Would rather wait and get the players in that Dean and co want, think we've all had enough of 'journeyman' type players being signed,just because its a player in a position we need
We really need 2 strikers and one of them, in all likelihood is going to be a journeyman or a young loan.
We have got 5 games before the window closes, I would rather a striker, even if its a 6 month loan or a short term contract, in the building ASAP. Then you can afford to wait for your first choice target.
We currently have the worst of both worlds.
Agreed. All it takes is May doing his ankle in training on Friday or waking up with a fever, and we'll have NO senior striker on Saturday.
And from a negotiation point of view, if other clubs know we are desperate to sign another striker because of the glaring gap in our squad, they'll be able to play a really hard bargain, whereas if we have a journeyman striker who's already scored twice by mid August, we can more realistically threaten to walk away if we don't like the price.
If it was that easy to find a journeyman who could score a couple by mid August wouldn’t we have done it?
Equally we could end up with a Hemed who’s past his best and not capable of scoring, or even bring back Bonne to fill the gap temporarily.
It Powell took that approach we wouldn’t have signed Yann, the player who signed mid September and turned us from a top 6 side to a title winning one. He was an injury away from Benson or Euell starting up front, or regularly playing someone like Wagstaff out of position.
Powell signed Paul Hayes before Yann came in. If we had never signed Yann, we still had a decent option to play alongside BWP.
I know, my point was in both situations we needed a top striker but he waited for Yann rather than signed someone to temporarily give us cover.
Hayes or BWP could have got injured at any point, just as Leaburn did. The plan for the season shouldn’t change just because Leaburn is injured for a few more weeks.
If someone picks up a longer term injury then targets should change, but we’re not at the point where we should bring in a Parker or a Bonne just to have another striker in the squad.
He signed Hayes in June, then brought in Michael Smith and Jason Euell in August. Euell was very much cover in the squad, ditto Smith who was the same age as Leaburn when we signed him.
And we didn't let Benson go until we had Clarke. Euall stayed around until we signed Haynes as well.
It's nonsense to compare the situations because Powell had 4 or 5 strikers before we signed Yann. So he could afford to wait. We have got two.
Would anyone be so against us brining in a body if we only had 2 center backs?
I am genuinely surprised that people think 1 "star" striker is enough and we don't need someone half decent as well.
Literally not one person thinks that.
There are dozens of posts saying we only need one more striker, or people saying we are only after one more and being happy with that. Or that we should wait to get the one and sod the second.
So literally more than one person thinks that.
You said people are saying 1 star striker is enough. Presumably May is our star striker. One additional striker would be enough. May on his own would not be enough.
Dean Holden 'We’re still nowhere near where we want to get to as a team, of course, ' Exactly
Don’t think anyone has said otherwise but we’re hardly the only club in that boat.
There is probably one team in this league who could confidently say they have everything they want in place on the eve of the new season.
It’s Bolton - and it’s why they’re my pick for league champions come the end of the season. But it doesn’t happen overnight or even over a single window. They’ve been building sensibly for 2-3 years.
Even Portsmouth who have made 12 signings this summer are still looking for more to add. More for the sake of more doesn’t solve the problem.
Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere but thought it was relevant because ourselves and Derby were linked with Alfie May originally, also sheds some light on how a Derby fan said we outdid Derby by quite an amount in landing May.
If Derby are so bad financially that they can't afford to pay Lech Poznan 1.5million, so much so that it would bankrupt them, surely they can't make any further signings?
Seems like promotion is a must for them. Credit to Lech Poznan for letting it go, but at the same time hardly seems right.
Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere but thought it was relevant because ourselves and Derby were linked with Alfie May originally, also sheds some light on how a Derby fan said we outdid Derby by quite an amount in landing May.
If Derby are so bad financially that they can't afford to pay Lech Poznan 1.5million, so much so that it would bankrupt them, surely they can't make any further signings?
Seems like promotion is a must for them. Credit to Lech Poznan for letting it go, but at the same time hardly seems right.
Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere but thought it was relevant because ourselves and Derby were linked with Alfie May originally, also sheds some light on how a Derby fan said we outdid Derby by quite an amount in landing May.
If Derby are so bad financially that they can't afford to pay Lech Poznan 1.5million, so much so that it would bankrupt them, surely they can't make any further signings?
Seems like promotion is a must for them. Credit to Lech Poznan for letting it go, but at the same time hardly seems right.
Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere but thought it was relevant because ourselves and Derby were linked with Alfie May originally, also sheds some light on how a Derby fan said we outdid Derby by quite an amount in landing May.
If Derby are so bad financially that they can't afford to pay Lech Poznan 1.5million, so much so that it would bankrupt them, surely they can't make any further signings?
Seems like promotion is a must for them. Credit to Lech Poznan for letting it go, but at the same time hardly seems right.
EFL got no bollocks can you see Charlton getting the chances these clubs get..
Yes, they want to avoid clubs going out of business.
I thought not paying a football debt was considered serious, which is why football debts must be paid first if a Club goes into administration? The fact that the debt has been forgiven should not IMO stop the EFL from punishing the Club. I don’t think it is a good look for Clubs to buy players they can’t afford and let’s face it, it is basically cheating. It brings football into disrepute and damages our reputation abroad. They should have points deducted.
Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere but thought it was relevant because ourselves and Derby were linked with Alfie May originally, also sheds some light on how a Derby fan said we outdid Derby by quite an amount in landing May.
If Derby are so bad financially that they can't afford to pay Lech Poznan 1.5million, so much so that it would bankrupt them, surely they can't make any further signings?
Seems like promotion is a must for them. Credit to Lech Poznan for letting it go, but at the same time hardly seems right.
Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere but thought it was relevant because ourselves and Derby were linked with Alfie May originally, also sheds some light on how a Derby fan said we outdid Derby by quite an amount in landing May.
If Derby are so bad financially that they can't afford to pay Lech Poznan 1.5million, so much so that it would bankrupt them, surely they can't make any further signings?
Seems like promotion is a must for them. Credit to Lech Poznan for letting it go, but at the same time hardly seems right.
EFL got no bollocks can you see Charlton getting the chances these clubs get..
Yes, they want to avoid clubs going out of business.
I thought not paying a football debt was considered serious, which is why football debts must be paid first if a Club goes into administration? The fact that the debt has been forgiven should not IMO stop the EFL from punishing the Club. I don’t think it is a good look for Clubs to buy players they can’t afford and let’s face it, it is basically cheating. It brings football into disrepute and damages our reputation abroad. They should have points deducted.
I was disagreeing with the idea that we’d be treated differently to Derby. As said above they let us start the season during the ESI v1 and v2 nonsense.
Would rather wait and get the players in that Dean and co want, think we've all had enough of 'journeyman' type players being signed,just because its a player in a position we need
We really need 2 strikers and one of them, in all likelihood is going to be a journeyman or a young loan.
We have got 5 games before the window closes, I would rather a striker, even if its a 6 month loan or a short term contract, in the building ASAP. Then you can afford to wait for your first choice target.
We currently have the worst of both worlds.
Agreed. All it takes is May doing his ankle in training on Friday or waking up with a fever, and we'll have NO senior striker on Saturday.
And from a negotiation point of view, if other clubs know we are desperate to sign another striker because of the glaring gap in our squad, they'll be able to play a really hard bargain, whereas if we have a journeyman striker who's already scored twice by mid August, we can more realistically threaten to walk away if we don't like the price.
If it was that easy to find a journeyman who could score a couple by mid August wouldn’t we have done it?
Equally we could end up with a Hemed who’s past his best and not capable of scoring, or even bring back Bonne to fill the gap temporarily.
It Powell took that approach we wouldn’t have signed Yann, the player who signed mid September and turned us from a top 6 side to a title winning one. He was an injury away from Benson or Euell starting up front, or regularly playing someone like Wagstaff out of position.
Powell signed Paul Hayes before Yann came in. If we had never signed Yann, we still had a decent option to play alongside BWP.
I know, my point was in both situations we needed a top striker but he waited for Yann rather than signed someone to temporarily give us cover.
Hayes or BWP could have got injured at any point, just as Leaburn did. The plan for the season shouldn’t change just because Leaburn is injured for a few more weeks.
If someone picks up a longer term injury then targets should change, but we’re not at the point where we should bring in a Parker or a Bonne just to have another striker in the squad.
He signed Hayes in June, then brought in Michael Smith and Jason Euell in August. Euell was very much cover in the squad, ditto Smith who was the same age as Leaburn when we signed him.
And we didn't let Benson go until we had Clarke. Euall stayed around until we signed Haynes as well.
It's nonsense to compare the situations because Powell had 4 or 5 strikers before we signed Yann. So he could afford to wait. We have got two.
Would anyone be so against us brining in a body if we only had 2 center backs?
I am genuinely surprised that people think 1 "star" striker is enough and we don't need someone half decent as well.
Literally not one person thinks that.
There are dozens of posts saying we only need one more striker, or people saying we are only after one more and being happy with that. Or that we should wait to get the one and sod the second.
So literally more than one person thinks that.
You said people are saying 1 star striker is enough. Presumably May is our star striker. One additional striker would be enough. May on his own would not be enough.
We are talking about signing players. One more star striker, Nombe, Lapado, JCH who ever isn't enough, we need a 4th adult striker, if we are going to play two up front.
You always need a striker on the bench and normally, especially with 5 subs, you will bring them on.
I get we need another striker logically thinking however the optimist in me says this does give a chance for a youngster to come in like Leaburn did, who knows ? Maybe we see Campbell excell as a striker or Kanu fulfill his potential
Dangerous game to play.
It is i agree but maybe im just an pragmatic optimist
Even before this latest injury in February, he only appeared as a sub in a few matches, where in my opinion watching as a spectator he definitely lacked mobility.
Let’s us be realistic, he is never going to be fit, and his playing days are over.
Therefore he should be medically retired.
We need a forward capable of playing 30 or 35 matches a season, not a forward capable of playing 30 or 35 minutes once or twice a month, if we are lucky.
This isnt Chuks fault though as much as i agree. We gave him a silly contract knowing his problems.
If im Chuks in his situation i wouldnt go unless Charlton paid up my contract (which what i think we should do to free up space on wage bill).
I used to do some Cyber Sec consulting and on a couple of occassions companies came to me wanting to cancel contract mid-period for budget reasons brought on by C-19, revenue etc not once did i entertain the idea unless they paid me for the whole period. Chuks is in a similar position but even worse as this is more than likely his last contract. Why would he walk ?
Even before this latest injury in February, he only appeared as a sub in a few matches, where in my opinion watching as a spectator he definitely lacked mobility.
Let’s us be realistic, he is never going to be fit, and his playing days are over.
Therefore he should be medically retired.
We need a forward capable of playing 30 or 35 matches a season, not a forward capable of playing 30 or 35 minutes once or twice a month, if we are lucky.
This isnt Chuks fault though as much as i agree. We gave him a silly contract knowing his problems.
If im Chuks in his situation i wouldnt go unless Charlton paid up my contract (which what i think we should do to free up space on wage bill).
I used to do some Cyber Sec consulting and on a couple of occassions companies came to me wanting to cancel contract mid-period for budget reasons brought on by C-19, revenue etc not once did i entertain the idea unless they paid me for the whole period. Chuks is in a similar position but even worse as this is more than likely his last contract. Why would he walk ?
How would paying Chuks off free up space on the wage bill? We will still have to pay the full wages he is owed so that money is still gone to Chuks rather than saving us any to use on other players.
There is no point paying him off, as you say he will rightly want the full amount he is owed, so we might as well pay it to him over 2 years and use him when we can rather than just losing the full amount now and not being able to use him
Let's not forget that when we re-signed Chuks (ridiculous in itself seeing as he walked on a free 6 months beforehand) he was playing regularly for Birmingham. Ok he was subbed on every game and almost always only got 20-30 mins, but he didn't have any injury worries at that time as he was available for selection every week. The season before that as well he was available 90% of the season.
The issue is he's gone from being able to come off the bench for 30 mins as an impact player, to being injured. If he had gone from playing 90 mins every week to only being an impact player, we could live with that.
Even before this latest injury in February, he only appeared as a sub in a few matches, where in my opinion watching as a spectator he definitely lacked mobility.
Let’s us be realistic, he is never going to be fit, and his playing days are over.
Therefore he should be medically retired.
We need a forward capable of playing 30 or 35 matches a season, not a forward capable of playing 30 or 35 minutes once or twice a month, if we are lucky.
This isnt Chuks fault though as much as i agree. We gave him a silly contract knowing his problems.
If im Chuks in his situation i wouldnt go unless Charlton paid up my contract (which what i think we should do to free up space on wage bill).
I used to do some Cyber Sec consulting and on a couple of occassions companies came to me wanting to cancel contract mid-period for budget reasons brought on by C-19, revenue etc not once did i entertain the idea unless they paid me for the whole period. Chuks is in a similar position but even worse as this is more than likely his last contract. Why would he walk ?
Even before this latest injury in February, he only appeared as a sub in a few matches, where in my opinion watching as a spectator he definitely lacked mobility.
Let’s us be realistic, he is never going to be fit, and his playing days are over.
Therefore he should be medically retired.
We need a forward capable of playing 30 or 35 matches a season, not a forward capable of playing 30 or 35 minutes once or twice a month, if we are lucky.
This isnt Chuks fault though as much as i agree. We gave him a silly contract knowing his problems.
If im Chuks in his situation i wouldnt go unless Charlton paid up my contract (which what i think we should do to free up space on wage bill).
I used to do some Cyber Sec consulting and on a couple of occassions companies came to me wanting to cancel contract mid-period for budget reasons brought on by C-19, revenue etc not once did i entertain the idea unless they paid me for the whole period. Chuks is in a similar position but even worse as this is more than likely his last contract. Why would he walk ?
How would paying his contract up free up wages?
Every year there is a budget for wages,
Lets say for sake of argument our budget for whole squad is 120k a month and he is getting paid 10k a month with a year left on contract.
The club has the option of swallowing the bullet and paying him the rest of his contract which would mean we pay 10k a month less which we could spend on other players.
Now the argument against would be that we would still pay him his contract just in one go instead of bit by bit so its if the club decide they would rather just offload him. Another argument for releasing him is that there are additional fees incurred by the club (which dont go to Chuks) to keep him as there are for any other employees I.E. payroll, equipment, catering, travel etc
Also i assume he is still getting treated by our physios who could be spending more time on other players.
Even before this latest injury in February, he only appeared as a sub in a few matches, where in my opinion watching as a spectator he definitely lacked mobility.
Let’s us be realistic, he is never going to be fit, and his playing days are over.
Therefore he should be medically retired.
We need a forward capable of playing 30 or 35 matches a season, not a forward capable of playing 30 or 35 minutes once or twice a month, if we are lucky.
This isnt Chuks fault though as much as i agree. We gave him a silly contract knowing his problems.
If im Chuks in his situation i wouldnt go unless Charlton paid up my contract (which what i think we should do to free up space on wage bill).
I used to do some Cyber Sec consulting and on a couple of occassions companies came to me wanting to cancel contract mid-period for budget reasons brought on by C-19, revenue etc not once did i entertain the idea unless they paid me for the whole period. Chuks is in a similar position but even worse as this is more than likely his last contract. Why would he walk ?
How would paying Chuks off free up space on the wage bill? We will still have to pay the full wages he is owed so that money is still gone to Chuks rather than saving us any to use on other players.
There is no point paying him off, as you say he will rightly want the full amount he is owed, so we might as well pay it to him over 2 years and use him when we can rather than just losing the full amount now and not being able to use him
Just answered this above. The idea that its just paying him the full contract is a simplistic naive understanding of financies for a business.
As said there are additional costs also based on employing. We also insure our players, remember that. If we decide to carry on using him and he gets injured again we will no doubt pay premiums on him and the cost of rehab as well.
Also forecast spending is a useful tool in deciding how to budget. You can try to reclaim the money from else where. Lets say for example you have 10k a more month but have paid 110k to free that up. You sign two players on 4k a month thats 8k. You are now paying 2k less so over a time period you will actually save money by getting a player who cant play out the door.
Even before this latest injury in February, he only appeared as a sub in a few matches, where in my opinion watching as a spectator he definitely lacked mobility.
Let’s us be realistic, he is never going to be fit, and his playing days are over.
Therefore he should be medically retired.
We need a forward capable of playing 30 or 35 matches a season, not a forward capable of playing 30 or 35 minutes once or twice a month, if we are lucky.
This isnt Chuks fault though as much as i agree. We gave him a silly contract knowing his problems.
If im Chuks in his situation i wouldnt go unless Charlton paid up my contract (which what i think we should do to free up space on wage bill).
I used to do some Cyber Sec consulting and on a couple of occassions companies came to me wanting to cancel contract mid-period for budget reasons brought on by C-19, revenue etc not once did i entertain the idea unless they paid me for the whole period. Chuks is in a similar position but even worse as this is more than likely his last contract. Why would he walk ?
How would paying his contract up free up wages?
Every year there is a budget for wages,
Lets say for sake of argument our budget for whole squad is 120k a month and he is getting paid 10k a month with a year left on contract.
The club has the option of swallowing the bullet and paying him the rest of his contract which would mean we pay 10k a month less which we could spend on other players.
Now the argument against would be that we would still pay him his contract just in one go instead of bit by bit so its if the club decide they would rather just offload him. Another argument for releasing him is that there are additional fees incurred by the club (which dont go to Chuks) to keep him as there are for any other employees I.E. payroll, equipment, catering, travel etc
Also i assume he is still getting treated by our physios who could be spending more time on other players.
We won’t pay 10k lees though as that money has already been spent and taken from the total budget in paying him off. It doesn’t make sense at all to pay him off so it’s not going to happen
Hes probably on at least £5k a week, so the total pay off would be at least £500k. Would be stupid to pay that all in one go
Even before this latest injury in February, he only appeared as a sub in a few matches, where in my opinion watching as a spectator he definitely lacked mobility.
Let’s us be realistic, he is never going to be fit, and his playing days are over.
Therefore he should be medically retired.
We need a forward capable of playing 30 or 35 matches a season, not a forward capable of playing 30 or 35 minutes once or twice a month, if we are lucky.
This isnt Chuks fault though as much as i agree. We gave him a silly contract knowing his problems.
If im Chuks in his situation i wouldnt go unless Charlton paid up my contract (which what i think we should do to free up space on wage bill).
I used to do some Cyber Sec consulting and on a couple of occassions companies came to me wanting to cancel contract mid-period for budget reasons brought on by C-19, revenue etc not once did i entertain the idea unless they paid me for the whole period. Chuks is in a similar position but even worse as this is more than likely his last contract. Why would he walk ?
How would paying his contract up free up wages?
Every year there is a budget for wages,
Lets say for sake of argument our budget for whole squad is 120k a month and he is getting paid 10k a month with a year left on contract.
The club has the option of swallowing the bullet and paying him the rest of his contract which would mean we pay 10k a month less which we could spend on other players.
Now the argument against would be that we would still pay him his contract just in one go instead of bit by bit so its if the club decide they would rather just offload him. Another argument for releasing him is that there are additional fees incurred by the club (which dont go to Chuks) to keep him as there are for any other employees I.E. payroll, equipment, catering, travel etc
Also i assume he is still getting treated by our physios who could be spending more time on other players.
We won’t pay 10k lees though as that money has already been spent and taken from the total budget in paying him off. It doesn’t make sense at all to pay him off so it’s not going to happen
Hes probably on at least £5k a week, so the total pay off would be at least £500k. Would be stupid to pay that all in one go
I explained it in a bit more detail in your other post.
Also i know he is NOT on 5k a week.
The idea that its just paying him the full contract is a simplistic naive understanding of financies for a business.
As said there are additional costs also based on employing. We also insure our players, remember that. If we decide to carry on using him and he gets injured again we will no doubt pay premiums on him and the cost of rehab as well.
Also forecast spending is a useful tool in deciding how to budget. You can try to reclaim the money from else where. Lets say for example you have 10k a more month but have paid 110k to free that up. You sign two players on 4k a month thats 8k. You are now paying 2k less so over a time period you will actually save money by getting a player who cant play out the door.
Even before this latest injury in February, he only appeared as a sub in a few matches, where in my opinion watching as a spectator he definitely lacked mobility.
Let’s us be realistic, he is never going to be fit, and his playing days are over.
Therefore he should be medically retired.
We need a forward capable of playing 30 or 35 matches a season, not a forward capable of playing 30 or 35 minutes once or twice a month, if we are lucky.
This isnt Chuks fault though as much as i agree. We gave him a silly contract knowing his problems.
If im Chuks in his situation i wouldnt go unless Charlton paid up my contract (which what i think we should do to free up space on wage bill).
I used to do some Cyber Sec consulting and on a couple of occassions companies came to me wanting to cancel contract mid-period for budget reasons brought on by C-19, revenue etc not once did i entertain the idea unless they paid me for the whole period. Chuks is in a similar position but even worse as this is more than likely his last contract. Why would he walk ?
How would paying his contract up free up wages?
Every year there is a budget for wages,
Lets say for sake of argument our budget for whole squad is 120k a month and he is getting paid 10k a month with a year left on contract.
The club has the option of swallowing the bullet and paying him the rest of his contract which would mean we pay 10k a month less which we could spend on other players.
Now the argument against would be that we would still pay him his contract just in one go instead of bit by bit so its if the club decide they would rather just offload him. Another argument for releasing him is that there are additional fees incurred by the club (which dont go to Chuks) to keep him as there are for any other employees I.E. payroll, equipment, catering, travel etc
Also i assume he is still getting treated by our physios who could be spending more time on other players.
He has 18 months left on a contract which is, I understand, £7k per week. That’s about £540k to pay him off. I take it you’re just magicking up a different budget to “swallow this” in order to free up your salary budget and buy other players? 🤦🏻♂️
p.s. I certainly wouldn’t have thought of re-hiring you after the pandemic with that attitude. There are plenty of cyber sec options out there.
Comments
You said people are saying 1 star striker is enough. Presumably May is our star striker. One additional striker would be enough. May on his own would not be enough.
It’s Bolton - and it’s why they’re my pick for league champions come the end of the season. But it doesn’t happen overnight or even over a single window. They’ve been building sensibly for 2-3 years.
Even Portsmouth who have made 12 signings this summer are still looking for more to add. More for the sake of more doesn’t solve the problem.
Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere but thought it was relevant because ourselves and Derby were linked with Alfie May originally, also sheds some light on how a Derby fan said we outdid Derby by quite an amount in landing May.
If Derby are so bad financially that they can't afford to pay Lech Poznan 1.5million, so much so that it would bankrupt them, surely they can't make any further signings?
Seems like promotion is a must for them. Credit to Lech Poznan for letting it go, but at the same time hardly seems right.
Further confirmation from their press manager
The fact that the debt has been forgiven should not IMO stop the EFL from punishing the Club.
I don’t think it is a good look for Clubs to buy players they can’t afford and let’s face it, it is basically cheating.
It brings football into disrepute and damages our reputation abroad. They should have points deducted.
You always need a striker on the bench and normally, especially with 5 subs, you will bring them on.
They did this in the Champ with a stupid gamble on the Prem, it stinks.
If im Chuks in his situation i wouldnt go unless Charlton paid up my contract (which what i think we should do to free up space on wage bill).
I used to do some Cyber Sec consulting and on a couple of occassions companies came to me wanting to cancel contract mid-period for budget reasons brought on by C-19, revenue etc not once did i entertain the idea unless they paid me for the whole period. Chuks is in a similar position but even worse as this is more than likely his last contract. Why would he walk ?
The issue is he's gone from being able to come off the bench for 30 mins as an impact player, to being injured. If he had gone from playing 90 mins every week to only being an impact player, we could live with that.
Again, not his fault we gave him the contract
Lets say for sake of argument our budget for whole squad is 120k a month and he is getting paid 10k a month with a year left on contract.
The club has the option of swallowing the bullet and paying him the rest of his contract which would mean we pay 10k a month less which we could spend on other players.
Now the argument against would be that we would still pay him his contract just in one go instead of bit by bit so its if the club decide they would rather just offload him. Another argument for releasing him is that there are additional fees incurred by the club (which dont go to Chuks) to keep him as there are for any other employees I.E. payroll, equipment, catering, travel etc
Also i assume he is still getting treated by our physios who could be spending more time on other players.
As said there are additional costs also based on employing. We also insure our players, remember that. If we decide to carry on using him and he gets injured again we will no doubt pay premiums on him and the cost of rehab as well.
Also forecast spending is a useful tool in deciding how to budget. You can try to reclaim the money from else where. Lets say for example you have 10k a more month but have paid 110k to free that up. You sign two players on 4k a month thats 8k. You are now paying 2k less so over a time period you will actually save money by getting a player who cant play out the door.
Hes probably on at least £5k a week, so the total pay off would be at least £500k. Would be stupid to pay that all in one go
Also i know he is NOT on 5k a week.
The idea that its just paying him the full contract is a simplistic naive understanding of financies for a business.
p.s. I certainly wouldn’t have thought of re-hiring you after the pandemic with that attitude. There are plenty of cyber sec options out there.