The Tim Sherwood Thread

[Wainy316]

It amuses me that those buyout clauses are still viewed as a negative.

In both Benteke and Delph's situations, they were a benefit to us.

It doesn't feel like one when as a fan it's dropped on you as a bombshell. We should be given this information when a contract is signed, obviously rival clubs have access to it so no use in not making it public.

[romavillan]

I'd argue that in Delph's case it was not a benefit, unless it being set at the value was the only reason he signed his last contract with us. He could and should have commanded a higher fee, Man City could have forked out more for a bench warmer. They have in the past.

Benteke, 100% benefit yes, it made it clear that the price was set and no haggling would bring it down.

 

 

[YLN]

I'd argue that in Delph's case it was not a benefit, unless it being set at the value was the only reason he signed his last contract with us. 

 

 

Edited October 12, 2015 by YLN

[Stevo985]

I'd argue that in Delph's case it was not a benefit, unless it being set at the value was the only reason he signed his last contract with us. He could and should have commanded a higher fee, Man City could have forked out more for a bench warmer. They have in the past.

Benteke, 100% benefit yes, it made it clear that the price was set and no haggling would bring it down.

 

 

Of course it was. Why on earth else would we put it in there?

I think we often forget that people in charge of football clubs do, on the whole, know what they're doing. We get caught up in the pantomime of it all.

There's no way that clause was put in there for any other reason than Delph wouldn't sign the contract without it. The guys in charge of the contracts at the club didn't just chuck it in there for a laugh.

Without it, Delph would have left in the summer anyway. But he would have left for free.

[Guest av1]

I'd argue that in Delph's case it was not a benefit, unless it being set at the value was the only reason he signed his last contract with us. He could and should have commanded a higher fee, Man City could have forked out more for a bench warmer. They have in the past.

Benteke, 100% benefit yes, it made it clear that the price was set and no haggling would bring it down.

 

 

Of course it was. Why on earth else would we put it in there?

I think we often forget that people in charge of football clubs do, on the whole, know what they're doing. We get caught up in the pantomime of it all.

There's no way that clause was put in there for any other reason than Delph wouldn't sign the contract without it. The guys in charge of the contracts at the club didn't just chuck it in there for a laugh.

Without it, Delph would have left in the summer anyway. But he would have left for free.

Why are people still struggling with this?

[SikhInTrinity]

He's a goner for me, he's obviously created this whole charade of blaming Reilly for buying the players, The Mail went as far as listing who had bought which player whether it was Reilly or Sherwood. Alan Brazil (Wilkins mate) this morning mentioning that Sherwood didn't buy the players, there is a huge rift at the club and sooner rather than later think Sherwood is gone, but thing the board are looking at possible replacements.

[hippo]

He's a goner for me, he's obviously created this whole charade of blaming Reilly for buying the players, The Mail went as far as listing who had bought which player whether it was Reilly or Sherwood. Alan Brazil (Wilkins mate) this morning mentioning that Sherwood didn't buy the players, there is a huge rift at the club and sooner rather than later think Sherwood is gone, but thing the board are looking at possible replacements.

Of course he is - the annoying thing is the club have once more pissed about - and the one guy who could really help us has now joined sunderland - I despair......

[Isa]

The failure lay in allowing Delph to enter the final year of his contract. Once that happened, securing even a greatly reduced fee in the face of a looming bosman move was the best the club could have managed in that situation. Shame that Delph soured his exit as he did because it was a nice gesture.

[SikhInTrinity]

He's a goner for me, he's obviously created this whole charade of blaming Reilly for buying the players, The Mail went as far as listing who had bought which player whether it was Reilly or Sherwood. Alan Brazil (Wilkins mate) this morning mentioning that Sherwood didn't buy the players, there is a huge rift at the club and sooner rather than later think Sherwood is gone, but thing the board are looking at possible replacements.

Of course he is - the annoying thing is the club have once more pissed about - and the one guy who could really help us has now joined sunderland - I despair......

I don't get the love in for Sam, for one we don't have the players for him IMO. Let's also not forget Fat Sam record post January at West Ham was shocking.

[romavillan]

I'd argue that in Delph's case it was not a benefit, unless it being set at the value was the only reason he signed his last contract with us. 

 

 

You're saying I'm handsome right?

[romavillan]

I'd argue that in Delph's case it was not a benefit, unless it being set at the value was the only reason he signed his last contract with us. He could and should have commanded a higher fee, Man City could have forked out more for a bench warmer. They have in the past.

Benteke, 100% benefit yes, it made it clear that the price was set and no haggling would bring it down.

 

 

Of course it was. Why on earth else would we put it in there?

I think we often forget that people in charge of football clubs do, on the whole, know what they're doing. We get caught up in the pantomime of it all.

There's no way that clause was put in there for any other reason than Delph wouldn't sign the contract without it. The guys in charge of the contracts at the club didn't just chuck it in there for a laugh.

Without it, Delph would have left in the summer anyway. But he would have left for free.

Why are people still struggling with this?

Apparently because I'm stupid

Still, makes the whole big screen announcement all the more bonkers doesn't it? But I guess that's for another thread.

Sherwood though! Can't wait for the Chelsea game :S

[Kingman]

 

We were almost powerless to stop the mass exodus of the finer players Benteke, Delph, Cleverley, Vlaar etc due to clauses/finance packages offered/implemented either by previous management or the hierarchy.

There is not a chance that Benteke or Delph would have signed extensions without a buy-out clause.  Cleverley was never going to sign for us.  I suspect that Vlaar would only have signed for a massive hike in wages / long contract which given his previous and subsequent injury problems it seemed the right decision.

I'm no fan of the current heirarchy but I'm not sure that they could/should have done anything different

Laying any blame on Lambert (for this) seems bizarre in the extreme

 

Think you need to read fully the discussion throughout the thread what i replied to before you cherry pick points to raise that no ones mentioned but yourself! 

Just a thought Ta!

[PaulC]

Sherwoods looking like he'll get sacked according to the bookies. Wondering who is most likely to be replace him. 

5/2 on skybet hardly means he's going to be sacked.

[Richard]

when he is sacked as he most surely will be,  I think he'll be the first manager to leave and not keep his trap shut so that may be interesting

[BOF]

That's true but we've also established that we can't believe a word he says, so I'm not sure we'll be able to deduce much other than that he thinks it's everyone else's fault.

[Designer1]

when he is sacked as he most surely will be,  I think he'll be the first manager to leave and not keep his trap shut so that may be interesting

I've always thought that when he does leave there will be an explosion of shit throwing in all directions except for his own.

He hasn't got the class to go quietly imo.

[VillaCas]

 

We were almost powerless to stop the mass exodus of the finer players Benteke, Delph, Cleverley, Vlaar etc due to clauses/finance packages offered/implemented either by previous management or the hierarchy.

There is not a chance that Benteke or Delph would have signed extensions without a buy-out clause.  Cleverley was never going to sign for us.  I suspect that Vlaar would only have signed for a massive hike in wages / long contract which given his previous and subsequent injury problems it seemed the right decision.

I'm no fan of the current heirarchy but I'm not sure that they could/should have done anything different

Laying any blame on Lambert (for this) seems bizarre in the extreme

 

Think you need to read fully the discussion throughout the thread what i replied to before you cherry pick points to raise that no ones mentioned but yourself! 

Just a thought Ta!

I did read the whole thread but chose to answer that particular point

Not quite sure how you feel that you've been taken out of context? You've been quoted exactly?

 

[YLN]

when he is sacked as he most surely will be,  I think he'll be the first manager to leave and not keep his trap shut so that may be interesting

I've always thought that when he does leave there will be an explosion of shit throwing in all directions except for his own.

He hasn't got the class to go quietly imo.

Bollocks. He'll have confidentiality stipulations written all over his contract. He'd be a very poor man if he opened his mouth about anything with even the slightest importance after he gets the shove.

[Kingman]

 

We were almost powerless to stop the mass exodus of the finer players Benteke, Delph, Cleverley, Vlaar etc due to clauses/finance packages offered/implemented either by previous management or the hierarchy.

There is not a chance that Benteke or Delph would have signed extensions without a buy-out clause.  Cleverley was never going to sign for us.  I suspect that Vlaar would only have signed for a massive hike in wages / long contract which given his previous and subsequent injury problems it seemed the right decision.

I'm no fan of the current heirarchy but I'm not sure that they could/should have done anything different

Laying any blame on Lambert (for this) seems bizarre in the extreme

 

Think you need to read fully the discussion throughout the thread what i replied to before you cherry pick points to raise that no ones mentioned but yourself! 

Just a thought Ta!

I did read the whole thread but chose to answer that particular point

Not quite sure how you feel that you've been taken out of context? You've been quoted exactly?

 

As clean as a squid! 

[bose]

In positive news there has hardly been a mention of Sherwood on the OS (that I've seen) for the past week, for example no "manager on Monday" that they usually have. Grasping at straws here...