Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
January 2021 Transfer Targets (last minute swoop for Jaiyesimi p184 - NOW it's all over.)
Comments
-
But let's say Shinnie has 20 weeks left on his contract and Luton are paying him 5k a week, they will be paying him 100k regardless. They could offer him 80k to tear his contract up and then he sign for us on heavily reduced wages, a bit like Palace did with Williams.CAFCsayer said:
If this is possible under the rules of the cap then great, I was under the impression it wasntcafcdave123 said:
It's been mentioned on here by a few people that we pay X amount to Luton who pay Shinnie Y as a golden handshake. I don't think that will be legally possible under the cap because that payment from Luton would be outside of his contract. But I can see Luton paying Shinnie off because they're paying a contribution of his wages anyway.0 -
I meant the tweet mateRedvaliant said:0 -
If a team is built around the most gifted player in the squad then chances are you find yourself winning more games than we have been lately, and higher up the table.RC_CAFC said:
Firstly, and possibly to his detriment depending on your point of view, I don't think that Bowyer believes in building a team around anyone.cafctom said:I don’t read too much into the ‘how many goals and assists’ argument, as it’s a bit too simplistic a way of debating a player of Williams’ role.
If we had strikers that could finish better, then Williams’ assist rate would be much higher.
If Williams wasn’t left on the bench so often, then his numbers would be higher.
A player of his quality in League One is very, very rare and I think Bowyer has to take responsibility for not getting the best out of that opportunity. The team should have been built around him this season, but nope, all about Pratley.
Secondly, you can't build a team around a player who spends as much time injured as Williams is. Can you imagine the backlash if he had and Williams got crocked?I doubt there would have been a ‘backlash’ had that player then got injured - that’s just one of those things. That’s just a case of knowing how to have a Plan B.One of the biggest criticisms of our set up so far this season is that we don’t really know what Plan A is...3 -
It seems like it's never Johnny's fault.cafctom said:I don’t read too much into the ‘how many goals and assists’ argument, as it’s a bit too simplistic a way of debating a player of Williams’ role.
If we had strikers that could finish better, then Williams’ assist rate would be much higher.
If Williams wasn’t left on the bench so often, then his numbers would be higher.1 -
I've been wondering how you could "bend" the rules over this, when dealing with a club not affected by the capcafcdave123 said:
If he is on 5000 a week, then his wage cost for the 5 months to the end of June would be say £110k (£150k including NI etc)
We pay Luton a transfer fee of £200k. They give him a payoff of £100K.
We then pay him 1000 a week, costing us say £30k.
The £200k is a transfer fee, so not covered by the cap. The £100k payoff is paid by Luton, who aren't covered by the cap.1 -
Right if we make a bid for Shinnie of £100 to Luton and they say yes, he is out of contract anyway so no problem.CAFCsayer said:
If this is possible under the rules of the cap then great, I was under the impression it wasntcafcdave123 said:
We then say Mr Shinnie, we would like to offer you 1.7k (William's cap salary). He replies I am very sorry Mr Bowyer but Luton are paying me 4.5k a week and have to until the end of the season, I can't accept that.
We ring Luton and say we are really sorry we can't agree personal terms, deal is off. We are about 60k short on a 20 week contract.
They ring Mr Shinnie and say, look aren't going to play here, nor get a new contract what can we do to smooth the transfer over? I would like to stay at Charlton Mr Jones, if you could compensate me for ending my contract early I am sure I could agree terms. If you pay you £60k would you consider the offer they made?
Yes I would, thank you very much Mr Jones. Steve, its Nathan, give us 60k, not £100 and the deal is good to go.
I can't see how Charlton could be seen to be at fault here. Clubs pay up contracts, pay loyalty bonuses for players to leave, all sorts. The big clubs some times end up playing players fortunes to do one.1 -
I’d agree with the suggestion that he hasn’t been in blistering form for us, but I just think that the haphazard way we’ve tried to use him this season is a massive missed opportunity.Chunes said:
It really seems like it's never Johnny's fault.cafctom said:I don’t read too much into the ‘how many goals and assists’ argument, as it’s a bit too simplistic a way of debating a player of Williams’ role.
If we had strikers that could finish better, then Williams’ assist rate would be much higher.
If Williams wasn’t left on the bench so often, then his numbers would be higher.I’d be saying the fault lied squarely with Johnny, if he was starting every game and delivering poor performances every week.
But the truth is that we’ve got a lot of very talented players in this squad, and hardly any have pulled up any trees against expectations. Have they all just been bad? Or is it the fact that the common denominator is the way they’ve been managed?2 -
Surely Luton can pay Shinnie what they like as a leaving present? They're not affected by salary caps, while HMRC couldn't care less as it's not a tax dodgecafcfan1990 said:
But let's say Shinnie has 20 weeks left on his contract and Luton are paying him 5k a week, they will be paying him 100k regardless. They could offer him 80k to tear his contract up and then he sign for us on heavily reduced wages, a bit like Palace did with Williams.CAFCsayer said:
If this is possible under the rules of the cap then great, I was under the impression it wasntcafcdave123 said:
It's been mentioned on here by a few people that we pay X amount to Luton who pay Shinnie Y as a golden handshake. I don't think that will be legally possible under the cap because that payment from Luton would be outside of his contract. But I can see Luton paying Shinnie off because they're paying a contribution of his wages anyway.1 -
The termination of the contract has got to be mutually agreed, one side can't unilaterally cancel it. Its normally agreed by one side receiving some sort of payment.killerandflash said:
Surely Luton can pay Shinnie what they like as a leaving present? They're not affected by salary caps, while HMRC couldn't care less as it's not a tax dodgecafcfan1990 said:
But let's say Shinnie has 20 weeks left on his contract and Luton are paying him 5k a week, they will be paying him 100k regardless. They could offer him 80k to tear his contract up and then he sign for us on heavily reduced wages, a bit like Palace did with Williams.CAFCsayer said:
If this is possible under the rules of the cap then great, I was under the impression it wasntcafcdave123 said:
It's been mentioned on here by a few people that we pay X amount to Luton who pay Shinnie Y as a golden handshake. I don't think that will be legally possible under the cap because that payment from Luton would be outside of his contract. But I can see Luton paying Shinnie off because they're paying a contribution of his wages anyway.
Of course they could just pay him up, without any input from us as they are paying him 80% of it anyway.0 -
I was asking, hence the question mark, I assumed as his name was mentioned on here it was a suggestion/rumour/guess that he may come here?Swisdom said:
Did I say he was good enough for us? He has some potential but I have questioned if someone of his age and inexperience fits the billCafc43v3r said:
He was recalled from Gillingham because he couldn't get in their team and he is good enough for us?Swisdom said:
They recalled him a couple of weeks ago and he looks like a very decent prospect tbf. Whether he is what we are looking for remains to be seen but he is certainly not a bad playerShrew said:0 -
Sponsored links:
-
We knew what Plan A was, 4-3-3, keeping it tight defensively with Pratley and Watson in the middle and Doughty’s pace on the counter. When Doughty got injured we had no replacement, Smyth was nowhere near as threatening.cafctom said:
If a team is built around the most gifted player in the squad then chances are you find yourself winning more games than we have been lately, and higher up the table.RC_CAFC said:
Firstly, and possibly to his detriment depending on your point of view, I don't think that Bowyer believes in building a team around anyone.cafctom said:I don’t read too much into the ‘how many goals and assists’ argument, as it’s a bit too simplistic a way of debating a player of Williams’ role.
If we had strikers that could finish better, then Williams’ assist rate would be much higher.
If Williams wasn’t left on the bench so often, then his numbers would be higher.
A player of his quality in League One is very, very rare and I think Bowyer has to take responsibility for not getting the best out of that opportunity. The team should have been built around him this season, but nope, all about Pratley.
Secondly, you can't build a team around a player who spends as much time injured as Williams is. Can you imagine the backlash if he had and Williams got crocked?I doubt there would have been a ‘backlash’ had that player then got injured - that’s just one of those things. That’s just a case of knowing how to have a Plan B.One of the biggest criticisms of our set up so far this season is that we don’t really know what Plan A is...1 -
i reckon the stoke defender is the more likely way round it - we agree a fee for doughty but on the proviso that we sign the defender - stoke pay the defender a lump £200k as a leaving present / deal - or effectively pay up his remaining contract - however it needs to be done and this acts as a supplement to his wages that are capped in league 1. If we get him and a league 1 winger on say £3k a week and williams wages of say £6k a week are offloaded, then its job done. i have no idea who the cb or winger are but this would all seem to make sense0
-
Peterborough apparently did this for Clarke-Harris; paid £1.6m and he got allegedly got a top up to his 'wagrs' via a payoff from Bristol Rovers... Allegedly...killerandflash said:
I've been wondering how you could "bend" the rules over this, when dealing with a club not affected by the capcafcdave123 said:
If he is on 5000 a week, then his wage cost for the 5 months to the end of June would be say £110k (£150k including NI etc)
We pay Luton a transfer fee of £200k. They give him a payoff of £100K.
We then pay him 1000 a week, costing us say £30k.
The £200k is a transfer fee, so not covered by the cap. The £100k payoff is paid by Luton, who aren't covered by the cap.0 -
So he needs to start every game and play badly for it to be his fault. I'd be up for sacking Bowyer if he was still starting Williams in those circumstances.cafctom said:
I’d agree with the suggestion that he hasn’t been in blistering form for us, but I just think that the haphazard way we’ve tried to use him this season is a massive missed opportunity.Chunes said:
It really seems like it's never Johnny's fault.cafctom said:I don’t read too much into the ‘how many goals and assists’ argument, as it’s a bit too simplistic a way of debating a player of Williams’ role.
If we had strikers that could finish better, then Williams’ assist rate would be much higher.
If Williams wasn’t left on the bench so often, then his numbers would be higher.I’d be saying the fault lied squarely with Johnny, if he was starting every game and delivering poor performances every week.
But the truth is that we’ve got a lot of very talented players in this squad, and hardly any have pulled up any trees against expectations. Have they all just been bad? Or is it the fact that the common denominator is the way they’ve been managed?
It'll be nice to have players we don't have to find excuses for.0 -
Liam Lindsay? I think he would be a great buy and we need to be getting our own players in. How we do that SG would know, but I was surprised that we could not tie that in with the Doughty deal. Swindon said to be in for him.DOUCHER said:i reckon the stoke defender is the more likely way round it - we agree a fee for doughty but on the proviso that we sign the defender - stoke pay the defender a lump £200k as a leaving present / deal - or effectively pay up his remaining contract - however it needs to be done and this acts as a supplement to his wages that are capped in league 1. If we get him and a league 1 winger on say £3k a week and williams wages of say £6k a week are offloaded, then its job done. i have no idea who the cb or winger are but this would all seem to make sense0 -
Heard we are getting a Arsenal player on loan ..0
-
Apparently Swindon bound potentiallyDOUCHER said:i reckon the stoke defender is the more likely way round it - we agree a fee for doughty but on the proviso that we sign the defender - stoke pay the defender a lump £200k as a leaving present / deal - or effectively pay up his remaining contract - however it needs to be done and this acts as a supplement to his wages that are capped in league 1. If we get him and a league 1 winger on say £3k a week and williams wages of say £6k a week are offloaded, then its job done. i have no idea who the cb or winger are but this would all seem to make sense0 -
As an extension to a random Twitter rumour (isn't that Matt Smith on the left?)
0 -
Madison puts me in mind of Tony Watt.2
-
You mean instead of a manager?Chunes said:
So he needs to start every game and play badly for it to be his fault. I'd be up for sacking Bowyer if he was still starting Williams in those circumstances.cafctom said:
I’d agree with the suggestion that he hasn’t been in blistering form for us, but I just think that the haphazard way we’ve tried to use him this season is a massive missed opportunity.Chunes said:
It really seems like it's never Johnny's fault.cafctom said:I don’t read too much into the ‘how many goals and assists’ argument, as it’s a bit too simplistic a way of debating a player of Williams’ role.
If we had strikers that could finish better, then Williams’ assist rate would be much higher.
If Williams wasn’t left on the bench so often, then his numbers would be higher.I’d be saying the fault lied squarely with Johnny, if he was starting every game and delivering poor performances every week.
But the truth is that we’ve got a lot of very talented players in this squad, and hardly any have pulled up any trees against expectations. Have they all just been bad? Or is it the fact that the common denominator is the way they’ve been managed?
It'll be nice to have players we don't have to find excuses for.1 -
Sponsored links:
-
Yup looks like him. No idea who's on the rightMattF said:As an extension to a random Twitter rumour (isn't that Matt Smith on the left?)5 -
That’s definitely him on the Left with the blonde hair now recalled from Swindon.MarcusH26 said:
Yup looks like him. No idea who's on the rightMattF said:As an extension to a random Twitter rumour (isn't that Matt Smith on the left?)
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/12416552/arsenal-transfer-smith-swindon-loan/amp/
0 -
Ah, another central midfielder. Quality 😐
0 -
The one on the right is Saka.... So yeah if it's one of them it's not him!2
-
I'm not sure that would make sense, as Rovers are covered by the cap as well? Unless they found a way of treating the top up as a 2019/20 cost?995632 said:
Peterborough apparently did this for Clarke-Harris; paid £1.6m and he got allegedly got a top up to his 'wagrs' via a payoff from Bristol Rovers... Allegedly...killerandflash said:
I've been wondering how you could "bend" the rules over this, when dealing with a club not affected by the capcafcdave123 said:
If he is on 5000 a week, then his wage cost for the 5 months to the end of June would be say £110k (£150k including NI etc)
We pay Luton a transfer fee of £200k. They give him a payoff of £100K.
We then pay him 1000 a week, costing us say £30k.
The £200k is a transfer fee, so not covered by the cap. The £100k payoff is paid by Luton, who aren't covered by the cap.0 -
I don't think anyone can be sure but I'd be surprised if the EFL wouldn't investigate this. Loyalty bonuses to leave are I assume very rare. A mutual termination of the contract is fairly common but Club A paying Club B as a transfer fee, and then Club B passing that transfer fee onto the player, I cannot see it being allowed. It's clearly a way to bend the rules and I'd be extremely shocked if the EFL didn't have something within the terms to prevent it.Cafc43v3r said:
Right if we make a bid for Shinnie of £100 to Luton and they say yes, he is out of contract anyway so no problem.CAFCsayer said:
If this is possible under the rules of the cap then great, I was under the impression it wasntcafcdave123 said:
We then say Mr Shinnie, we would like to offer you 1.7k (William's cap salary). He replies I am very sorry Mr Bowyer but Luton are paying me 4.5k a week and have to until the end of the season, I can't accept that.
We ring Luton and say we are really sorry we can't agree personal terms, deal is off. We are about 60k short on a 20 week contract.
They ring Mr Shinnie and say, look aren't going to play here, nor get a new contract what can we do to smooth the transfer over? I would like to stay at Charlton Mr Jones, if you could compensate me for ending my contract early I am sure I could agree terms. If you pay you £60k would you consider the offer they made?
Yes I would, thank you very much Mr Jones. Steve, its Nathan, give us 60k, not £100 and the deal is good to go.
I can't see how Charlton could be seen to be at fault here. Clubs pay up contracts, pay loyalty bonuses for players to leave, all sorts. The big clubs some times end up playing players fortunes to do one.0 -
Sorry went I said legally I meant under the cap. It's just so obvious and I can't see the EFL allowing it.killerandflash said:
Surely Luton can pay Shinnie what they like as a leaving present? They're not affected by salary caps, while HMRC couldn't care less as it's not a tax dodgecafcfan1990 said:
But let's say Shinnie has 20 weeks left on his contract and Luton are paying him 5k a week, they will be paying him 100k regardless. They could offer him 80k to tear his contract up and then he sign for us on heavily reduced wages, a bit like Palace did with Williams.CAFCsayer said:
If this is possible under the rules of the cap then great, I was under the impression it wasntcafcdave123 said:
It's been mentioned on here by a few people that we pay X amount to Luton who pay Shinnie Y as a golden handshake. I don't think that will be legally possible under the cap because that payment from Luton would be outside of his contract. But I can see Luton paying Shinnie off because they're paying a contribution of his wages anyway.0 -
I think this could well happen. Doesn’t bend any rules, Luton aren’t really suffering and we can still sign Shinnie on reduced wages. We might even have to pay him more than we are now but it would free up a loan spot.Cafc43v3r said:
The termination of the contract has got to be mutually agreed, one side can't unilaterally cancel it. Its normally agreed by one side receiving some sort of payment.killerandflash said:
Surely Luton can pay Shinnie what they like as a leaving present? They're not affected by salary caps, while HMRC couldn't care less as it's not a tax dodgecafcfan1990 said:
But let's say Shinnie has 20 weeks left on his contract and Luton are paying him 5k a week, they will be paying him 100k regardless. They could offer him 80k to tear his contract up and then he sign for us on heavily reduced wages, a bit like Palace did with Williams.CAFCsayer said:
If this is possible under the rules of the cap then great, I was under the impression it wasntcafcdave123 said:
It's been mentioned on here by a few people that we pay X amount to Luton who pay Shinnie Y as a golden handshake. I don't think that will be legally possible under the cap because that payment from Luton would be outside of his contract. But I can see Luton paying Shinnie off because they're paying a contribution of his wages anyway.
Of course they could just pay him up, without any input from us as they are paying him 80% of it anyway.
0
