|
Post by cvillestokie on Jun 18, 2022 10:07:54 GMT
Manager Michael O’Neill said: “Mario came to us and told us how appealing this move was to him and we felt that we could not stand in his way. We wish him every success for the future.” Sounds like there's some (hopefully small) wage subsidy going on if it's a loan. Better than keeping a player we didn't really want and wouldn't have retained if he hadn't automatically triggered the extension So the player automatically triggers an extension and then he finds a way to move to another club anyways, likely with Stoke still paying some of his wages? That’s laughable.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Jun 18, 2022 10:13:50 GMT
How can we be paying part of his wages? If true, that is utterly ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Jun 18, 2022 10:19:28 GMT
I'm sick of the way we do business.
If he wanted to go so badly which appears to be the case then we should have stood our ground and said we'd cancel his contract and he'd have had to have a pay cut to join.
If we're paying any of his wages then he should stay here as back up to Powell.
We're just a soft touch all the time and have the negotiating skills of a 2 year old.
|
|
|
Post by clarkeda on Jun 18, 2022 10:26:47 GMT
I don’t remember us being in a position where we had to play him out of necessity though? So it falls on the manager playing him that many games eg etebo or badou playing well abroad, but when they got close to that trigger they were dropped as to not activate it. It's difficult to say without knowing what the appearance trigger was. He'd already played 20 games by Christmas - and was looking a very good player at that point. I remember people asking if we definitely had an option to tie him down for a second year. True, he did drop off a cliff after Christmas. And I suppose his usefulness on the dead ball diminished after the signing of baker. Does this pave the way for Anderson? Or Sawyers?
|
|
|
Post by generationex on Jun 18, 2022 10:29:11 GMT
It’s an odd business model we’ve adopted since 2017.
The whole ‘sign player, pay wages, play for league rivals (or anywhere else in the world they quite fancy)’ doesn’t seem to be working out.
|
|
|
Post by etebojan on Jun 18, 2022 10:32:05 GMT
Shame about Mario, really liked having him as an option in the squad, totally appreciate his form fell of a cliff second half of season. Am hoping this paves the way for either the Rinomhota signing or new young rough diamond to come in and shine
|
|
|
Post by bloodtypered on Jun 18, 2022 10:47:42 GMT
Can we call him back if needed?
|
|
|
Vrancic
Jun 18, 2022 10:50:49 GMT
via mobile
Post by leesandfordstoupe on Jun 18, 2022 10:50:49 GMT
It’s an odd business model we’ve adopted since 2017. The whole ‘sign player, pay wages, play for league rivals (or anywhere else in the world they quite fancy)’ doesn’t seem to be working out. Virtually every other workplace in the world has people who’d rather not be there. Unfortunately it’s a concept Stoke and it’s management don’t seem to be able to accept or tolerate.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Jun 18, 2022 11:00:05 GMT
I don't think it's that complicated in this specific case though.
We were boxed in by the automatic trigger but really didn't want him for 22-23, and wanted to spend our limited budget elsewhere.
We were more than open to him leaving if he could find somewhere acceptable.
This is the best option he could find that he was open to, even without a 100% wage contribution and having him off the books completely
And MON's quote is an attempt to spin it as a mutual thing, rather than admit the automatic trigger had led to us initially having to keep a player we didn't want to be here.
I think it's best for everyone here. We pay some of his wages, rather than all. I don't think there would have been a clamour for a 33yo like him in this market.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Jun 18, 2022 11:21:24 GMT
I don't think it's that complicated in this specific case though. We were boxed in by the automatic trigger but really didn't want him for 22-23, and wanted to spend our limited budget elsewhere. We were more than open to him leaving if he could find somewhere acceptable. This is the best option he could find that he was open to, even without a 100% wage contribution and having him off the books completely And MON's quote is an attempt to spin it as a mutual thing, rather than admit the automatic trigger had led to us initially having to keep a player we didn't want to be here. I think it's best for everyone here. We pay some of his wages, rather than all. I don't think there would have been a clamour for a 33yo like him in this market. Do you think if we'd have refused to pay a wage contribution he wouldn't have wanted to go?
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Jun 18, 2022 11:23:30 GMT
I don't think it's that complicated in this specific case though. We were boxed in by the automatic trigger but really didn't want him for 22-23, and wanted to spend our limited budget elsewhere. We were more than open to him leaving if he could find somewhere acceptable. This is the best option he could find that he was open to, even without a 100% wage contribution and having him off the books completely And MON's quote is an attempt to spin it as a mutual thing, rather than admit the automatic trigger had led to us initially having to keep a player we didn't want to be here. I think it's best for everyone here. We pay some of his wages, rather than all. I don't think there would have been a clamour for a 33yo like him in this market. Do you think if we'd have refused to pay a wage contribution he wouldn't have wanted to go? Maybe He probably knows this is his last decent year of salary. By the looks of their stadium, they'll be paying Dog and Duck money. He probably wouldn't be walking away from 6-figures in that context?
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Jun 18, 2022 11:30:02 GMT
Do you think if we'd have refused to pay a wage contribution he wouldn't have wanted to go? Maybe He probably knows this is his last decent year of salary. By the looks of their stadium, they'll be paying Dog and Duck money. He probably wouldn't be walking away from 6-figures in that context? Well if there is a big gap between what they're paying and what he's on it here it seems like false economy for us to be picking up a large chunk of his wages. If he couldn't do a job for us i'd understand it but he's decent enough as a back up for Powell for say 10 games a season and seems a daft decision and only adds to the money we keep throwing on the bonfire.
|
|
|
Vrancic
Jun 18, 2022 11:58:11 GMT
via mobile
Post by webbyscfc on Jun 18, 2022 11:58:11 GMT
Vrancic has completely played us here. Probably pissing himself at us.
|
|
|
Vrancic
Jun 18, 2022 11:58:19 GMT
via mobile
Post by a on Jun 18, 2022 11:58:19 GMT
At any other club I’d agree, but this is Stoke City, we’re all arse about face 😂 I read it that the extra year triggered itself, he made enough appearances to automatically trigger it per the terms of the contract signed when he joined. In that case fair enough. Still a ridiculous situation isn’t it? Unless they’re paying all his wages we end up out of pocket.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jun 18, 2022 12:08:05 GMT
Vrancic has completely played us here. Probably pissing himself at us. It depends how the automatic triggering clause works really. If it’s based on appearances then he hasn’t picked himself enough times to trigger it has he?
|
|
|
Vrancic
Jun 18, 2022 12:13:28 GMT
via mobile
Post by nonameface on Jun 18, 2022 12:13:28 GMT
Could the loan have been done for FFP purposes without us contributing any wages?
Rather than sell for free?
Possibly some crazy legal accounting going on.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Jun 18, 2022 12:14:18 GMT
Vrancic has completely played us here. Probably pissing himself at us. It depends how the automatic triggering clause works really. If it’s based on appearances then he hasn’t picked himself enough times to trigger it has he? He can't have it both ways though can he? If he wanted to go he should have forfeited his large wages otherwise he should have been made to stay here. I'm surprised we dont just call ourselves a charity instead of football club.
|
|
|
Vrancic
Jun 18, 2022 12:19:14 GMT
via mobile
Post by webbyscfc on Jun 18, 2022 12:19:14 GMT
Vrancic has completely played us here. Probably pissing himself at us. It depends how the automatic triggering clause works really. If it’s based on appearances then he hasn’t picked himself enough times to trigger it has he? I can’t see any legal binding reason why an automatic trigger clause can’t be ignored if neither party didn’t want it? I may be wrong? All I see is Vrancic not seeing any offers come in for him with the salary he is on, but was fully aware of interest in him, trigger his renewal clause with us to keep his salary and then moan to the club saying he sees an opportunity elsewhere knowing he will still be seeing that salary week in week out. Surely if after Vrancic came to us saying he wanted to leave, very soon after triggering his extension, we had valid reasons to say to him that we will just mutually expire his contract with us. It just stinks of he has played us.
|
|
|
Vrancic
Jun 18, 2022 12:43:41 GMT
via mobile
Post by milky on Jun 18, 2022 12:43:41 GMT
Didn't the exact scenario play out pretty much exactly 12 months ago with Mikel?
If it is an appearances related trigger I'm amazed we have allowed the same situation to arise again.
Then again....
|
|
|
Vrancic
Jun 18, 2022 13:00:21 GMT
via mobile
Post by Gods on Jun 18, 2022 13:00:21 GMT
It depends how the automatic triggering clause works really. If it’s based on appearances then he hasn’t picked himself enough times to trigger it has he? I can’t see any legal binding reason why an automatic trigger clause can’t be ignored if neither party didn’t want it? I may be wrong? All I see is Vrancic not seeing any offers come in for him with the salary he is on, but was fully aware of interest in him, trigger his renewal clause with us to keep his salary and then moan to the club saying he sees an opportunity elsewhere knowing he will still be seeing that salary week in week out. Surely if after Vrancic came to us saying he wanted to leave, very soon after triggering his extension, we had valid reasons to say to him that we will just mutually expire his contract with us. It just stinks of he has played us. Well as for 'neither party want it' I imagine one party very much does want it! Vrancic can enjoy the Croatian sunshine and coast on high Championship pay for a year. Part funded by us as it happens!
|
|
|
Vrancic
Jun 18, 2022 13:01:16 GMT
via mobile
Post by bayernoatcake on Jun 18, 2022 13:01:16 GMT
Didn't the exact scenario play out pretty much exactly 12 months ago with Mikel? If it is an appearances related trigger I'm amazed we have allowed the same situation to arise again. Then again.... I don’t think so. Mikel never signed it did he? He agreed to then went back on that?
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jun 18, 2022 13:23:58 GMT
It depends how the automatic triggering clause works really. If it’s based on appearances then he hasn’t picked himself enough times to trigger it has he? He can't have it both ways though can he? If he wanted to go he should have forfeited his large wages otherwise he should have been made to stay here. I'm surprised we dont just call ourselves a charity instead of football club. Would you forfeit your large wages if you didn’t have to? We didn’t especially want him to stay anyway from the sounds so not much point cutting off our nose to spite our face.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jun 18, 2022 13:26:37 GMT
It depends how the automatic triggering clause works really. If it’s based on appearances then he hasn’t picked himself enough times to trigger it has he? I can’t see any legal binding reason why an automatic trigger clause can’t be ignored if neither party didn’t want it? I may be wrong? All I see is Vrancic not seeing any offers come in for him with the salary he is on, but was fully aware of interest in him, trigger his renewal clause with us to keep his salary and then moan to the club saying he sees an opportunity elsewhere knowing he will still be seeing that salary week in week out. Surely if after Vrancic came to us saying he wanted to leave, very soon after triggering his extension, we had valid reasons to say to him that we will just mutually expire his contract with us. It just stinks of he has played us. It sounds like the clause was triggered by the number of appearances made though? And if it was triggered when there was nothing else on the table for him, but something has since then, and we aren’t fussed about keeping him, I don’t see what he’s done wrong?
|
|
|
Post by shakermaker on Jun 18, 2022 13:33:06 GMT
Vrancic has completely played us here. Probably pissing himself at us. It depends how the automatic triggering clause works really. If it’s based on appearances then he hasn’t picked himself enough times to trigger it has he? Which begs the question why we inserted that trigger option in the first place. It's just another example of the piss-poor planning that reeks through this club. Someone like Andy Cousins or Chris Laird should have had their eye on this clause and as we got closer to the trigger, approached MON to ask whether or not he sees Mario as a long-term option. I'm sure if MON had been reminded of this clause, he would have held back far more on Mario's appearances post Christmas.
|
|
|
Vrancic
Jun 18, 2022 13:34:37 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2022 13:34:37 GMT
It depends how the automatic triggering clause works really. If it’s based on appearances then he hasn’t picked himself enough times to trigger it has he? I can’t see any legal binding reason why an automatic trigger clause can’t be ignored if neither party didn’t want it? I may be wrong? All I see is Vrancic not seeing any offers come in for him with the salary he is on, but was fully aware of interest in him, trigger his renewal clause with us to keep his salary and then moan to the club saying he sees an opportunity elsewhere knowing he will still be seeing that salary week in week out. Surely if after Vrancic came to us saying he wanted to leave, very soon after triggering his extension, we had valid reasons to say to him that we will just mutually expire his contract with us. It just stinks of he has played us. He has done what most of us would have done and secured a decent wage for one last year. He's probably been made fully aware that he wouldn't be getting much game time next season so he's done the best he could for himself and his family. He's not played anyone. All the best Mario and thanks for your efforts.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jun 18, 2022 13:35:36 GMT
It depends how the automatic triggering clause works really. If it’s based on appearances then he hasn’t picked himself enough times to trigger it has he? Which begs the question why we inserted that trigger option in the first place. It's just another example of the piss-poor planning that reeks through this club. Someone like Andy Cousins or Chris Laird should have had their eye on this clause and as we got closer to the trigger, approached MON to ask whether or not he sees Mario as a long-term option. I'm sure if MON had been reminded of this clause, he would have held back far more on Mario's appearances post Christmas. Can’t argue with that, though I’m delighted we had one in Powell’s contract.
|
|
|
Vrancic
Jun 18, 2022 13:37:59 GMT
via mobile
Post by webbyscfc on Jun 18, 2022 13:37:59 GMT
I can’t see any legal binding reason why an automatic trigger clause can’t be ignored if neither party didn’t want it? I may be wrong? All I see is Vrancic not seeing any offers come in for him with the salary he is on, but was fully aware of interest in him, trigger his renewal clause with us to keep his salary and then moan to the club saying he sees an opportunity elsewhere knowing he will still be seeing that salary week in week out. Surely if after Vrancic came to us saying he wanted to leave, very soon after triggering his extension, we had valid reasons to say to him that we will just mutually expire his contract with us. It just stinks of he has played us. It sounds like the clause was triggered by the number of appearances made though? And if it was triggered when there was nothing else on the table for him, but something has since then, and we aren’t fussed about keeping him, I don’t see what he’s done wrong? Which is why I said, due to the circumstances, if he sees somewhere else where he would rather be so soon after letting the clause being triggered, then there should be an option just to terminate his contract. I’m not saying he’s done anything wrong, I just highlighted that I think he knew what he was doing. He would have been aware of any interest or lack of interest in him before this situation panned out. The fault probably more towards the club for letting this happen. No matter how you you look at it, we are paying money out for someone who is not going to be playing for us for 12 months after his contract was extended a couple weeks ago.
|
|
|
Vrancic
Jun 18, 2022 13:40:51 GMT
via mobile
Post by webbyscfc on Jun 18, 2022 13:40:51 GMT
I can’t see any legal binding reason why an automatic trigger clause can’t be ignored if neither party didn’t want it? I may be wrong? All I see is Vrancic not seeing any offers come in for him with the salary he is on, but was fully aware of interest in him, trigger his renewal clause with us to keep his salary and then moan to the club saying he sees an opportunity elsewhere knowing he will still be seeing that salary week in week out. Surely if after Vrancic came to us saying he wanted to leave, very soon after triggering his extension, we had valid reasons to say to him that we will just mutually expire his contract with us. It just stinks of he has played us. He has done what most of us would have done and secured a decent wage for one last year. He's probably been made fully aware that he wouldn't be getting much game time next season so he's done the best he could for himself and his family. He's not played anyone. All the best Mario and thanks for your efforts. So reading your post, he has played us 🤣 whether it’s me, you or anyone else doing what he has done, he’s played us. I never said he has done anything wrong, but he has played us and the situation.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jun 18, 2022 13:42:29 GMT
It sounds like the clause was triggered by the number of appearances made though? And if it was triggered when there was nothing else on the table for him, but something has since then, and we aren’t fussed about keeping him, I don’t see what he’s done wrong? Which is why I said, due to the circumstances, if he sees somewhere else where he would rather be so soon after letting the clause being triggered, then there should be an option just to terminate his contract. I’m not saying he’s done anything wrong, I just highlighted that I think he knew what he was doing. He would have been aware of any interest or lack of interest in him before this situation panned out. The fault probably more towards the club for letting this happen. No matter how you you look at it, we are paying money out for someone who is not going to be playing for us for 12 months after his contract was extended a couple weeks ago. The fault if there is any is entirely on the club, yes. I don’t think he necessarily would have been aware of interest in him prior to the extension being triggered. It might’ve been triggered months ago for all we know.
|
|
|
Vrancic
Jun 18, 2022 13:46:11 GMT
via mobile
Post by webbyscfc on Jun 18, 2022 13:46:11 GMT
Which is why I said, due to the circumstances, if he sees somewhere else where he would rather be so soon after letting the clause being triggered, then there should be an option just to terminate his contract. I’m not saying he’s done anything wrong, I just highlighted that I think he knew what he was doing. He would have been aware of any interest or lack of interest in him before this situation panned out. The fault probably more towards the club for letting this happen. No matter how you you look at it, we are paying money out for someone who is not going to be playing for us for 12 months after his contract was extended a couple weeks ago. The fault if there is any is entirely on the club, yes. I don’t think he necessarily would have been aware of interest in him prior to the extension being triggered. It might’ve been triggered months ago for all we know. Months ago? Did you not say it was able to be triggered based on appearances? You don’t know and I don’t know what he knew and didn’t know. Just put my thoughts on the situation looking from the in from the outside. I may be miles off and accept that.
|
|