Bas and George

[Basil Fawlty]

If they want to criticise the club dealings with contracts, and refuse to a sign a decent deal. Then we're right to get rid, as much I want George to stay. There is no point on keeping a player, who wants to undermine our morale at the club.

 

[dougdeep]

Well said Kev.

 

[Basil Fawlty]

Well said Kev.

Thanks Doug.

 

[BigGully]

Hasn't DK been having discussions with Savages agent for several months?

This is now coming to a head because Dick is exasperated with Savage not signing up to what DK thinks is a decent offer - unless anyone on here knows
the exact terms of that offer (which we clearly dont!) then it is impossible to know whether the player is being greedy or not.

As for your earlier comment about it being 'unneccessary for the chairman to be the self-appointed broker for these deals' who do you expect to resolve them - the groundstaff?

There are five months or so until the end of the season, plenty of time to sort Hammonds contract when it will be clearer where we are likely to finish so Dean can be paid the appropriate wages - either Div 1 or Championship, which has got to be better for the club and the player.

Not always the chairman especially if he seems to quite bad at it ...

The first port of call should be the manager ......

Then the Board should discuss the merits of the players contract terms ...

As I understand it, the money man is Tony Bloom anyway ....

So for the Chairman to be the sole representative of the club on players contracts ahead of Wilkins and the rest of the board is a mistake.

As for Hammond, 5 months left before he can leave for free and still no meaningful negotiation is sloppy.

Sometimes action speaks louder than words or money !!!

Hammond would be a target for all League 1 sides and maybe some Championship clubs and not to sign him and 'cuddle' him earlier is a risk.

It is not a risk to negotiate and try and get a deal secured earlier, as Hammond would continue to be a key player for us whilst remaining an asset on the Clubs balance sheet as he could be sold for a decent sum at anytime within that newly signed deal.

However if we act as you would wish he can decide to walk away from the club for free in 5 months time, we lose a key player and the club lose any future transfer fee.

 

[dougdeep]

It's not as if the board have been busy at all.

 

[The Large One]

Deals have been on the table for Hammond, Savage and O'Callaghan for months. With Hammond, negotiations are on-going. How much quicker do you want a chairman to work?

 

[ditchy]

Hasn't DK been having discussions with Savages agent for several months?

There are five months or so until the end of the season, plenty of time to sort Hammonds contract when it will be clearer where we are likely to finish so Dean can be paid the appropriate wages - either Div 1 or Championship, which has got to be better for the club and the player.

Surely a contract can be drafted which takes into account the players ability.Not the fact what division we are in .. >pay him a wage with bonus structures allowing for the increased or decreased revenue of that particular division . Would it not be worth adding a one year revue option if for instance we did get promotion

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Out of the three, Hammond is the only one worth keeping as we know he can be so much better than he is currently, I feel Savage and O'C may have reached their "peak" as it were.

 

[m20gull]

Anyone who thinks we are in a position to "speculate to accumulate" should look at the club's balance sheet.

Savage is a cult player of average ability, who is regarded by all of his former clubs in the same way. He messed the Gills about when he came to us so it should have been no surprise.

Hard for me to comment on George as I haven't seen him play much but I was very underwhelmed on the occasions I did. It's easy for a loan player to form quick impressions, but it would be more professional of him to shut up.

Of course Dick does the negotiating - Abramovich surely has the say in the finances at Chelsea - why would we be different?

 

[BigGully]

Deals have been on the table for Hammond, Savage and O'Callaghan for months. With Hammond, negotiations are on-going. How much quicker do you want a chairman to work?

I dont think there has been any significant movement from the club to Hammond regarding his contract.

I am sure O'Callaghan outburst has helped Hammonds cause no end as DK scrambles around trying to save his self appointed reputation as the 'contract negotiator extroadinaire'

I would of expected it to have started this time last year to be honest, the end of his contract and subsequant Bosman was there as soon as the ink dried on his last contract !!

He remains an asset both player wise and financially to the club but he can now walk away from us for nothing and the clock is ticking.

How much slower do you want the Chairman to work ?

 

[Spiros]

Knight was quoted in the argus as saying 'Negotiations with Dean Hammond are ongoing and will come to a conclusion in the near future' - it's a two-way street with an unsigned contract being as much to do with the player as with the club.

Just own up - all you really wanted was a chance to criticise Knight and the misguided Savage and big-headed O'Callaghan have given you that chance

 

[BigGully]

Anyone who thinks we are in a position to "speculate to accumulate" should look at the club's balance sheet.

Savage is a cult player of average ability, who is regarded by all of his former clubs in the same way. He messed the Gills about when he came to us so it should have been no surprise.

Hard for me to comment on George as I haven't seen him play much but I was very underwhelmed on the occasions I did. It's easy for a loan player to form quick impressions, but it would be more professional of him to shut up.

Of course Dick does the negotiating - Abramovich surely has the say in the finances at Chelsea - why would we be different?

Yep Abramovich does have the say in the Finances at Chelsea.

why would be any different ??

because DK does NOT bankroll BHA ...............

Abramovich is an autocrat and has a financial mandate to act in such a way.

DK might acts like an autocrat and has absolutely NO mandate to act in such a way.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Yep Abramovich does have the say in the Finances at Chelsea.

why would be any different ??

because DK does NOT bankroll BHA ...............

Abramovich is an autocrat and has a financial mandate to act in such a way.

DK might acts like an autocrat and has absolutely NO mandate to act in such a way.

But would anyone bankroll the club if they were not happy with the way Dick Knight was running things? Surely there would be an uprising and he would be ousted?

 

[mona]

Yep Abramovich does have the say in the Finances at Chelsea.

why would be any different ??

because DK does NOT bankroll BHA ...............

Abramovich is an autocrat and has a financial mandate to act in such a way.

DK might acts like an autocrat and has absolutely NO mandate to act in such a way.

Mike Bamber was autocratic. He raised loans on the club's behalf but used less of his own money than Dick Knight has. Bamber never suffered the criticism Knight has received even though the club were in financial trouble by 1984.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Hammond would be a target for all League 1 sides and maybe some Championship clubs and not to sign him and 'cuddle' him earlier is a risk.

I know you rate Hammond highly, BigGully, but for all our sakes, please refrain from cuddling him

 

[The Large One]

I dont think there has been any significant movement from the club to Hammond regarding his contract.

I am sure O'Callaghan outburst has helped Hammonds cause no end as DK scrambles around trying to save his self appointed reputation as the 'contract negotiator extroadinaire'

I would of expected it to have started this time last year to be honest, the end of his contract and subsequant Bosman was there as soon as the ink dried on his last contract !!

He remains an asset both player wise and financially to the club but he can now walk away from us for nothing and the clock is ticking.

How much slower do you want the Chairman to work ?

When did Dick Knight make his statement about being a 'contract negotiator extroadinaire'? I must have missed that one. Have you got a link?

Hammond's contract talks have been going on for ages now. Obviuosly I don't know what sort of offer is on the table for Hammond, but there is clearly a reason - or reasons - why pen hasn't been put to paper yet. Just because YOU'RE impatient for Hammond to sign, it doesn't follow that Hammond himself isn't. For instance, he might be waiting to see what happens in January.

All you're doing is blaming Dick Knight for being slow. My question is - slow at what? Offering Hammond a contract?

 

[The Large One]

DK might acts like an autocrat and has absolutely NO mandate to act in such a way.

Maybe, maybe not. What do the minutes of the recent boardroom meetings say?

But if he is an autocrat, when is the uprising from within happening?

 

[BigGully]

But would anyone bankroll the club if they were not happy with the way Dick Knight was running things? Surely there would be an uprising and he would be ousted?

Fairpoint.......we will soon see.

Actually I dont wish DK any problems, but I am frustrated that a season that has shown some decent opportunity, with a young bright manager and similar team has hit the rails due to contract failures.

Savage ( not great granted ) however currently a good foil for Forster, who is key to this season.

Callaghan shows some class and experience.

Hammond, probably not his best this season but still a very very good player.

Would it not of been better to try and keep things together. Players do not generally go public unless the group have some issues.

It would of taken a little time, encouragement, humility and a few more bob.

Well lets see where we go from here.

 

[SI 4 BHA]

Both O'Callaghan and Richards have been offered loan deals for the rest of the season and it seems Ipswich have agreed to this but neither player seems to be happy with that. They both think they have done enough here to interest other clubs who can afford them. That's their choice and there's sod all we can do about it.

As they are both from a proper club, in the championship, it is a certainty that they are being paid far more by Ipswich than we could afford if we were to sign them, so an extension of their loans is the only way to keep them here. We cannot afford to offer them proper contracts.

As for Bas, we have been talking to him for 2 months about his contract and he has been offered a reasonable deal - at least equal to some of the other senior pros at the club. He's not that good, even as a novelty act, to break open the clubs wage structure. I liked the way his agent dismissed the offer of a couple of tanks of petrol a week as insignificant - probably worth around £100 per week extra based on current fuel prices, so if we've offered him £50k that still equal to an extra 10% - maybe not a fortune, but not so insignificant to most of you out there, I would have thought. Perhaps we offered him £100k, then the fuel is only 5%, but should we really be paying Baz that kind of money?

Finally, Dean Hammond - a decent player who I'm sure will eventually sign an extended contract with us but a totally diferent case to the other 3. This is not leaving it to the last minute by the club, I'm sure they will have been in talks with Dean's agent for several months and in all probability an offer will have already been made but lets not necessarily blame the club for the lack of action. Dean is in a very strong position here, there is no rush on his part to sign a new deal with the Albion, many of you have already said he could possibly get a championship club or a better league 1 outfit so if I were his agent there's no way I would be advising my client to sign anything at this time especially as he is a free agent in 6 months time.

 

[Freddie Goodwin.]

EUREKA!

Have just solved the problem and it was all so simple......

.....if the club would just raise Withdean prices by a few £ we could settle all those demands.

Everyone happy with that?