Shrews reject joins

green_genie wrote:

We're back in Sturrock Mk II arena again looking for wee gems from the permanently injured, tainted and bad attitudes.

Some will work out, some won't.

Question is, why are we looking here when a 55% turnover budget should allow less gambling, even before unbudgeted windfalls

Brent/akercon, has trousered two million quid recently and yet Adams is forced to go through the Torquay southend shrewsbury dustbins, looking for scraps, is this Green Si Hallets, idea of going up through the gears?

zyph wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

Go back to sleep Zyph

Honestly is that the best you can do.....didn't you realize that some of us when getting older need less sleep...about 5 or 5.5 hours a night will do me.

would you like me to try?

Graiser wrote:

Don't understand this wish to know the length of contracts

I bet you've lived a life of secure employment. You sound the sort. Yet, you don't wish it for others.

beesrus wrote:

Graiser wrote:

Don't understand this wish to know the length of contracts

I bet you've lived a life of secure employment. You sound the sort. Yet, you don't wish it for others.

G Spot, loves to tug his forelock and leave it all up to Master Jimmy to decide

It seems no signing is too shit for the brentophiles. Brent going for the big mid-table push.

beesrus wrote:

Graiser wrote:

Don't understand this wish to know the length of contracts

I bet you've lived a life of secure employment. You sound the sort. Yet, you don't wish it for others.

The contract between employee and employer is confidential. It is an offence under the DPA to share that sort of info without the approval of the employee. How, from one statement, can you assess someone as living a life of secure employment? Beats me.

It's easy, one just has to listen to the mood music emanating. Armed forces would be my guess for you and your mate.

Antoni Sarcevic is not someone i know much about so im willing to see how he does.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Sarcevic playing for Fleetwood Town in 2013 - Photo Source: Wiki



A former youth player with Manchester City (2000–2008), who then went on to play for Woodley Sports (2008-10). He then moved to Crewe Alexandra, where he scored one in 12 (2010-11), before moving  to Chester, on loan at first (2011-13). Between 2013–2016 he played for Fleetwood, eventually going to Shrewsbury in 2016, where he played 10.


His goal record for Chester was 15 in 60 (2011-13) and for Fleetwood it was 18 in 118 (2013-16). Scored a goal for England C in 2013.

Youtube Footage

He could add something to the squad I suppose, if he can rekindle his mojo.

LINK

Decent amount of League 1 experience, including some games this season. On paper he looks like a decent signing.

beesrus wrote:

Graiser wrote:

Don't understand this wish to know the length of contracts

I bet you've lived a life of secure employment. You sound the sort. Yet, you don't wish it for others.

What are you on ? I don't need to know the length of any players contract nor they mine.
I don't recall reading that Derek or Brent got any player in headlock forcing them to sign a contract.
These players have agents looking after them, so if they choose to sign for 6 months or 6 years, they choose to do it and good luck to them whatever they sign up for.
My sort as you so eloquently put it, has indeed worked for over 50 years and worked fecking hard at it as well, if you see that as an issue then I pity you.

beesrus wrote:

It's easy, one just has to listen to the mood music emanating. Armed forces would be my guess for you and your mate.

Bleddy Hell you don't half write some crap.

beesrus wrote:

It's easy, one just has to listen to the mood music emanating. Armed forces would be my guess for you and your mate.

Forces for Tiger, Demport Dockyard or BR for Graiser at a guess

Les Miserable wrote:

beesrus wrote:

It's easy, one just has to listen to the mood music emanating. Armed forces would be my guess for you and your mate.

Forces for Tiger, Demport Dockyard or BR for Graiser at a guess

Yep, about right, and I'm happy for them. All workers should have security of employment at least according to the industry norm that they are in. That's 2 years + in pro football.
What a shame some who benefit from such security don't see the common sense of allowing it for others. Apparently the logic goes you can't trust these people if you put 2 years on their deal. Madness, and 12 months is an insult to skilled employees. It's the sort of deal you give to a yoof YTS player, who's just had his boots donated by pasoti.
Employees are human and no wonder the wheels came off last year when no one was even being given a promise of a deal for the year ahead just a couple of months before the end of their contract. Shameful..

His contract is probably the same as the others 1 year with the option of a futher 1 year added on automatically. or in his case 6 months with a year added on if required.

beesrus wrote:

Les Miserable wrote:

beesrus wrote:

It's easy, one just has to listen to the mood music emanating. Armed forces would be my guess for you and your mate.

Forces for Tiger, Demport Dockyard or BR for Graiser at a guess

Yep, about right, and I'm happy for them. All workers should have security of employment at least according to the industry norm that they are in. That's 2 years + in pro football.
What a shame some who benefit from such security don't see the common sense of allowing it for others. Apparently the logic goes you can't trust these people if you put 2 years on their deal. Madness, and 12 months is an insult to skilled employees. It's the sort of deal you give to a yoof YTS player, who's just had his boots donated by pasoti.
Employees are human and no wonder the wheels came off last year when no one was even being given a promise of a deal for the year ahead just a couple of months before the end of their contract. Shameful..

If you feel that strongly about T&C's why not take your high moral stance to Mike Ashley and his ilk who dish out zero hours contracts, now that's what I call shameful.
Offer a player a contract, his agent negotiates, the player accepts or moves on, no gun at his head, no big deal.

beesrus wrote:

Les Miserable wrote:

beesrus wrote:

It's easy, one just has to listen to the mood music emanating. Armed forces would be my guess for you and your mate.

Forces for Tiger, Demport Dockyard or BR for Graiser at a guess

Yep, about right, and I'm happy for them. All workers should have security of employment at least according to the industry norm that they are in. That's 2 years + in pro football.
What a shame some who benefit from such security don't see the common sense of allowing it for others. Apparently the logic goes you can't trust these people if you put 2 years on their deal. Madness, and 12 months is an insult to skilled employees. It's the sort of deal you give to a yoof YTS player, who's just had his boots donated by pasoti.
Employees are human and no wonder the wheels came off last year when no one was even being given a promise of a deal for the year ahead just a couple of months before the end of their contract. Shameful..

If you feel that strongly about T&C's why not take your high moral stance to Mike Ashley and his ilk who dish out zero hours contracts, now that's what I call shameful.
Offer a player a contract, his agent negotiates, the player accepts or moves on, no gun at his head, no big deal.

Les Miserable wrote:

beesrus wrote:

It's easy, one just has to listen to the mood music emanating. Armed forces would be my guess for you and your mate.

Forces for Tiger, Demport Dockyard or BR for Graiser at a guess

BR ? I may know him

tigertony wrote:

beesrus wrote:

Graiser wrote:

Don't understand this wish to know the length of contracts

I bet you've lived a life of secure employment. You sound the sort. Yet, you don't wish it for others.

The contract between employee and employer is confidential. It is an offence under the DPA to share that sort of info without the approval of the employee. How, from one statement, can you assess someone as living a life of secure employment? Beats me.

The Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) provides that personal data must not be processed unless at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 of the DPA is met. The Schedule 2 conditions which are most likely to apply in an employment context include:
◾where the data subject has given his or her consent to processing;
◾where processing is necessary for the performance of the employment contract;
◾where processing is necessary for compliance with any legal obligation (other than an obligation imposed by contract); and
◾where processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject.

PatDunne wrote:

tigertony wrote:

beesrus wrote:

Graiser wrote:

Don't understand this wish to know the length of contracts

I bet you've lived a life of secure employment. You sound the sort. Yet, you don't wish it for others.

The contract between employee and employer is confidential. It is an offence under the DPA to share that sort of info without the approval of the employee. How, from one statement, can you assess someone as living a life of secure employment? Beats me.

The Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) provides that personal data must not be processed unless at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 of the DPA is met. The Schedule 2 conditions which are most likely to apply in an employment context include:
◾where the data subject has given his or her consent to processing;
◾where processing is necessary for the performance of the employment contract;
◾where processing is necessary for compliance with any legal obligation (other than an obligation imposed by contract); and
◾where processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject.

Thank you for confirming my comment. The other 3 are not valid in this case.

The employees rights under DPA are completely irrelevant in this case. It's in the players interest for the length of contract to be known and it's in the employers interest for it not be known, for the simple reason if he turns out to be any good he is a stronger bargaining position to ask for money.

Anyway you can almost bet your house on the fact that he's given 6 months. If that.

Flat_Track_Bully wrote:

Decent amount of League 1 experience, including some games this season. On paper he looks like a decent signing.

In Derek we trust!

Flat_Track_Bully wrote:

Decent amount of League 1 experience, including some games this season. On paper he looks like a decent signing.

Hope the fella does well..but you play football on grass not on paper

beesrus wrote:

Les Miserable wrote:

beesrus wrote:

It's easy, one just has to listen to the mood music emanating. Armed forces would be my guess for you and your mate.

Forces for Tiger, Demport Dockyard or BR for Graiser at a guess

Yep, about right, and I'm happy for them. All workers should have security of employment at least according to the industry norm that they are in. That's 2 years + in pro football.
What a shame some who benefit from such security don't see the common sense of allowing it for others. Apparently the logic goes you can't trust these people if you put 2 years on their deal. Madness, and 12 months is an insult to skilled employees. It's the sort of deal you give to a yoof YTS player, who's just had his boots donated by pasoti.
Employees are human and no wonder the wheels came off last year when no one was even being given a promise of a deal for the year ahead just a couple of months before the end of their contract. Shameful..

Where did that come from?
Nobody:
- makes a person apply for a job
- stops a person reading the small print about contract, pensions, holidays etc
- makes someone accept a job
- makes someone stay in a job
Personal choice! But, at the end of the day, no job is secure. A longer contract just means that should your job go then you should be in line for more redundancy pay.
You have no idea at all about how secure my job is, Graisers job is or even Freathy's job. No idea at all.
Finally - me and armed forces. Would you trust me with a gun, missile or a nuke? Stay off the pop