Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

NEW ARTICLE: Kermorgant sets record straight on his move and on-going uncertainty at Charlton

12346»

Comments

  • I think anyone who reads and believes the VOTV article, including info that Yann accepted 50% less pay when he joined us from Leicester will know that he is not a mercenary.

    I thought Yann was out of contract when we signed him and had been playing in France's second tier since leaving Leicester
  • edited February 2014
    I wondered about that, but according to the record books Yann was on loan in France. Peter Varney signed him, so I have assumed he would be correct in asserting he was signed from Leicester.

    This is supported by Wikipedia, which states that he signed a two and a half year deal in December 2009, spent the 2010/11 season in France on loan and was told in August 2011 that he would be allowed to leave. It's fair to assume then that he was being paid by Leicester when he joined Charlton - although I didn't realise this either until PV mentioned it.
  • But he was signed outside of the transfer window I thought because he was out of contract
  • edited February 2014

    But he was signed outside of the transfer window I thought because he was out of contract

    We don't know when they cancelled his contract or on what terms, though. He would have been entitled to hold them to the full value by not signing for anyone else or to look for a better offer than League One Charlton's.

  • MSE7 said:

    from his article he clearly wanted more money. a better offer. he thought he was a cut above the rest of the team..thats just IMO though.,

    The fact is YK was in a strong bargaining position at that stage of the season. RD is entitled to call his bluff, but there is a strong possibility he will be the one with egg on his face at the end of the season. Time will tell.
    In the event we are relegated, there will, no doubt, be those that argue that RD should have paid up to retain Kermorgant.

    However, we simply don't know what the ex ante probabilities of survival were in the with and without Kermorgant scenarios, i.e. we might have been relegated even if he'd stayed, so we can't assess RD's decision simply based on whether we stay up. That's why these judgements are so difficult. They need to be made under conditions of considerable uncertainty. My guess is that Duchatelet has a high conviction he did the right thing whatever the outcome.

  • edited February 2014
    I had the impression at the time that he was released from his contract as a way to get 'round the transfer window. He was certainly on Leicester's books while he was on loan and I can only assume that they wanted to move him on as he was not going to play for them again after his penalty miss in the playoffs.
  • MSE7 said:

    from his article he clearly wanted more money. a better offer. he thought he was a cut above the rest of the team..thats just IMO though.,

    The fact is YK was in a strong bargaining position at that stage of the season. RD is entitled to call his bluff, but there is a strong possibility he will be the one with egg on his face at the end of the season. Time will tell.
    In the event we are relegated, there will, no doubt, be those that argue that RD should have paid up to retain Kermorgant.

    However, we simply don't know what the ex ante probabilities of survival were in the with and without Kermorgant scenarios, i.e. we might have been relegated even if he'd stayed, so we can't assess RD's decision simply based on whether we stay up. That's why these judgements are so difficult. They need to be made under conditions of considerable uncertainty. My guess is that Duchatelet has a high conviction he did the right thing whatever the outcome.

    I agree. My concern would be that his judgement was necessarily based on incomplete information, since he could not have understood for himself how important YK was to the team. He didn't have the opportunity.

    Yann was released by Leicester on September 1st, 2011 - or at least his release was announced - 13 days before he joined Charlton.
  • I'm not disagreeing with you AB but I suspect that RD could have watched some videos, spoken to a number of people in the club and could have acquired a fair amount of information about Yann's importance to the club.

    It might have been factored in (as I believe) that the fact that Solly and Cort had been missing for a while, and were going to be out for longer (we still don't know when either of them will come back) meant that relegation was a real possibility even if we'd kept Stephens and Yann - neither of which would have been likely to stay in League One for the money that we would have, realistically, made available to them.

    We were in a relegation fight before the transfer window. If we assume that we are going to lose at home to Millwall (and I, personally, can't see any other outcome) then we are five points behind them with a game in hand. If we had a good chance of going down anyway it does make sense to move on players for a fee that could (and/or would) move on for free in the summer. At least this way we had a chance to bring in some replacements.

    I am, of course, working on the assumption that RD had no intention of dropping millions of pounds of his money or new players six months before FFP comes into effect.
  • MSE7 said:

    from his article he clearly wanted more money. a better offer. he thought he was a cut above the rest of the team..thats just IMO though.,

    The fact is YK was in a strong bargaining position at that stage of the season. RD is entitled to call his bluff, but there is a strong possibility he will be the one with egg on his face at the end of the season. Time will tell.
    In the event we are relegated, there will, no doubt, be those that argue that RD should have paid up to retain Kermorgant.

    However, we simply don't know what the ex ante probabilities of survival were in the with and without Kermorgant scenarios, i.e. we might have been relegated even if he'd stayed, so we can't assess RD's decision simply based on whether we stay up. That's why these judgements are so difficult. They need to be made under conditions of considerable uncertainty. My guess is that Duchatelet has a high conviction he did the right thing whatever the outcome.

    I agree. My concern would be that his judgement was necessarily based on incomplete information, since he could not have understood for himself how important YK was to the team. He didn't have the opportunity.
    I think we're on the same page. A really important question is who is advising Duchatelet on football matters and who will do so going forward. If he's making these judgements himself then that would be worrying because he can't have the time and nor is he qualified.
  • I'm not disagreeing with you AB but I suspect that RD could have watched some videos, spoken to a number of people in the club and could have acquired a fair amount of information about Yann's importance to the club.

    It might have been factored in (as I believe) that the fact that Solly and Cort had been missing for a while, and were going to be out for longer (we still don't know when either of them will come back) meant that relegation was a real possibility even if we'd kept Stephens and Yann - neither of which would have been likely to stay in League One for the money that we would have, realistically, made available to them.

    We were in a relegation fight before the transfer window. If we assume that we are going to lose at home to Millwall (and I, personally, can't see any other outcome) then we are five points behind them with a game in hand. If we had a good chance of going down anyway it does make sense to move on players for a fee that could (and/or would) move on for free in the summer. At least this way we had a chance to bring in some replacements.

    I am, of course, working on the assumption that RD had no intention of dropping millions of pounds of his money or new players six months before FFP comes into effect.

    Or he might take the view that the cost is a fact and everything else is an opinion or sentimentality.

    Not picking holes, but we're away to Millwall and FFP is already in effect.
  • Sponsored links:


  • I'm not surprised we wouldn't offer a 32 yr old, with a history of injuries, a 2 year contract on even his existing 8k pw which, frankly, I am amazed at. If he wanted even a small increase then I feel we have done the right thing. RD has shown that he is prepared to offer long term contracts if you are young enough, have potential and have a resale value. YK had none of those in his favour and we got a fee as well. Good decision imo.
  • I'm not surprised we wouldn't offer a 32 yr old, with a history of injuries, a 2 year contract on even his existing 8k pw which, frankly, I am amazed at. If he wanted even a small increase then I feel we have done the right thing. RD has shown that he is prepared to offer long term contracts if you are young enough, have potential and have a resale value. YK had none of those in his favour and we got a fee as well. Good decision imo.

    I think you'd be shocked by what the players are paid in general . . . and even more shocked if we could compare what they get with what other players in the Championship get.
  • AB, have you any idea of where we'd sit in the league's wage table? I think we were supposed to be about 19th last season, I'm guessing we'd be 21st or 22nd now.
  • Sorry i think I may have flagged large's post by mistake -scrolling on mobile
  • RedPanda said:

    AB, have you any idea of where we'd sit in the league's wage table? I think we were supposed to be about 19th last season, I'm guessing we'd be 21st or 22nd now.

    I don't know about that, but I'm guessing bottom six.
  • RedPanda said:

    AB, have you any idea of where we'd sit in the league's wage table? I think we were supposed to be about 19th last season, I'm guessing we'd be 21st or 22nd now.

    I don't know about that, but I'm guessing bottom six.
    which somewhat explains our league position
  • RedPanda said:

    AB, have you any idea of where we'd sit in the league's wage table? I think we were supposed to be about 19th last season, I'm guessing we'd be 21st or 22nd now.

    I don't know about that, but I'm guessing bottom six.
    which somewhat explains our league position
    Up to a point, but given FFP we should be able to compete at least with Millwall, Doncaster, Bournemouth, Huddersfield, Watford, Middlesbrough, and Ipswich, as well as Barnsley and Yeovil, none of whom have parachute payments and all of whom had smaller crowds last season - even if Leeds, Leicester, Nottm Forest, Derby, Sheff Weds and Brighton will have higher ticket/commercial income (which is not as material as parachute payments). In addition some of the clubs that do have parachute payments are loaded with costs and debt, e.g. Bolton.
  • edited February 2014

    I'm not disagreeing with you AB but I suspect that RD could have watched some videos, spoken to a number of people in the club and could have acquired a fair amount of information about Yann's importance to the club.

    It might have been factored in (as I believe) that the fact that Solly and Cort had been missing for a while, and were going to be out for longer (we still don't know when either of them will come back) meant that relegation was a real possibility even if we'd kept Stephens and Yann - neither of which would have been likely to stay in League One for the money that we would have, realistically, made available to them.

    We were in a relegation fight before the transfer window. If we assume that we are going to lose at home to Millwall (and I, personally, can't see any other outcome) then we are five points behind them with a game in hand. If we had a good chance of going down anyway it does make sense to move on players for a fee that could (and/or would) move on for free in the summer. At least this way we had a chance to bring in some replacements.

    I am, of course, working on the assumption that RD had no intention of dropping millions of pounds of his money or new players six months before FFP comes into effect.

    Or he might take the view that the cost is a fact and everything else is an opinion or sentimentality.

    Not picking holes, but we're away to Millwall and FFP is already in effect.
    I don't know how I got the Millwall fixture confused. Having said that I don't remember playing them at home this season, although I'm confident that we lost.

    My comment re FFP was in relation to the sanctions coming into effect.

    I've just looked up the Millwall home game now and remembered it when I read about Pritchard giving the ball away. Millwall were on a terrible run, but needless to say they still beat us!
  • RedPanda said:

    AB, have you any idea of where we'd sit in the league's wage table? I think we were supposed to be about 19th last season, I'm guessing we'd be 21st or 22nd now.

    I don't know about that, but I'm guessing bottom six.
    which somewhat explains our league position
    Up to a point, but given FFP we should be able to compete at least with Millwall, Doncaster, Bournemouth, Huddersfield, Watford, Middlesbrough, and Ipswich, as well as Barnsley and Yeovil, none of whom have parachute payments and all of whom had smaller crowds last season - even if Leeds, Leicester, Nottm Forest, Derby, Sheff Weds and Brighton will have higher ticket/commercial income (which is not as material as parachute payments). In addition some of the clubs that do have parachute payments are loaded with costs and debt, e.g. Bolton.
    Totally agree that we should be competing with Millwall, Doncaster and Yeovil based on their crowds, in fact out competing them.
    At the other end Leicester and Forest are seriously overspending and now Brighton have just announced big losses. I expect that even with player sales Brighton are on the edge of breaching FFP?
    Charlton are in a good position financially - I trust they can find two or three decent loan players to spend the money on and force a win somewhere sometime soon.
  • Just read that arsehole Martin Samuel - the ultimate defender of the status quo - claiming that the Football League are causing terror among lowly Premier League clubs by enforcing new financial regulations on their clubs.

    Martin's alternative solution to this is to, er, kind of, er, do nothing because that's just working so fuc-ing well at the moment, isn't it?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2555363/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Why-clubs-fear-relegation-fate-worse-death.html
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!