AndyM3000 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 The club went with reducing the wage bill and looks like Lambert wanted a happy dressing room. It could upset some if they are all on 10k a week and he is on 40k, it shouldn't but it might. As far as his contract I dont see why we just dont agree pay him off for for say 25k a week? That way he can go play first team football somewhere and as long as he gets 15k a week he wont be losing any money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted February 21, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted February 21, 2014 I have always thought it would be harder to move a player on who is not getting any game time. Clubs generally don't want a player who hasn't played in nearly 2 years. I think if we had kept Hutton involved and used him as our back up right back when needed I think he would have been moved on by now. True up to a point, but there will always be a club if the finances were acceptable. Its really up to the player on how much he wants to play IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 21, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted February 21, 2014 Absolutly no sympathy for Hutton whatsoever. He knew the score yet decided not to get another loan due to money...shows what is important to him! Not sure you've read the article... Nothing to do with the article, just the predicament! But the article indicates he's been completely professional (From Lambert's quotes) and has been happy to go on loan or leave, but nobody's come in for him. Nowhere does it say that he's refused to go out on loan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted February 21, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) But the article indicates he's been completely professional (From Lambert's quotes) and has been happy to go on loan or leave, but nobody's come in for him. Nowhere does it say that he's refused to go out on loan. Towards the bottom of the piece.. and MirrorFootball reported in September that three Spanish clubs had looked at borrowing him in the summer window but could not agree terms Edited February 21, 2014 by Nigel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 I have always thought it would be harder to move a player on who is not getting any game time. Clubs generally don't want a player who hasn't played in nearly 2 years. I think if we had kept Hutton involved and used him as our back up right back when needed I think he would have been moved on by now. True up to a point, but there will always be a club if the finances were acceptable. Its really up to the player on how much he wants to play IMO. To be honest I recon I'd take the money over playing more as well. He will have been offered moves to Championship clubs for about the 3rd of the money he's on. There won't be much glory in dropping down a division so playing a game of football on Saturday probably doesn't hold that much of a pull. Realistically this is his last big contact in his life so he's bound to see it out if he can, especially if he signed a huge mortgage or car lease based on his current wage. Basically it comes down to this: He can set his family up for life if he stays will Villa or he can take a massive reduction on his income to play football on a Saturday for a couple of years before he retires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 But the article indicates he's been completely professional (From Lambert's quotes) and has been happy to go on loan or leave, but nobody's come in for him. Nowhere does it say that he's refused to go out on loan. Towards the bottom of the piece.. and MirrorFootball reported in September that three Spanish clubs had looked at borrowing him in the summer window but could not agree terms Could be the terms of the club, not the player (eg. Villa might want them to pay 50% of his wages and they were only willing to pay 25%) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 21, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted February 21, 2014 But the article indicates he's been completely professional (From Lambert's quotes) and has been happy to go on loan or leave, but nobody's come in for him. Nowhere does it say that he's refused to go out on loan. Towards the bottom of the piece.. and MirrorFootball reported in September that three Spanish clubs had looked at borrowing him in the summer window but could not agree terms Could be the terms of the club, not the player (eg. Villa might want them to pay 50% of his wages and they were only willing to pay 25%) Exactly. He gets his wages regardless, that's how loans work. If the club loaning him only want to pay 10k per week then he'd still get the extra from us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillanousOne Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 i don't get the bomb squad mentality. If we were Chelsea and could afford to sack off some of our most senior high paid players then fair enough. Unless all our contracts involve massive appearence fees then it feels like utter stupidity to keep paying large wages to players but not playing them. At the time McCleish left - Hutton had actually improved and was playing to a consistent level, not saying he was good but I still think he could add value to our fairly average current squad. We've clearly on principle (in my opinion) refused loans were clubs (mainly in spain in his case possibly) will only pay 10% of his wages. Now whist sticking to your guns on such matters is comendable - I think a loan even if we pay all his wages at least gets a player in the shop window. It feels like the same may have happened with Given, we've decided we don't want to do Borough any more favours and they won't pay more than the £10 a week they are giving us towards Shay's wages. So therefore we wang another few mil on him while he trains with the kids for a year. Dunne was another example, play him high wages all season then just at the point he gets fit, let him go on a free. Surely a fit Dunne alongside Vlaar in defence would have saved us a fair number of points? I maybe in a minority but I really feel that we have had to ship out huge sums of wages on existing players we no longer want. I don't see why we didn't keep those players in the squad - maybe rotate occasionally and play in cups. Rather than bombing them out or Darren Benting them. Aside from letting out of contract players go and selling those we could, I think the strategy around those we can't shift has actually just decreased player values and made us look like an arse. In many ways we have not improved without them, we have not replaced them adequately either. Even if we lost money to appearences, surely we'd have a better chance of getting rid of players. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 But the article indicates he's been completely professional (From Lambert's quotes) and has been happy to go on loan or leave, but nobody's come in for him. Nowhere does it say that he's refused to go out on loan. Towards the bottom of the piece.. and MirrorFootball reported in September that three Spanish clubs had looked at borrowing him in the summer window but could not agree terms Could be the terms of the club, not the player (eg. Villa might want them to pay 50% of his wages and they were only willing to pay 25%) Exactly. He gets his wages regardless, that's how loans work. If the club loaning him only want to pay 10k per week then he'd still get the extra from us. I expect in reality he continues to get his money from Villa each week as normal, the percentage that the loaning club pays happens as a transaction in the background to AVFC. The players wage slip looks the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 I think it's pretty obvious that there must be appearance fees built in to his deal, on that basis I'm happy for him to rot in the youth team, ideally he'd just piss off but if it's a choice between involving him and costing us further funds then no, leave him where he is and let his career dwindle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 I think it's pretty obvious that there must be appearance fees built in to his deal So we gave him a large wage and a large appearance bonus. Good job we started running things better once MON left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 I was trying to think of the player we recently stiffed in a similar fashion and I've just remembered, it was Curtis Davies. Refused to play him because he was due a payrise in the terms of his contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliffy Biro Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Hardly stiffed, if these players were worth it im sure they would be playing for us now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulver Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Where's the logic in not picking someone just because they earn too much ? Especially when you're still paying it them whether you pick them or not. Mental Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
switters Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Where's the logic in not picking someone just because they earn too much ? Especially when you're still paying it them whether you pick them or not. Mental it suggests either he gets an appearance fee as part of his contract, or that once he reaches a certain number of appearances there's some clause that kicks in which we really don't want to happen (pay rise? automatic renewal of contract?). or Lambert's just using it as an excuse to try and convince someone to take on Hutton, even though he's clearly crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 I think it's pretty obvious that there must be appearance fees built in to his deal So we gave him a large wage and a large appearance bonus. Good job we started running things better once MON left. I don't know why you keep making this point, because no one has claimed that the club suddenly started being well run when he left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Hardly stiffed, if these players were worth it im sure they would be playing for us now. Curtis delayed an operation to his shoulder so that he could continue to be available for Villa when we needed him. Then when he got 1 game away from his payrise we offloaded him. I can only imagine it is a similar situation here, we offered a deal and now have since decided we'd rather waste £40,000 each week by not even considering him for selection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 I think it's pretty obvious that there must be appearance fees built in to his deal So we gave him a large wage and a large appearance bonus. Good job we started running things better once MON left. I don't know why you keep making this point, because no one has claimed that the club suddenly started being well run when he left. No they've just blamed the last few years on him instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomaspg Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Hes probably not getting picked because he wont be staying. Might aswell let the kids we have get playtime as they are our future, they need to pick up as much experienced as possible to help them improve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 I think it's pretty obvious that there must be appearance fees built in to his deal So we gave him a large wage and a large appearance bonus. Good job we started running things better once MON left. I don't know why you keep making this point, because no one has claimed that the club suddenly started being well run when he left. No they've just blamed the last few years on him instead. Who has blamed everything on him? I can't think of one person that's done that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts