Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bill

Remi Mathews

Recommended Posts

The Pinkun has that he is very unlikely to return to Plymouth next season.If Angus goes elsewhere then it could be that Remi steps up. He seems to have done well at Plymouth so a case of , why not ?Angus will be missed of only for his attitude to binners in the two games and his sheer commitment to the cause.... and his outstanding performance over the whole season. He has surprised a fair few of us.Otherwise keep an eye on tonight''s game Scunthorpe v Plymouth, 6th v 7th. Here''s hopin RM makes it to the playoffs along with Godfrey and Morris at Shrewsbury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Championship rules next season will say that there must be one ‘club grown’ player in the match day 18. (club grown being a player with a club for three years before they turn 21).

Remi is ‘club grown’ at Norwich so to have him as a backup goalie, or first choice, would be useful. Otherwise it means Lewis and Murphy are the only ‘club grown’ players around the first team - which doesn’t offer much flexibility.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Norwich bring in a goalie, potentially another loanee and have Matthews on the bench. McGovern needs to play games to get his Northern Ireland place back, so might be prepared to take a paycut and move back to Scotland - especially as he only has 1 year left on his deal at Norwich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With Paul Jones off and Angus Gunn looking to leave as well it would leave us rather short ie just RemiI can''t see McGovern taking a pay cut. If he leaves then we will still be liable for the full amount of the remainder of his contract, less whatever he is being paid at his new club.My thought would be that Remi steps up with a more experienced keper as cover, one as was with Paul Jones.I don''t see the need for three keepers, with their being emergency loans in that respect and maybe Oxborough is good enough to step in if both keepers were injured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Bethnal

Unless we can bring Gunn back I''d be pretty underwhelmed if we played another loanee over giving Matthews a shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it will be a big pre season for Remi. Only the club know what the plan is, but I''d imagine Remi is a serious contender. We should be okay if we''re left with Remi and McGovern. Probably not as good as Gunn of course

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see McGovern taking a paycut if it means getting a longer contract elsewhere, another season of not playing will put him in a much weaker position in the summer of 2019 than he is now.

I’m not great at judging goal keepers personally so don’t know if Remi is up to being first choice at a championship club. Webber has done very well at picking young goalies, both Ward at Huddersfield and Gunn at Norwich have been big success. If he doesn’t think Remi is up to scratch then a a loanee in isn’t the worst option. As I said, having a 2nd choice keeper who will be in pretty much every match day squad that is club grown would be very useful for the club with the upcoming rule changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]I can see McGovern taking a paycut if it means getting a longer contract elsewhere, another season of not playing will put him in a much weaker position in the summer of 2019 than he is now.

I’m not great at judging goal keepers personally so don’t know if Remi is up to being first choice at a championship club. Webber has done very well at picking young goalies, both Ward at Huddersfield and Gunn at Norwich have been big success. If he doesn’t think Remi is up to scratch then a a loanee in isn’t the worst option. As I said, having a 2nd choice keeper who will be in pretty much every match day squad that is club grown would be very useful for the club with the upcoming rule changes.[/quote]McGovern will take what is offered with only a year left on his contract if he wants to play, and it is doubtful he would want to sit on the subs bench for another season. However we will still have to make up any shortfall for the rest of his contract.If Mathews is not ''up to it'' then another loan will beckon. He will not get more ''up to it'' by being sat on our subs bench.There is no great financial gain either by allowing McGovern to leave and having to pay another keeper to cover, or act as number one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You keep banging on about us having to keep paying the difference in peoples contract, that''s only if they don''t accept mutual termination, if they are desperate to play and we as a club say that we won''t top up the salary then they have to make a choice, sit on the bench or take a pay cut

Granted we need to play hard ball and may end up having them sitting around doing feck all, but if they REALLY just want to play they could take it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where has the idea that if we sell a player we have to pay him the rest of his contract too? That just isn''t true as far as I''m aware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="king canary"]Where has the idea that if we sell a player we have to pay him the rest of his contract too? That just isn''t true as far as I''m aware.[/quote]
Not my understanding either King. It would be utterly illogical. Players would be clamouring to leave every transfer window if they got fully paid up for the 4 year deal the club had signed them to by leaving. Clubs would never offer 4 year deals if that were the case as players could quite easily become negative equity.
If a player agrees to leave, the contract between him and selling club is cancelled by mutual consent, and a new contract starts between player and buying club.
Surely that''s common sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My understanding is you do still have to pay any outstanding ''loyalty bonuses'' that are in the contract unless that player has officially requested a transfer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="king canary"]Where has the idea that if we sell a player we have to pay him the rest of his contract too? That just isn''t true as far as I''m aware.[/quote]That comes from you making up something that has not been said.The reason that he (or we) has not simply terminated'' that contract is the same the same reason that others did not and we had to wait for their contracts to expire.If you or others cannot grasp basic contact law then it is pointless me trying to explain it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not making something up, just not really understanding what you''re saying.

I''m aware if we want to terminate someones contract then we have to pay it up, unless the player agrees to a lesser amount.

However your talk about ''making up any shortfall'' is the confusing part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="kick it off"][quote user="king canary"]Where has the idea that if we sell a player we have to pay him the rest of his contract too? That just isn''t true as far as I''m aware.[/quote]
Not my understanding either King. It would be utterly illogical. Players would be clamouring to leave every transfer window if they got fully paid up for the 4 year deal the club had signed them to by leaving. Clubs would never offer 4 year deals if that were the case as players could quite easily become negative equity.
If a player agrees to leave, the contract between him and selling club is cancelled by mutual consent, and a new contract starts between player and buying club.
Surely that''s common sense?
[/quote]Not when you are arguing against something I have not said.The whole point is that neither side can unilaterally cancel the contract.And the suggestion that a club could simply sell a player to another club for a lower wage and so end that players contract is absurd.It works the same with managers. If a manager is sacked then the remainder of his contract is paid up .... less any earnings he gets during that qualifying contract time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="king canary"]Not making something up, just not really understanding what you''re saying.

I''m aware if we want to terminate someones contract then we have to pay it up, unless the player agrees to a lesser amount.

However your talk about ''making up any shortfall'' is the confusing part.[/quote]Players do not agree to a lesser amount.If we sell a player to move to a lower contract we are obliged to make up the shortfall ie what he would have received for the remainder of his contract with us and what he is getting now iePlayer A get 10k a week and has one year on his contractHe is sold to a club that offers him a contract for 6k per week for 3 years.We are obliged to make up the shortfall of 4k for that remaining year of his contract.That is standard practice.It would be chaos otherwise, and might just explain why we did not sell off Naismith, Lafferty, Jarvis and others irrespective of their new contracts so as to save us money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, just to double down on the madness of that idea- the idea of us making up the shortfall would actually have made it easier to shift the likes of Naismith, Lafferty et al as they wouldn''t have to take a pay cut for the remainder of the contract term here and thus would be more open to lower offers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="king canary"]In fact, just to double down on the madness of that idea- the idea of us making up the shortfall would actually have made it easier to shift the likes of Naismith, Lafferty et al as they wouldn''t have to take a pay cut for the remainder of the contract term here and thus would be more open to lower offers.[/quote]is that some sort of a quilt ?err, yes that''s how it worksif there is a contract both sides are required to honour itwhich does tend to be the reason for a contract, but I am sure you know different and it is all ''madness''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I see it the probable sale of Maddison,Klose or Oliveira will be the money that is used to fund any transfers but the money that the likes of Martin,Naismith,Lafferty and Jarvis would bring in would not be any great amount so the saving on wages would be the only advantage which is what I assume has been the sticking point on any transfer speculation regarding any of them.Would it not be possible to get at least a fee for any of them that would offset their wages for the last year of their contract,pay them off with that money and it hasn''t in effect cost us anything.We aren''t likely to get any return for our investment in them but at the end of their contracts they go for free anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When a player is transferred his current contract is terminated and the contract with his new club starts. This is the case whether the player has asked for the transfer or not. However if the player has not requested the transfer he can then tell his current club that he will not agree the move unless any shortfall in his new salary is made up for the remainder of his current contract or other financial compensation is agreed. This is then, in effect, a supplementary contract to his new contract. The current club can agree or not to this demand depending on how badly they want the player off their books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Would it not be possible to get at least a fee for any of them that would offset their wages for the last year of their contract."

Firstly the players would have to agree to the move , which presumably would involve a drop in terms.

Secondly, any club that wanted these players on-board could probably not afford a fee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]

Firstly the players would have to agree to the move , which presumably would involve a drop in terms.

Secondly, any club that wanted these players on-board could probably not afford a fee.[/quote]

Are you saying that the teams these players are currently playing at can''t afford a fee - near the top of the Scottish league.

Well for the remaining year they would be getting their inflated wage and at the end of their contract they would be on diddly squat.Surely better to know that you have a job that is paying rather than jobless and no money coming in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
City 1st, for someone who comes across as so pompous your lack of ability to understand contracts is astounding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="hogesar"]City 1st, for someone who comes across as so pompous your lack of ability to understand contracts is astounding.[/quote]Your ability not to be able to refute what I have stated is not outstanding seeing as it is coming from you.However I will try to help you.If a player has a contract worth x with NCFC. It cannot be simply broken by NCFC selling on that player to another club where his new contract pays a lower wage as has been repeatedly claimed.I welcome your attempts to disprove this, removing my supposed pompous guise I suggest you..............put up or shut up !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does this work both ways ? Let’s say Madders is on 20k a week here and we sell him to Liverpool who pay him 80k. Will Liverpool pay us 60k a week for the remainder of the contract he had with us on top of the transfer fee ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="king canary"]Or you could provide some proof for your claims...[/quote]No need.Contract law is pretty well understood.It cannot be broken by one side. Even you should know that.As to proof, well I am certain that City players have various bonuses written into their contracts. Someone demanding proof does not negate that fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×