Prudence? I think not!

[Derby Canary 3]

Mixed messages. We are told that unlike our ''colleagues'' south of the border we prudently inserted ''relegation clauses'' in players contracts. It is now suggested that Naismith is on £50k per week. Plus other players are on ''substantially more than average Champ pay''. How much would these persistent underperformers been on in the unlikely event that we had stayed up? Some of them apparently have decided not to train this week. Prudence? I think not!

[Branston Pickle 3,637]

Yawn

[Morisons Prozac 0]

I mean do we actually know that he''s on 50k? IF you''re going by the S*n then its probably complete bull. Just look at the BBc story about O''Neill turning out to be complete rubbish

[pete 318]

Whether it is £40k or £50k whatever it is we would have needed to pay the likes of Naismith and Klose those sort of sums for them to join in January 2016. And with our record of relegation experts these players would not have entertained relegation clauses slashing their salaries. It is likely to be the case with players who joined in 2010/11 and resigned contracts would agree to such clauses e.g. Howson. Therefore we are unlikely to ever take advantage of such clauses unless we go for players from lower leagues.

[Guest]

Hang on guys, I thought we used to moan about Delia because she was so prudent with the purse strings? Are we now moaning about her because we''re throwing money around?!

It''s all so confusing...

[hogesar 9,618]

New angle, same sh*t post

[Chip20 69]

And all still conjecture and assumptions.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

I''m sure they were budgeted for, allowing for parachute payments.

 

The manager at the time was desperately keen to get Naismith and Klose to sign and clearly we ended up giving them more generous contracts to achieve that.  With hindsight neither has worked out, but that''s a different point.