Matt Jarvis

[ReadingCanary 0]

According to TransferMarket Matt Jarvis is now unlikely to return from injury until early 2018. Meaning he’s only played 19 games since joining in 2015... I believe he’s also only scored 2goals...

Does anyone know if we are still paying this bloke the reported 20k+ a week or is there some sort of clause in his contract reducing his wages due to not actually playing

We might as well be burning the money behind the bins at Carrow road .

[FenwayFrank 2,718]

“is there some sort of clause in his contract reducing his wages due to not actually playing“

What makes you think there would be a clause like that and do you think he would have signed if there was ? His wages would have dropped when we were relegated the same as all the other players.

[king canary 8,905]

He''ll still be being paid, just won''t be getting any of the appearance and goal bonuses that are usually in players contracts.

[Rolf Harris 33]

Aren''t players insured by the club?

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="Rolf Harris"]Aren''t players insured by the club?[/quote]Had a ''google'', amongst other stuff I found this, anyone know if it''s correct?

Many players are covered through their clubs for 18 months of injury

but may lose out on bonuses and other incentives which a player relies

on.

The ''total disablement'' element is defined as an injury which prevents a player from playing as they are contracted to.

The premiums are based upon the value of a players contract which is

usually around 5 or 6 times the annual salary of a player, however this

is dependant upon the individual circumstances of the player. Other

factors such as the players age, position played and at what level and

with which club are also taken into consideration.

[GJP 79]

I''ve heard we''re going to extend his contract.

[nutty nigel 7,958]

I would think he''s still going to work but is unavailable for selection. So wouldn''t he still be paid except for the payments related to appearances?

[AJ 1,376]

I would think so Nutty, he''ll be doing rehab and stuff. It''s not like he''s on vacation. Yes he''s getting paid and not appearing, but I''m sure he''s very frustrated by his situation and very much wants to play

[Baldyboy 1]

I would love to know how many minutes he’s actually played for us and someone to work out exactly how much per minute it’s actually cost us?

I really cannot understand why the club hasn’t paid up his contract especially when they went on and on in the Summer about how we had to save money!

[capricorn1 18]

How would paying up his contract save us money?

How about this scenario, we pay up his contract, he gets fit and then signs with a rival for free and starts banging in the goals.

[AJ 1,376]

Baldy, basing it on League alone, he signed on loan for us in September 2015 and was in the match day squad for all of the first 11 games (minus Vs his parents West Ham of course) before getting injured and missing ten games, before returning to feature in all match squads until the end of the season. During 15/16 he played a total of 1093 minutes out of a possible 1980 he was available to be selected.

16/17 he missed the entire season with injury never featuring for the first team.

17/18 he has remained injured and is yet to feature.

So, in total, he has played in 22/99 games in the league, offering a total of 1093/8910 minutes available.

His transfer fee was supposedly £2.5M so it means based on that fee he has cost £2,287 per minute.

[Liquidator 0]

The suggestion that he could be paid less (other than missing out on bonuses) because he''s injured is ludicrous, and surely not legal?

Imagine if someone like James Maddison went and got a career-ending injury next week without even the protection of the remainder of his contract being paid. Preposterous and surely not legal.

[daly 553]

Donald Trump would not put up with this

Send him to Guantanamo Bay to recuperate

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="AJ"]Baldy, basing it on League alone, he signed on loan for us in September 2015 and was in the match day squad for all of the first 11 games (minus Vs his parents West Ham of course) before getting injured and missing ten games, before returning to feature in all match squads until the end of the season. During 15/16 he played a total of 1093 minutes out of a possible 1980 he was available to be selected.

16/17 he missed the entire season with injury never featuring for the first team.

17/18 he has remained injured and is yet to feature.

So, in total, he has played in 22/99 games in the league, offering a total of 1093/8910 minutes available.

His transfer fee was supposedly £2.5M so it means based on that fee he has cost £2,287 per minute.[/quote]How much of that will be recouped in insurance?

[nutty nigel 7,958]

Of course it''s not legal. Some of the stuff I''ve seen posted on here is ridiculous nonsense. When I saw Matt Jarvis at Colney last year i felt sorry for him. He still has to work. Just can''t work with his workmates. If I think back to when I worked in a factory it''s like getting a sh!t job working on your own. I would guess he''d much rather not be injured.

How would paying off his contract be cheaper than paying it until it ends? Surely paying it off out of one player budget would have a more negative impact on club finances.

[AJ 1,376]

Besides, it''s a commitment from the club to player and vice versa. It''s not Matt''s fault he''s in this situation, I''m sure he''s worked hard to keep himself fit, eats healthily, shows up to the club on time every day he''s asked to etc. etc.

I''m sure if any of you guys got injured and couldn''t do your normal working task, you wouldn''t appreciate your company paying you off and leaving you out of work! This situation is no different.

I really liked Jarvis when we signed him, he actually played quite well for us during his first season. Just a shame last year was a complete write-off, hopefully he can stay fit once he''s back as we certainly need some competition for Murphy and Wildschut as wingers

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,234]

Somebody at the footy on Tuesday was saying that WHU are still paying him £16K a week, not sure if this is true though.........

[king canary 8,905]

I''m fairly sure if you were off long term sick you''d be on statutory pay,i imagine Jarvis isn''t though. I''m sure he''s frustrated and it''s not his fault he was signed. Whoever signed off the deal needs their head examined though.

[peter-plastic 0]

The guy must have gone through some pretty low times. if I was injured for just a few weeks, at his age, and could not participate in the sports I loved, I felt pretty miserable and frustrated, to be honest. 2 seasons for a professional sports person must be hell. I am sure he has had to reevaluate many things about the way his career is likely to turn out too. sure we can all be jealous about his salary, but I would imagine the injuries are the very last thing he would have wished for himself.

[peter-plastic 0]

Sorry, I was taught to use capitals at the beginning of a sentence. It seems my phone won''t auto correct So I have to do myself.

[nutty nigel 7,958]

[quote user="king canary"]I''m fairly sure if you were off long term sick you''d be on statutory pay,i imagine Jarvis isn''t though. I''m sure he''s frustrated and it''s not his fault he was signed. Whoever signed off the deal needs their head examined though.[/quote]

Who knows. but the bloke isn''t off sick Kingo. He''s doing everything that his employers ask. If you went to work and did everything your employers asked of you you''d be pretty miffed if they stopped paying you...

[TIL 1010 5,296]

[quote user="Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB"]Somebody at the footy on Tuesday was saying that WHU are still paying him £16K a week, not sure if this is true though.........[/quote]That might have been the case when he initially signed on loan but once he was registered as a Norwich City player and given a contract by us no way would WHU still be paying him.

[KeiranShikari_2 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB"]Somebody at the footy on Tuesday was saying that WHU are still paying him £16K a week, not sure if this is true though.........[/quote]That might have been the case when he initially signed on loan but once he was registered as a Norwich City player and given a contract by us no way would WHU still be paying him.[/quote]No idea with Jarvis and West Ham but it does happen. I''m sure we''d pay a pretty big chunk of his wages to get rid in January.

[norfolkbroadslim 225]

[quote user="AJ"]Baldy, basing it on League alone, he signed on loan for us in September 2015 and was in the match day squad for all of the first 11 games (minus Vs his parents West Ham of course) before getting injured and missing ten games, before returning to feature in all match squads until the end of the season. During 15/16 he played a total of 1093 minutes out of a possible 1980 he was available to be selected.

16/17 he missed the entire season with injury never featuring for the first team.

17/18 he has remained injured and is yet to feature.

So, in total, he has played in 22/99 games in the league, offering a total of 1093/8910 minutes available.

His transfer fee was supposedly £2.5M so it means based on that fee he has cost £2,287 per minute.[/quote]He has cost a heck of a lot more than that when one also factors in his wages!

[ricardo 8,098]

Whatever way you look at it its been poor value for money.Can''t win em all.

[Nuff Said 6,026]

king canary: "I''m fairly sure if you were off long term sick you''d be on statutory pay,i imagine Jarvis isn''t though. I''m sure he''s frustrated and it''s not his fault he was signed. Whoever signed off the deal needs their head examined though."

The only one who needs their head examined is you mate. Think it through for a minute.

How do we persuade players we want to sign? By offering them worse contracts than other clubs?

Should whoever signed off the deal have known he would spend two seasons injured?

And should I be unfortunate enough to be so ill that I couldn''t do the job I''m contracted to do, my employer has an insurance policy that pays 75% of my wages, minus SSP, until I either recover or retire, and I''m certainly less important to my boss than Matt Jarvis is to NCFC (despite what I might like to think). It''s not that unusual.

[Badger 2,750]

NN - I have sympathy for Jarvis but you said,"... the bloke isn''t off sick Kingo. He''s doing everything

that his employers ask. If you went to work and did everything your

employers asked of you you''d be pretty miffed if they stopped paying

you..."I''m not sure if this is the case - if he was on a straight employment contract, which of course he isn''t - I think that you could argue that he is sick because he is not fit to do the job that he is employed to do - i.e. play football. This would mean that he is "sick" and in an employment situation would be dismissed quite quickly for incapability through ill health.

[king canary 8,905]

@nuff said

He was injured when we signed him permanently. He''d spent most of the season before on the treatment table. We had him on loan for the rest of the season. Yet we decided it was a good idea to make him permanent and give him a 3 and a half year contract. We could easily have waited out the season, seen if he came back to fitness, seen if he played well and seen if we''d stayed up. But we didn''t.

That is why it was a stupid deal.

[nutty nigel 7,958]

Badger, I don''t think that''s right. I think a footballer injured himself playing tennis on his time off you could argue the case that he wasn''t taking his responsibilities to his employer seriously enough. But if he was doing exactly what his employers asked of him and became injured playing or in training i would have thought they would have responsibility for his injury.

If you took this into the work place, say a factory, if an employee got injured while discharging his duties in exactly the way set down by his employers could they sack that employee if he was unfit to do his job? Even though he was going to work and doing everything they asked to get fit to do his job?

I''m no legal beagle but it seems to me much of what''s suggested on this thread is morally corrupt if not illegal. With the love of money, even someone else''s money, being at the root of it.

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

ALL clubs have long-term injured players. All clubs, it''s not unique to NCFC.

ALL CLUBS. It is a physical game.

Value for money is a separate issue and it seems poor decisions were made, although there is some understanding in as much as he proved to be very useful on occasions.

I feel sorry for him and retain the slight hope that he may eventually, in some small way, contribute to the cause.

Norwich will surely be his last club. He was a star once upon a time and now has to live with the fact that he is a liability.