- This topic has 20 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
How many games does his contract state he has to play in. Ive just seen the goals from yesterday, & when you consider his howlers in other games, the guy is as bad if not worse as bogdan. Stuff the contract, playing time etc & get gilks back in.
How many games does his contract state he has to play in. Ive just seen the goals from yesterday, & when you consider his howlers in other games, the guy is as bad if not worse as bogdan. Stuff the contract, playing time etc & get gilks back in.Someone on the bridge last week said that his contract states that if he is fit, he has to play. My reaction to that if I was GB would be to get one of the players to take the fucker out in training so he isn’t fit, and has to be sent back.
If these rumours are true about Haugaard having to play because a contractual issue means the club would be subject to some financial penalty then I find that quite alarming given our current predicament.
I can’t believe we are bringing in loanies on a contract that stipulates they have to play…
Spoke to a Stoke fan when we signed Haaguard and he said he was prone to the odd clanger… Our scouts are obviously not doing their job properly.Whoever sanctioned these balls up loan agreements needs a refresher course in “Human resource strategy to improve organisational performance “….or piss off!!!.From the Bogdan loan through to the farcical Morsy and Haaguard deals we have had our chances of avoiding the drop seriously screwed by a total recruitment cock up..When in league 1 ease let’s keep signings particularly loan ones as some as possible…..difficult I know in today’s agent infested player pantomime.!
Whoever sanctioned these balls up loan agreements needs a refresher course in “Human resource strategy to improve organisational performance “….or piss off!!!.From the Bogdan loan through to the farcical Morsy and Haaguard deals we have had our chances of avoiding the drop seriously screwed by a total recruitment cock up..When in league 1 ease let’s keep signings particularly loan ones as some as possible…..difficult I know in today’s agent infested player pantomime.!I’m not necessarily referring to the whys and wherefores of the contract details. My concern is that the club is willing to jeopardise any chance of avoiding relegation by insisting a player is picked for purely financial reasons, unless the money involved is exorbitant which I fail to see can be the case here.
If that is true then we really are on a slippery road and doesn’t bode well for the future
Whoever sanctioned these balls up loan agreements needs a refresher course in “Human resource strategy to improve organisational performance “….or piss off!!!.From the Bogdan loan through to the farcical Morsy and Haaguard deals we have had our chances of avoiding the drop seriously screwed by a total recruitment cock up..When in league 1 ease let’s keep signings particularly loan ones as some as possible…..difficult I know in today’s agent infested player pantomime.!
I’m not necessarily referring to the whys and wherefores of the contract details. My concern is that the club is willing to jeopardise any chance of avoiding relegation by insisting a player is picked for purely financial reasons, unless the money involved is exorbitant which I fail to see can be the case here.
If that is true then we really are on a slippery road and doesn’t bode well for the future[/quote]
Spot on its a worry.
Whoever sanctioned these balls up loan agreements needs a refresher course in “Human resource strategy to improve organisational performance “….or piss off!!!.From the Bogdan loan through to the farcical Morsy and Haaguard deals we have had our chances of avoiding the drop seriously screwed by a total recruitment cock up..When in league 1 ease let’s keep signings particularly loan ones as some as possible…..difficult I know in today’s agent infested player pantomime.!
I’m not necessarily referring to the whys and wherefores of the contract details. My concern is that the club is willing to jeopardise any chance of avoiding relegation by insisting a player is picked for purely financial reasons, unless the money involved is exorbitant which I fail to see can be the case here.
If that is true then we really are on a slippery road and doesn’t bode well for the future[/quote]
Spot on its a worry.[/quote]
Worrying over news that is surely fabricated and nonsense! Now THAT’S a worry! :dry:
Any premier keeper would be expected to save both Brighton goals yesterday and as for the mistakes it hurts to watch them.
We need a regular top class keeper throughout the season we can rely on when needed.
Its gilks contract that’s the problem at the moment as if he plays again a fee is involved and the board are reluctant to pay it.Any premier keeper would be expected to save both Brighton goals yesterday and as for the mistakes it hurts to watch them.
We need a regular top class keeper throughout the season we can rely on when needed.
Its gilks contract that’s the problem at the moment as if he plays again a fee is involved and the board are reluctant to pay it.If that is the case what was he doing on the bench?. Barrow said it wasn’t his decision to play Haugaard so there must be something in this contract about him playing. Your right 78 he shouldn’t concede goals like that but there were also other clangers as well. I’m beginning to feel for Barrow a bit he seems to be in a ridiculous situation regarding his keeper.
Its gilks contract that’s the problem at the moment as if he plays again a fee is involved and the board are reluctant to pay it.Either way it’s not good news.
Its gilks contract that’s the problem at the moment as if he plays again a fee is involved and the board are reluctant to pay it.
Either way it’s not good news.[/quote]
Right do you men have nothing better to do? Bet you guys love Corry and other soaps, getting excited/upset over things that aren’t real/true, like the contract/fee situation basically. We haven’t been told offically WHY Haugaard started.
One thing I can say is that he did NOT play because it was stipulated into his contract and that is just stupid and clearly wouldn’t be allowed to happen at any club. If anything Sammy is right, it is LaticsSince78 .. if anything made that decision come around, it will be a reluctance to pay out on Gilks, not a contractual need to play Haugaard.
Why would we be reluctant to pay out on Gilks when we have signed him on a permanent basis? He is here until summer 2018 and so (at some point) if there is a clause in the fee that says we pay a little more after so many games, we would have to pay that next season anyway. The official site also says that we have paid an “undisclosed” fee – and so we must know what we have spent, and all the add-ons would have been taken into consideration when we offered him an 18 month contract.
It is more likely, as some have pointed out, that there is a clause in the Haugaard loan deal that states he must play in a certain percentage of fixtures when fit. The reason behind such a clause is probably that Stoke are stumping up most of the cost of his weekly wage, and us promising to play play him has kept down how much we have to pay him. So, if we don’t play him we probably have to up the percentage we pay – hence the reason he is being played is so that we “save” money.
However, if we get relegated is that not a false economy?
Why would we be reluctant to pay out on Gilks when we have signed him on a permanent basis? He is here until summer 2018 and so (at some point) if there is a clause in the fee that says we pay a little more after so many games, we would have to pay that next season anyway. The official site also says that we have paid an “undisclosed” fee – and so we must know what we have spent, and all the add-ons would have been taken into consideration when we offered him an 18 month contract.It is more likely, as some have pointed out, that there is a clause in the Haugaard loan deal that states he must play in a certain percentage of fixtures when fit. The reason behind such a clause is probably that Stoke are stumping up most of the cost of his weekly wage, and us promising to play play him has kept down how much we have to pay him. So, if we don’t play him we probably have to up the percentage we pay – hence the reason he is being played is so that we “save” money.
However, if we get relegated is that not a false economy?
Well explained!
This confusion that people are having, Graham Barrow spoke about the position we are in with having to play Haugaard due to this clause, after Brighton away. His comments were guarded, but quite scathing of the lads performance. He said that conversations will “have to be had” about the situation. I’m betting Gilks starts on Saturday and we succumb to whatever financial penalty there will be.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
