|
Post by Fred Ferret on Jun 1, 2018 18:39:27 GMT
No mention of him being released in the retained list, which we can only presume means he's still here? Yes, something slightly inconsistent there. Could he have been paid off before the season finished?
|
|
|
Post by Absolution on Jun 1, 2018 18:43:14 GMT
No mention of him being released in the retained list, which we can only presume means he's still here? Or does it mean he was no longer here to be retained or let go?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2018 18:49:44 GMT
Just asked Pete...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2018 19:01:53 GMT
Again, making a meal of things.
Just make it known that he can go for free. Why are we trying to cut some dodgy deal which will no doubt mean we pay to get rid of him.
|
|
|
Post by jezzascfc on Jun 1, 2018 19:05:57 GMT
The retained list deals with those out of contract this summer - doesn't he have another year left of his, bizarrely, renewed deal?
|
|
|
Post by chesterfieldstokie on Jun 1, 2018 19:09:35 GMT
Again, making a meal of things. Just make it known that he can go for free. Why are we trying to cut some dodgy deal which will no doubt mean we pay to get rid of him. They cant let him go for free if he has a year of his contract left. They either have to transfer him or come to a mutual agreement to pay off his contract.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2018 19:13:42 GMT
Again, making a meal of things. Just make it known that he can go for free. Why are we trying to cut some dodgy deal which will no doubt mean we pay to get rid of him. They cant let him go for free if he has a year of his contract left. They either have to transfer him or come to a mutual agreement to pay off his contract. Of course you can let him go for free. A club determines the value of their player.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jun 1, 2018 19:15:08 GMT
They cant let him go for free if he has a year of his contract left. They either have to transfer him or come to a mutual agreement to pay off his contract. Of course you can let him go for free. A club determines the value of their player. But the player does not have to go
|
|
|
Post by chesterfieldstokie on Jun 1, 2018 19:19:34 GMT
They cant let him go for free if he has a year of his contract left. They either have to transfer him or come to a mutual agreement to pay off his contract. Of course you can let him go for free. A club determines the value of their player. You cant let him go if hes under contract. He his within his rights to just stay for the remainder of his contract and pick up his wages. You can transfer him and not get a fee but that is different than letting him go.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jun 1, 2018 19:32:37 GMT
The retained list deals with those out of contract this summer - doesn't he have another year left of his, bizarrely, renewed deal? It's a great chance for a one liner about ripping his contract up.
|
|
|
Post by jezzascfc on Jun 1, 2018 19:47:47 GMT
The retained list deals with those out of contract this summer - doesn't he have another year left of his, bizarrely, renewed deal? It's a great chance for a one liner about ripping his contract up. But we would have to pay up the balance - maybe we are hoping someone will bid for him instead, and take him off our hands?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jun 1, 2018 20:09:16 GMT
It's a great chance for a one liner about ripping his contract up. But we would have to pay up the balance - maybe we are hoping someone will bid for him instead, and take him off our hands? It would be a mutual tearing up of course. Maybe. The daft bastards deserve this shit for giving him a 2 year extension. Maybe they'll learn.
|
|
|
Post by stokeykez on Jun 2, 2018 10:52:21 GMT
But we would have to pay up the balance - maybe we are hoping someone will bid for him instead, and take him off our hands? It would be a mutual tearing up of course. Maybe. The daft bastards deserve this shit for giving him a 2 year extension. Maybe they'll learn. Christ what were the club thinking with the contract extensions they gave out all at a similar time. Cheapskating at it's best, saves on recruitment !!
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Oct 11, 2018 17:46:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cr4zyd4ve on Oct 11, 2018 19:59:35 GMT
With his injury record, he has to be finished, surely. Sad as it is to say, he clearly had ability.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2018 21:12:47 GMT
With his injury record, he has to be finished, surely. Sad as it is to say, he clearly had ability. Given his injury record throughout his career it’s amazing we gave him a contract of any significant length, a great player when fit but surely finished now. I don’t think we ever really saw him at his best.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 11, 2018 21:17:15 GMT
In an age where pensions are being taxed, curbed and robbed, Stoke City remains the place a millionaire can come and top his pot up a bit whilst already being retired!
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 12, 2018 7:29:57 GMT
In an age where pensions are being taxed, curbed and robbed, Stoke City remains the place a millionaire can come and top his pot up a bit whilst already being retired! You can argue the club shouldn't have taken the risk but it's unfair to blame Affelay for what's happened. He clearly wants to play and when he has been fit he's never shirked his responsibilities and has got stuck in - which hasn't actually done himself any favours. We certainly have had players (like Imbula) who have milked the club but there is no way Affelay is in that category. This latest injury could well end his career - which is a real shame. A genuinely classy player but unfortunately a gamble by the club that hasn't come off.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Oct 12, 2018 9:48:11 GMT
In an age where pensions are being taxed, curbed and robbed, Stoke City remains the place a millionaire can come and top his pot up a bit whilst already being retired! Laughs! If only it weren't so true!
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Oct 12, 2018 9:56:32 GMT
No problem with the player. Just seems another very highly questionable contract extension. Something stinks at Stoke City and I don't mean the incinerator.
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Oct 12, 2018 11:28:58 GMT
No problem with the player. Just seems another very highly questionable contract extension. Something stinks at Stoke City and I don't mean the incinerator. I don’t know much about football contracts, but I do know a bit about negotiating contracts in general. Clubs may extend contracts of players to increase their resale value, even if they don’t intend to keep them or even play them. If they re-sign a player in the final year of their contracts, their re-sale increases from virtually nothing to, say, 5 million in the first year, 2.5 million in the second year and nothing in the third year. This a risk-benefit decision. It may cost the team 500K/year for three years if they cannot sell the player, but they stand to net 4.5 million in the first year, 1.5 million in the second year, but lose money in the third year if they don’t repeat the process. Re-signing players also signals to other teams that they attach some value to an asset, otherwise they would just let them go for nothing. They need practice squad players anyway, and could use the player at a pinch if there are a lot of injuries. Of course they can also loan the player out and reduce their salary and benefits obligations. They will carry insurance to cover salaries if a player is injured. This does not mean the pizza boys know how to spot talent, but they probably do know something about finance.
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Oct 12, 2018 12:02:55 GMT
No problem with the player. Just seems another very highly questionable contract extension. Something stinks at Stoke City and I don't mean the incinerator. I don’t know much about football contracts, but I do know a bit about negotiating contracts in general. Clubs may extend contracts of players to increase their resale value, even if they don’t intend to keep them or even play them. If they re-sign a player in the final year of their contracts, their re-sale increases from virtually nothing to, say, 5 million in the first year, 2.5 million in the second year and nothing in the third year. This a risk-benefit decision. It may cost the team 500K/year for three years if they cannot sell the player, but they stand to net 4.5 million in the first year, 1.5 million in the second year, but lose money in the third year if they don’t repeat the process. Re-signing players also signals to other teams that they attach some value to an asset, otherwise they would just let them go for nothing. They need practice squad players anyway, and could use the player at a pinch if there are a lot of injuries. Of course they can also loan the player out and reduce their salary and benefits obligations. They will carry insurance to cover salaries if a player is injured. This does not mean the pizza boys know how to spot talent, but they probably do know something about finance. Can see that but can't see what we stand to gain from a player with such an injury record. I actually like him as a player btw.
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Oct 12, 2018 13:53:57 GMT
I don’t know much about football contracts, but I do know a bit about negotiating contracts in general. Clubs may extend contracts of players to increase their resale value, even if they don’t intend to keep them or even play them. If they re-sign a player in the final year of their contracts, their re-sale increases from virtually nothing to, say, 5 million in the first year, 2.5 million in the second year and nothing in the third year. This a risk-benefit decision. It may cost the team 500K/year for three years if they cannot sell the player, but they stand to net 4.5 million in the first year, 1.5 million in the second year, but lose money in the third year if they don’t repeat the process. Re-signing players also signals to other teams that they attach some value to an asset, otherwise they would just let them go for nothing. They need practice squad players anyway, and could use the player at a pinch if there are a lot of injuries. Of course they can also loan the player out and reduce their salary and benefits obligations. They will carry insurance to cover salaries if a player is injured. This does not mean the pizza boys know how to spot talent, but they probably do know something about finance. Can see that but can't see what we stand to gain from a player with such an injury record. I actually like him as a player btw. Me neither. Especially as he was known to be injury prone before we signed him. Maybe he was the best available - we signed a lot of those, as well as players known to be high maintenance like Arni. Some turned out well and about an equal number turned out badly.
|
|