Contracts

Angry has been very vocal on his worry about the 'austerity Brent' regime this summer. Specifically the one year deals a lot (if not all) of our players are now on.

It is quite evident Carey is blessed with two quick feet, a great accurate passing range and is a big threat on set pieces. He has come from the SPL to League Two moving into the prime of his career and he is an absolute gem at this level. We will need have use for him in League One if we ever get there, and will need him just as much if we are still here in 12 months time

Jervis is a handy player. Fast, tall, direct, versatile and can bring goals into the side.

We have other players like Hartley, Nelson and McHugh who we can't afford to lose in the summer.

Surely it is time to be offering some of these players deal until 2017?

All five newbies are on one year contracts which have the option for us to extend for a further year. As we did at the end of last season with Hartley and Bentley. So no great concern there, what we do want to be doing however is organising that kind of precontract trigger clause into the contracts of Hartley, McHugh, Nelson, Reuben, etc. Although its really really early days to be considering this.

We appear to have players who could play in a higher league. So it shouldn't be a problem quite yet because we are going up. However we don't want our best players arriving at Jan 1st still on a 1 year contract. Mid November the time to start signing them up.

ejh wrote:

Angry has been very vocal on his worry about the 'austerity Brent' regime this summer. Specifically the one year deals a lot (if not all) of our players are now on.

It is quite evident Carey is blessed with two quick feet, a great accurate passing range and is a big threat on set pieces. He has come from the SPL to League Two moving into the prime of his career and he is an absolute gem at this level. We will need have use for him in League One if we ever get there, and will need him just as much if we are still here in 12 months time

Jervis is a handy player. Fast, tall, direct, versatile and can bring goals into the side.

We have other players like Hartley, Nelson and McHugh who we can't afford to lose in the summer.

Surely it is time to be offering some of these players deal until 2017?

Angry or anyone else has good reason to be concerned about ' austerity Brent'! the january window when all our loans return to their clubs will be met with the Headless chicken routine that happened last year, Adams is a good enough manager to get us promoted by the looks of it, but will he get real backing from Jimmy? i doubt it.

The better these chaps play then the chance of being flogged for a Plymouth price also rears it's ugly head.

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

All five newbies are on one year contracts which have the option for us to extend for a further year. As we did at the end of last season with Hartley and Bentley. So no great concern there, what we do want to be doing however is organising that kind of precontract trigger clause into the contracts of Hartley, McHugh, Nelson, Reuben, etc. Although its really really early days to be considering this.

Is it a fact that Argyle are in a position to trigger 12 month extensions at the club's discretion? With no negotiation with the player on terms? Seems odd that all the new signings agreed to that.

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

All five newbies are on one year contracts which have the option for us to extend for a further year. As we did at the end of last season with Hartley and Bentley. So no great concern there, what we do want to be doing however is organising that kind of precontract trigger clause into the contracts of Hartley, McHugh, Nelson, Reuben, etc. Although its really really early days to be considering this.

I wasn't aware of that. Smart play if that's the case. Have you got a link to where that was stated?

One thing has to be remembered. If any player plays well enough to be a really saleable asset, who will "profit" from that ?
We're already well aware that 50% of any unbudgeted income goes to paying down debt, but what most don't realise is this paying down debt early can only increase the value of Saint James' investment when he comes to sell. One might as well just give half of any transfer fee or cup run to Saint James. Think about it.
I'm surprised nobody has picked up on it, but there you go, this is Plymouth.

That becomes less and less of an issue as time goes on.

On leaving admin there was a 5 year deal and we must be nearing the end of it, on top of which there was the £800k loan business which would have settled some of the owings.

So it is a factor but it's a diminishing one.

I'd much prefer that we stopped trotting out admin debts as an excuse for anything. It is a factor but it shouldn't be carte blanche to excuse all the penny pinching that goes on.

That said with no proper accounts being published who knows exactly what is going on? Anything could be happening.

... and the money loaned by the GT's that needs repaying?

How much is that by now? Anyone got a guess? Must be a considerable sum, that needs repaying by when to avoid a tax liability to HMRC?

Maybe the AFT could ask?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

That becomes less and less of an issue as time goes on.

On leaving admin there was a 5 year deal and we must be nearing the end of it, on top of which there was the £800k loan business which would have settled some of the owings.

So it is a factor but it's a diminishing one.

I'd much prefer that we stopped trotting out admin debts as an excuse for anything. It is a factor but it shouldn't be carte blanche to excuse all the penny pinching that goes on.

That said with no proper accounts being published who knows exactly what is going on? Anything could be happening.

I'm certainly not excusing anything Brent does, far from it. I'm pointing out a wheeze that has been going on since the club was bought. In effect, some of what would normally be the annual playing budget is being spirited away to pay down debt, and thus increase the value of Brent's asset ( and partly Wrathall's now, I would assume )
And you continue to ignore the millions owing to the former owners, or do you think they're just going to walk away with nothing, receiving less than the unsecured minnows ?  Get real Frank. Ridsdale was there to act on their behalf, no one else.
When the "5 year deal" ends, the club will no doubt then be asked for interest on the millions owed as is their legal right according to the loan note detail published, if not some of the principal as well.
Anything that reduces what the club owes, outside of the "playing budget, will have the effect of increasing any sale price of the club. That's bulk standard simple economics.
As for Brent penny pinching, of course he is. He's a Tory, he can't help it. They're not interested in quality of product, just the bottom line. His playing budget at Argyle is the equivalent of Thatcher famously coming up with the idea of putting air in ice cream.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

That said with no proper accounts being published who knows exactly what is going on? Anything could be happening.

Wasn't the AFT supposed to have a representative on the Board of the club, even if a non voting one, to be aware of the financial details on a continual basis to make sure shysters in the boardroom never pull the wool over the eyes of the supporters ever again?

Whatever happened to that idea/promise?

Have the AFT got any clue what the club's current debt obligations are, when the deadlines are, and what the season income/expenditure figures are?

I think you'll find the cost of that little ruse was £400K. The AFT, when it actually had some balls, actually turned down that wonderful offer. £400K and no voting rights whatsoever, and not necessarily privy to all the board decisions and discussions.

They weren't even offered what the Tory model Green taverners were offered ..... pound for pound a community asset somewhere in and around HHP for everything donated. As Rickler says, that must be a fair old sum now. And much that the AFT raises goes through the Taverners as well, like the painting thing. So who's to say the Taverners, and not the Trust, will benefit from that one ?

Czarcasm wrote:

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

All five newbies are on one year contracts which have the option for us to extend for a further year. As we did at the end of last season with Hartley and Bentley. So no great concern there, what we do want to be doing however is organising that kind of precontract trigger clause into the contracts of Hartley, McHugh, Nelson, Reuben, etc. Although its really really early days to be considering this.

I wasn't aware of that. Smart play if that's the case. Have you got a link to where that was stated?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Indeed, smart business really. I'm amazed the players agreed to it personally, but supposedly it's the reason we didn't get Norris so p'raps not all targets were acquired. Regardless we've a good set of players and Adams has recruited well.

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

All five newbies are on one year contracts which have the option for us to extend for a further year. As we did at the end of last season with Hartley and Bentley. So no great concern there, what we do want to be doing however is organising that kind of precontract trigger clause into the contracts of Hartley, McHugh, Nelson, Reuben, etc. Although its really really early days to be considering this.

I wasn't aware of that. Smart play if that's the case. Have you got a link to where that was stated?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Indeed, smart business really. I'm amazed the players agreed to it personally, but supposedly it's the reason we didn't get Norris so p'raps not all targets were acquired. Regardless we've a good set of players and Adams has recruited well.

The terms seem vague. Could be appearances, goals, or whatever.

What if the players fail to meet the contract targets but we want to keep them? Or is fantastic for half a season and injured the other half?

The other issue is the several decent players DA inherited from Shez we don't want to be losing. McCormick, Nelson, Hartley, McHugh, Reuben.

Like Angry has been saying all summer, the one year contract policy might punish us if we don't stay on top of it. It is naive to think our best players won't be receiving the tapping up calls from agents and clubs at Christmas when they see they are free in the summer.

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

All five newbies are on one year contracts which have the option for us to extend for a further year. As we did at the end of last season with Hartley and Bentley. So no great concern there, what we do want to be doing however is organising that kind of precontract trigger clause into the contracts of Hartley, McHugh, Nelson, Reuben, etc. Although its really really early days to be considering this.

I wasn't aware of that. Smart play if that's the case. Have you got a link to where that was stated?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Indeed, smart business really. I'm amazed the players agreed to it personally, but supposedly it's the reason we didn't get Norris so p'raps not all targets were acquired. Regardless we've a good set of players and Adams has recruited well.

Thanks for that, I hadn't read that before. Hopefully the clause is water tight, so that in a situation whereby another club goes after (for example) a star performing Carey or a Jervis towards the end of the year, we simply invoke the extension to ensure even if they do leave, we get a decent fee.

It's not just the new players on 1 year deals the whole squad is out of contract come May. They are all ripe for the picking come jan if the club doesn't act now and get the key guys signed and sealed for longer periods 2-3 years.

Options only put off the vultures for a year only

Better one year contract than a six month loan deal.

Czarcasm wrote:

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

All five newbies are on one year contracts which have the option for us to extend for a further year. As we did at the end of last season with Hartley and Bentley. So no great concern there, what we do want to be doing however is organising that kind of precontract trigger clause into the contracts of Hartley, McHugh, Nelson, Reuben, etc. Although its really really early days to be considering this.

I wasn't aware of that. Smart play if that's the case. Have you got a link to where that was stated?

Sorry if this has been mentioned elsewhere but once you have the link is someone able to confirm whether the option is binding. Argyle may well have an option but does the player?

Why would the option matter a toss if someone comes in with "an offer that we couldn't refuse" in January ? Hourihane had a full year on his contract when he was sold, as did many of the players sold in the 2007/8 era.And Derek Adams says in that article that "there can be a second year"-presumably that would be speaking from the club point of view. OK, but what about from the players point of view? Say if Carey has a brilliant season and a championship club comes in for him, offering him better wages and general prospects which inevitably he would accept. Where would be the advantage of an option on the contract in that case or have I missed something here? Incentivised contracts are a good idea IMHO-Swansea used them extensively in their rise up the leagues but it's a safe bet to say that they were longer than one year deals.

The option could be activated to bump up the price so I guess there is that plus. But you are right basically .

Angry wrote:

The option could be activated to bump up the price so I guess there is that plus. But you are right basically .

Like with Hourihane? Turning down the initial bid of £100k, before haggling a Plymouth price of £200k to buy out the year on his contract.

Meanwhile Exeter negotiate £2m for Matt Grimes.

Mind you, if Argyle carry on in such a hugely improved manner, it won't be the players we have to worry about, but Adams himself.
In a few months he could be THE most successful youngest manager in the land, and in demand. I have to say I'm most impressed with how he has hit the ground running in such short order, and how he has conducted himself. He appears to be a natural.
Radio 4 (The Workplace ) tonight was discussing the problem of disappearing loyalty in the modern UK economy in general. I don't think Adams was very impressed with the loyalty shown to him by Ross County.

He's also not a fan of "Bouncy castles and face painting".  Happily rather at odds with Brent's family vision for Argyle

Hourihane's contract was up at the end of that season and as he was 23 years old he would have gone for nothing.

If Grimes was 23 then Exeter would have got nothing like the fee they did. He was 19.

Big difference.

ejh wrote:

Angry wrote:

The option could be activated to bump up the price so I guess there is that plus. But you are right basically .

Like with Hourihane? Turning down the initial bid of £100k, before haggling a Plymouth price of £200k to buy out the year on his contract.

Meanwhile Exeter negotiate £2m for Matt Grimes.

Baffles me though? If Excretia got so much cash why are the fans group subbing a players wages?
DA did say that ''players have to earn a longer contract''