*******Bowyer SIGNED 3 YEAR DEAL (page 27 onwards )******

robinofottershaw said:

All LB had to say was that he knows his agent met with Southall at the game and he will catch up with him sometime over the remainder of the weekend to get an understanding of the details of the 5 year contact being offered. Not sure why he feels the need to go on about there being a big difference between a 5 year contact with full compensation if sacked earlier, or an alternative which might be 5 x 1 year rolling contracts. Talk to your agent first and find out the facts.

I am a big fan of LB but if I was his employer I would be a bit ticked off with his apparent desire to play out every aspect of the negotiations in public.

The difference I can see is if you accepted a longer contract because they wouldn’t pay the salary you wanted annually but would say pay the value of a three year contract but over a five year period. Then if sacked after two years you’d only get compensation for a year and you would have effectively lost out.

I think Bowyer knows his stock his high and has a lot of faith in his ability. Being an ex star player, he also understands that it carries a premium. 

SoundAsa£ said:

robinofottershaw said:

KHA said:

Perhaps I’m old-fashioned, but the way to undermine a relationship is to take a disagreement to the press rather than to the other person in the relationship; it is, in effect, saying to the other person that I don’t trust you to deal with me fairly unless I ensure that your actions are in full public view.

Thanks to bobmunro we know the way compensation for contract termination almost always works in contracts for managers. LB knows this too. He said as much when explaining the ‘problem’ with the so-called five-year contract. I take it that what makes it actually a five-year contract is that it provides a guarantee of (normally) twelve months’ compensation for a period of five years. That’s not to say LB isn’t entitled to say he wants a non-standard contract, but it is to say that he has no justification for making the issue public, unless the relationship has broken down and he has reason to believe he can’t trust MS; but surely he is not at that point.

Perhaps LB has misapplied what he takes to be a lesson learned from his last contract negotiation, ie when RD went public on the CAFC website saying negotiations with LB had broken down, and this had the desired effect of bringing LB at once to the telephone to sort the difference out. However, what might be effective in a non-functioning relationship, isn’t generally the right move when you’re trying to build a close and productive one.

I am with you on this. He may well have been a football agent but Matt Southall strikes me as fairly inexperienced as a hands CEO/manager of a business based on his CV to date. He also comes across as a nervous, inexperienced interviewee. I don't think he will thank Bowyer for playing some of this out in public, as I would guess Southall also is trying to establish his standing with HE right now.

Let’s not forget it was Matt Southall that first mentioned the 5 year option and prior to that he also announced the original plan which was to wait until after the January window to negotiate the deal.
They are both being quite open about releasing snippets of information in this instance.....I myself see this approach to be quite refreshing.......others will no doubt take a different stance, but make no mistake, both parties have been speaking quite openly, not just Bow.

My point was Southall was asked how long a contract he was offering Bowyer and he said 5 years. Bowyer's agent apparently then met with Southall on Saturday and has all the details. Bowyer says he doesn't have any details himself and needs to catch up with his agent in order to understand what's on offer. He could have just left it there. I am not naive enough not to understand Bowyer probably thinks the more he plays this out in the public the better from him. I just personally think he didn't need to do that when talking to the press yesterday. If after talking with his agent he thinks there is an issue then by all means say that's why negotiations might still be continuing but right now it does feel like it undermines the relationship. There were a different set of circumstances in the negotiations with RD back in the summer. Yes, maybe Bowyer is just being streetwise but there are always options in the approach to take.

Henry Irving said:

carly burn said:

Anyone think the 5 year no questions asked ( if that's what it is) contract is the way to go?
I understand the stability bit, but 5 years?

I'm a firm believer that managers need to be kept on their toes. Short contracts do sometimes get the best out of people.
Look at solskjaer. Performing wonders until his 3 year contract and then it all went down hill.  Didn't Pardew wangle himself  a pretty decent package when he was with us?
I know I've got some reservations about how Bows will perform under such a long contract?
I'm not suggesting 6 monthly or anything silly like that but I think 2- 3 years with a 2 year roll on is reasonable.

What kind of contract was he offered elsewhere?
We'll never know, but I doubt if many clubs would have gone in with anywhere near 5 years with someone who is essentially still a rookie.

A bit like Lyle. Bows has to be reasonable about what he could achieve elsewhere.

I've no doubt he will be.

Thing is Bowyer, and Lyle, know exactly what they can achieve elsewhere financially because they both been offered deals by other clubs.

It's a negotiation and that requires both sides to be reasonable.

I know my memory isn't what it was..who got as far as offering Bow a deal and when? 

MuttleyCAFC said:

I think the details of what might be on the table are easily leaked.

You are Rob Segal, Bowyer' agent and I claim my prize 😉.

The obvious question to me is ?

If Lyle Taylor was offered a Contract before January 2nd why wasn't Lee Bowyer ?

Does anyone know the timeline of the offer to Taylor from ESI, not from Roland because there is so much confusion.

A written up Contract can only happen when you get the green light from the EFL because you are not in charge, but is there any reason that you can't be offered a draft contract despite only being 90% to being a new owner ?

Time for a summary. When was Lyle offered his new contract and when did ESI withdraw it, I thought Matt said 24 hrs or 48 hrs and then said I saw Lyle at the training ground but he didn't come over to speak to me. My door is always open !

PragueAddick said:

Henry Irving said:

carly burn said:

Anyone think the 5 year no questions asked ( if that's what it is) contract is the way to go?
I understand the stability bit, but 5 years?

I'm a firm believer that managers need to be kept on their toes. Short contracts do sometimes get the best out of people.
Look at solskjaer. Performing wonders until his 3 year contract and then it all went down hill.  Didn't Pardew wangle himself  a pretty decent package when he was with us?
I know I've got some reservations about how Bows will perform under such a long contract?
I'm not suggesting 6 monthly or anything silly like that but I think 2- 3 years with a 2 year roll on is reasonable.

What kind of contract was he offered elsewhere?
We'll never know, but I doubt if many clubs would have gone in with anywhere near 5 years with someone who is essentially still a rookie.

A bit like Lyle. Bows has to be reasonable about what he could achieve elsewhere.

I've no doubt he will be.

Thing is Bowyer, and Lyle, know exactly what they can achieve elsewhere financially because they both been offered deals by other clubs.

It's a negotiation and that requires both sides to be reasonable.

I know my memory isn't what it was..who got as far as offering Bow a deal and when? 

Cardiff and Huddersfield.

carly burn said:

Still doesn't sound too convinced old Bows does he.
Maybe it's the cynic him after working under the Belgian miser. God knows we've all felt that way recently.

To be fair, Bowyer does seem a bit of a miserable old cynic at times. He’s certainly hard to please. You can tell he was raised at Charlton - he’d fit in well around here. 

Henry Irving said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Henry Irving said:

carly burn said:

Anyone think the 5 year no questions asked ( if that's what it is) contract is the way to go?
I understand the stability bit, but 5 years?

I'm a firm believer that managers need to be kept on their toes. Short contracts do sometimes get the best out of people.
Look at solskjaer. Performing wonders until his 3 year contract and then it all went down hill.  Didn't Pardew wangle himself  a pretty decent package when he was with us?
I know I've got some reservations about how Bows will perform under such a long contract?
I'm not suggesting 6 monthly or anything silly like that but I think 2- 3 years with a 2 year roll on is reasonable.

What kind of contract was he offered elsewhere?
We'll never know, but I doubt if many clubs would have gone in with anywhere near 5 years with someone who is essentially still a rookie.

A bit like Lyle. Bows has to be reasonable about what he could achieve elsewhere.

I've no doubt he will be.

Thing is Bowyer, and Lyle, know exactly what they can achieve elsewhere financially because they both been offered deals by other clubs.

It's a negotiation and that requires both sides to be reasonable.

5 years is an unusual contract though and doesnt mean it's a financially attractive contract. I mean I would much prefer a 3 year deal on a million quid a year than a 5 year one on 500k PA. 

Very true

MS and LB both know they are playing poker in public.

Indeed, I’m not massively panicking but it’s a slight concern it’s being done this way. I would prefer it was done behind closed doors personally. 

Cafc43v3r said:

Mr Southall has already painted himself in to a corner really hasnt he?

He said contracts for Bower and Taylor where his first priority.  He said he wanted to sign Leko and Cullen on perms.   

If Taylor won't sign, keeping him until the end of the season or selling him in the window both make sense.  Depending on other things. 

But he can't sack Bowyer and if Bowyer walks, saying lack of value of contract is the problem, Southall is snookered.  

If Bowyer makes a contract for Taylor a "line in the sand" it could get messy. 

If Bowyer makes a contract for Taylor a line in the sand then it won't get messy - Bowyer would be out of a job and quite rightly.

Bowyers been in the game long enough to know players move around. Can’t see Taylor staying or going having any impact on Lee Bowyers contract.

Henry Irving said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Henry Irving said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Henry Irving said:

carly burn said:

Anyone think the 5 year no questions asked ( if that's what it is) contract is the way to go?
I understand the stability bit, but 5 years?

I'm a firm believer that managers need to be kept on their toes. Short contracts do sometimes get the best out of people.
Look at solskjaer. Performing wonders until his 3 year contract and then it all went down hill.  Didn't Pardew wangle himself  a pretty decent package when he was with us?
I know I've got some reservations about how Bows will perform under such a long contract?
I'm not suggesting 6 monthly or anything silly like that but I think 2- 3 years with a 2 year roll on is reasonable.

What kind of contract was he offered elsewhere?
We'll never know, but I doubt if many clubs would have gone in with anywhere near 5 years with someone who is essentially still a rookie.

A bit like Lyle. Bows has to be reasonable about what he could achieve elsewhere.

I've no doubt he will be.

Thing is Bowyer, and Lyle, know exactly what they can achieve elsewhere financially because they both been offered deals by other clubs.

It's a negotiation and that requires both sides to be reasonable.

5 years is an unusual contract though and doesnt mean it's a financially attractive contract. I mean I would much prefer a 3 year deal on a million quid a year than a 5 year one on 500k PA. 

Very true

MS and LB both know they are playing poker in public.

Indeed, I’m not massively panicking but it’s a slight concern it’s being done this way. I would prefer it was done behind closed doors personally. 

I take your original point but Bowyer does need to be careful. He has been sought after but that before we fell 13 places, no guarantee he’s got that sort of interest anymore. 

Agree.


The pressure on Bowyer changes under the new regime.

RD just wanted a cheap option to hold the fort until a sale so Bowyer was relatively safe other than Duchatelet's irrational incompetence.

Now there will new pressure and higher expectations.

ESI are smart enough to know that Bowyer is a very good manager and want to keep him but down the line he'll have to be a success or he'll be gone.

He knows it, ESI know it hence they both want a deal that protects them if things go wrong and rewards them if it goes well.

Anything other than that would be a worry.

What we have to remember is that Bowyer is happy to be at Charlton and has an affection for Charlton but he will never feel the same way about Charlton as we do. Most of us would manage Charlton for nothing. Not that our free services are in demand or would be any use to Charlton. But Bowyer would happily manage another club if he was well rewarded for it. It doesn't mean he has no affection for the club or its fans, or that he wants to leave, but this is his career more than the blind love we have for the club. 

He is looking to get as good a deal as he can get, which is what virtually every professional manager would do also. ESI will know that Bowyer is the best fit available for the club at this time, but they will have given him a value and if he wants more than that, you could see them looking elsewhere. Hopefully both are realistic and we get this hurdle out of the way which will then mean the club will surely progress.

And player. Just like Lyle

Exiled_Addick said:

Has Southall ever said he wants to sign Cullen on a permanent? Don’t recall reading any quotes to that effect. 

https://www.londonnewsonline.co.uk/matt-southall-tried-to-buy-charlton-athletic-before-esi-keen-on-deal-for-west-ham-united-midfielder/

If it was in the SLP, it's in there because ESI wanted it to be.