utterly ridiculous to me. These are agents whose sole job is to try and screw those clubs for the best deal possible on behalf of their clients! Bizarre.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Sept 1, 2015 23:14:33 GMT
Assuming that the loyalty bonus is written into the contract how can a club legally refuse to pay it, surely they wouldn't have a choice?
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Sept 2, 2015 0:26:06 GMT
Quite likely that he was pissed off but even Hughes is on record as saying that he saw nothing wrong in what Walters had been quoted as saying. Making comments about a situation does not necessarily mean you want to chuck it in. I made many comments to my boss and employer when I thought things were 'not right' but never contemplated throwing up the job. I think Walters wanted to leave Stoke City. I don't think there's any doubt about that, he knows he's only going to be a bit part player and that's not him. But I think we've done the right thing. He'll provide cover when needed and for 2m that's a drop in the ocean.
|
|
|
Post by whydelilah on Sept 2, 2015 0:37:41 GMT
I'm glad Jon is staying. The squad would be weaker in his absence. He won't be the regular first team player that he's used to, but he'll still play a part.
Some people underestimate what he brings to the table.
Once this squad clicks we'll have another comfortable top 10 finish.
|
|
|
Post by jimmygscfc on Sept 2, 2015 9:40:01 GMT
Surely we'll just go through the same scenario in January? I can't see JW at Stoke come the end of this season, can you?
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 2, 2015 9:49:27 GMT
Surely we'll just go through the same scenario in January? I can't see JW at Stoke come the end of this season, can you? Certainly, if we strengthen in January (and I think we will) then someone will have to leave the squad. I suppose JW will be favourite - but a lot will depend upon how the squad has played and who is injured/not cutting the mustard etc.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Sept 2, 2015 9:51:38 GMT
Surely we'll just go through the same scenario in January? I can't see JW at Stoke come the end of this season, can you? We can't sell Walters now. Nobody will pay anything over chickenfeed for him at January (knowing his contract is ending) and we would rather keep him. Personally, I would try and repair our broken relationship with him.
|
|
|
Post by slpmarc on Sept 2, 2015 9:52:59 GMT
Assuming that the loyalty bonus is written into the contract how can a club legally refuse to pay it, surely they wouldn't have a choice? They can claim he has not been loyal, and has been talking to clubs to get a move away
|
|
|
Post by jimmygscfc on Sept 2, 2015 9:56:29 GMT
Surely we'll just go through the same scenario in January? I can't see JW at Stoke come the end of this season, can you? We can't sell Walters now. Nobody will pay anything over chickenfeed for him at January (knowing his contract is ending) and we would rather keep him. Personally, I would try and repair our broken relationship with him. We're not going to repair it by agreeing to his conditions are we? He either signs the offer on the table, thereby protecting both ourselves and him, or he runs his contract down and hopes someone comes in for him next June, when he'll be older and slower. It's a high risk strategy.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 2, 2015 9:57:50 GMT
Surely we'll just go through the same scenario in January? I can't see JW at Stoke come the end of this season, can you? Certainly, if we strengthen in January (and I think we will) then someone will have to leave the squad. I suppose JW will be favourite - but a lot will depend upon how the squad has played and who is injured/not cutting the mustard etc. Come January, both Odem and Crouchy will be another 6 months old. There's a lot of players who are possible candidates for the chop? 'Lakeland' how are you, now your mancrush 'Yarmo' isn't coming? I see you're still hankering for a January reprieve? Must be difficult being caught between a female Chelsea doctor and a Slavic male hunk?
|
|
|
Jedinak
Sept 2, 2015 10:17:24 GMT
via mobile
nott1 likes this
Post by mailman44 on Sept 2, 2015 10:17:24 GMT
I was underwhelmed when I saw we were in for Jedinak me sen, no harm done not signing him, don't think at 31 he was what we were looking for.
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Sept 2, 2015 10:56:56 GMT
Use the money to add to the Yarmo deal in January I say!
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Sept 2, 2015 11:40:33 GMT
Palace werent bothered either way, we put the decision entirely in the players hands but if he did decide to then its his decision so he cant expect a palace loyalty bonus. That's a flimsy excuse to get out of their legal and financial obligation really though isn't it? It's pretty obvious that the way clubs get around that is by forcing the player's hand and getting them to hand in a transfer request. That wasn't the case with Jedinak. He certainly can't expect Stoke City to pay him what he thinks he's entitled to.
|
|
sting
Youth Player
Posts: 354
|
Jedinak
Sept 2, 2015 11:59:18 GMT
via mobile
Post by sting on Sept 2, 2015 11:59:18 GMT
This is a great discussion. If Parrish has gone on local radio and said we've had a good offer and it's up to the player, it's tantamount to saying in the real world, best look for another job. In the real world you could resign and sue for constructive dismissal. It's clear he didn't put in a request and speaking to us once given the OK can never be implied as doing so. Palace were in the wrong regardless of whether we think the player should have compromised to play football. It says a lot about him of course and a lot about the integrity of Palace. It also says we are learning to be less of a soft touch. In the end I'm happy with that and we get on and make the parts we have work for now. Muni or GCam can double up at DM when required. We have Sidwell too if we want some excitement!
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 2, 2015 12:12:12 GMT
This is a great discussion. If Parrish has gone on local radio and said we've had a good offer and it's up to the player, it's tantamount to saying in the real world, best look for another job. In the real world you could resign and sue for constructive dismissal. It's clear he didn't put in a request and speaking to us once given the OK can never be implied as doing so. Palace were in the wrong regardless of whether we think the player should have compromised to play football. It says a lot about him of course and a lot about the integrity of Palace. It also says we are learning to be less of a soft touch. In the end I'm happy with that and we get on and make the parts we have work for now. Muni or GCam can double up at DM when required. We have Sidwell too if we want some excitement! It's a bit more tricky than that though because Palace are honouring their contractual obligations by continuing to pay him his loyalty bonus. It's just a clause being used as bargaining chip. Palace just said they wouldn't pay the bonus in this circumstance, not they simply wouldn't pay it. Grubby and ultimately no good for anyone but that seems to be football. I can't see the courts being interested at all.
|
|
|
Post by realstokebloke on Sept 2, 2015 12:15:07 GMT
Palace werent bothered either way, we put the decision entirely in the players hands but if he did decide to then its his decision so he cant expect a palace loyalty bonus. That's a flimsy excuse to get out of their legal and financial obligation really though isn't it? It's pretty obvious that the way clubs get around that is by forcing the player's hand and getting them to hand in a transfer request. That wasn't the case with Jedinak. He certainly can't expect Stoke City to pay him what he thinks he's entitled to. True but equally, it's a massively grey area across an issue which should be black and white.
Obviously, there are three candidates to pay this 'loyalty' fee: selling club, buying club & player.Most obviously, it shouldn't be the buying club but I'll bet my house that, in an effort to get such deals done in the past, some buyers have 'covered it' (clearly what Palarse were hoping here).
If it's in his contract to get one, why should the player cover (lose) his bonus?
Equally, if he wants the move enough, he should be prepared to sacrifice his bonus by putting in a transfer request (see SJW).
So in this instance, I am disappointed Jedinak wasn't motivated enough to do this (but as I've read elsewhere, it probably wasn't his dream move etc, etc). so sadly he now joins the ranks of mercenaries that sit on the bench and draw a wedge - the 'modern footballer'.
So, I have to side with TS on this one (if it was him that refused to pay it) and say that it rested with Palarse and Parish.
Whatever, it is all a massive Horlicks and needs to be tidied up ASAP.
I also wonder how how much it was anyway? Without that figure, it is impossible to make an informed decision.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 2, 2015 12:21:21 GMT
That's a flimsy excuse to get out of their legal and financial obligation really though isn't it? It's pretty obvious that the way clubs get around that is by forcing the player's hand and getting them to hand in a transfer request. That wasn't the case with Jedinak. He certainly can't expect Stoke City to pay him what he thinks he's entitled to. True but equally, it's a massively grey area across an issue which should be black and white.
Obviously, there are three candidates to pay this 'loyalty' fee: selling club, buying club & player.Most obviously, it shouldn't be the buying club but I'll bet my house that, in an effort to get such deals done in the past, some buyers have 'covered it' (clearly what Palarse were hoping here).
If it's in his contract to get one, why should the player cover (lose) his bonus?
Equally, if he wants the move enough, he should be prepared to sacrifice his bonus by putting in a transfer request (see SJW).
So in this instance, I am disappointed Jedinak wasn't motivated enough to do this (but as I've read elsewhere, it probably wasn't his dream move etc, etc). so sadly he now joins the ranks of mercenaries that sit on the bench and draw a wedge - the 'modern footballer'.
So, I have to side with TS on this one (if it was him that refused to pay it) and say that it rested with Palarse and Parish.
Whatever, it is all a massive Horlicks and needs to be tidied up ASAP.
I also wonder how how much it was anyway? Without that figure, it is impossible to make an informed decision. Why shouldn't it be the buying club who pays it. Example - Man Utd come in for Shawcross, we really don't want him to go but it's Man Utd. Surely we say as well as on top of an acceptable fee, 'you settle up with him then' to Man Utd? We didn't want to sell him but his head was turned, the player didn't want to go but now he can't concentrate on his game so why shouldn't the buying club pay in that instance? It all comes down to who wants the deal the most out of the three parties.
|
|
|
Post by realstokebloke on Sept 2, 2015 12:38:53 GMT
True but equally, it's a massively grey area across an issue which should be black and white.
Obviously, there are three candidates to pay this 'loyalty' fee: selling club, buying club & player.Most obviously, it shouldn't be the buying club but I'll bet my house that, in an effort to get such deals done in the past, some buyers have 'covered it' (clearly what Palarse were hoping here).
If it's in his contract to get one, why should the player cover (lose) his bonus?
Equally, if he wants the move enough, he should be prepared to sacrifice his bonus by putting in a transfer request (see SJW).
So in this instance, I am disappointed Jedinak wasn't motivated enough to do this (but as I've read elsewhere, it probably wasn't his dream move etc, etc). so sadly he now joins the ranks of mercenaries that sit on the bench and draw a wedge - the 'modern footballer'.
So, I have to side with TS on this one (if it was him that refused to pay it) and say that it rested with Palarse and Parish.
Whatever, it is all a massive Horlicks and needs to be tidied up ASAP.
I also wonder how how much it was anyway? Without that figure, it is impossible to make an informed decision. Why shouldn't it be the buying club who pays it. Example - Man Utd come in for Shawcross, we really don't want him to go but it's Man Utd. Surely we say as well as on top of an acceptable fee, 'you settle up with him then' to Man Utd? We didn't want to sell him but his head was turned, the player didn't want to go but now he can't concentrate on his game so why shouldn't the buying club pay in that instance? It all comes down to who wants the deal the most out of the three parties. As I clearly say Sheiky, it will have been done ad infinitum but to me, the buying club are hardly first in the queue to resolve a legal contract between the player and the vendor.
(Sorry to side with your hero...)
You are right though, he who wants it most will pay it - but it remains an almighty muddle that could do with some clarity.
MLH clearly didn't want Jedinak enough, or was prevented from from getting him by the bean counter(s)?
Is the Club to be applauded for its principles or berated for denying the manager (what must have been relatively minuscule) funds for a transfer he felt he needed?
|
|