Re: Brellier & Strihavka

[Steve H 0]

Do you know the names of the clubs that they were linked to?

If you know a specific price for a specific player then you must know the club that''s interested.

I think we can file this rumour under "B" for B******.

 

[taintedtom2000 0]

Do you people bother to read a post before replying?! The guy is just asking a question....its that simple! he''s starting a debate, he dosn''t claim to know big daves mum, brelliers half brother OR indeed the meaning of life...

The guy is opening a conversation, give him a break!!

[First Jedi 0]

We made no loss or gain on Brellier... we saved 1.1 million on Dave...

[Duffman 0]

[quote user="taintedtom2000"]

Do you people bother to read a post before replying?! The guy is just asking a question....its that simple! he''s starting a debate, he dosn''t claim to know big daves mum, brelliers half brother OR indeed the meaning of life...

The guy is opening a conversation, give him a break!!

[/quote]Erm, Whats his question?   He is making a statement that he knew we could have sold these players for large fees.  He isnt asking could we have sold them for ££££? or ££££?  Maybe you should try reading the post first? Just a thought.............

[Trent Canary 0]

OK back on topic....

I agree, and said at the time why do we release so many players as opposed to a transfer fee? Surely any transfer fee is better than nothing? Given his reputation from hearts 100k for brellier should be the minimum, and given Dave was supposedly the czech leagues second top scorer we could get at least 50k/100k for him. But no one knows the finer details behnid the club, so Ill just have to assume we tried.

[we8wba 0]

500k for breiller who would sign him for that? i doubt sion would offered that! only club daft enough would be hearts. as for dave striker i dont know if he was or wasnt but i heard he was prolific scorer in his league before signing for you guys, if this is the case im sure you could got a fee.

i reckon 100k for breiller and 250k dave striker! thats pushing the fees i think

[Thecanaryfan 0]

How much did we pay for them? Wasn''t Brellier a free? At the end of the day we dont have to pay their salaries so in the long term we save money. They were both awful players. Good riddance.

[Steve H 0]

[quote user="Trent Canary"]

why do we release so many players as opposed to a transfer fee?

[/quote]

Maybe his name was circulated amongst clubs and agents and there was no buyer.

Presumably some saving has been made by disposing of them quickly and in this manner, otherwise if it was cheaper to leave them in the reserves and wait for a 50-100K bid then the club would have done it.

If the money freed up creates space for one worthwhile signing then surely it is better than 2 bits of deadwood.

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="ob1"]

We made no loss or gain on Brellier... we saved 1.1 million on Dave...

[/quote]

Please explain how we SAVED money? How can you save money when we paid the contracts up,and they both had signing on fees. Straight out of Doncaster school of spin.....You make it out like we actually made money!! We lost at least well over £200.000  on Dave''s intial fee and its anyones quess how much the wages cost us, i reckon its well over £500000 in total. And how did we not lose on Brellier? Again, i doubt the fellas been left begging in the street, he had a 2 year contract which must be paid in full. 5-7 grand a week maybe? over 2 years...you do the math!

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="Thecanaryfan"]How much did we pay for them? Wasn''t Brellier a free? At the end of the day we dont have to pay their salaries so in the long term we save money. They were both awful players. Good riddance.[/quote]

We had to pay up the remaining contracts, you do understand ''contract'' dont you?

[taintedtom2000 0]

 

"I don''t Know the ins and outs of these deals but i was very puzzled...." Its his first statement!!!!!

When ''pickle'' says " I know there was interest from other clubs" Its clear that he is realting to speculation after making the "Ins and out comments" then straight away people are on his back wanting sources, asking how do you know this is true? its enough to scare new posters off for what is deemed on this board to be language that NEEDS to be justified and backed up. All Im asking is for people to step back and put these posts into context!

And the debate/question is as you point out "could we have raised enough money from Brellier and Strihavka to purchase Taylor?"........

The fact that you in turn tried to answer this dosn''t mean that the debate cannot continue Steve H, there is no definitive answer to this question, we simply do not know for absolute certain.......hence the debate.

I''m not looking to fall out with people, maybe my post was a little more angrily written than I meant it to be, for that I apologise. I just like to see good debate without needing facts and figures and rumours to be constantly set in stone. After all, none of us know for sure what is going on behind the scenes and thats what we all secretly love about it and why we constantly post on here. Equally why would anyone who genuinly had a source reveal it, only to be ridiculed on here and possibly loose that source?

Its great when a rumour is proved to be true, and someones "inside knowledge" is recognised........but......its a message board, not a source of trusted printable information.

Love and peace to all posters

xx

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

We had to pay up the remaining contracts, you do understand ''contract'' dont you?

[/quote]How do you know that?  They may well have agreed less or even nothing to have their contracts cancelled.  Both players were unhappy here and wanted moves.

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

We had to pay up the remaining contracts, you do understand ''contract'' dont you?

[/quote]

How do you know that?  They may well have agreed less or even nothing to have their contracts cancelled.  Both players were unhappy here and wanted moves.
[/quote]

I dont know, but  i doubt they walked for nothing  even if they hated it here they would''ve sat it out. The club has already said we lost £240000 on big Dave, so to say we saved 1.1 million is utter piffle!

[Steve Ritchie 0]

Not wanting to pick at Pickles poor spelling and grammer, or Arthurs knowledge of contract law... Personally I see this as quite a positive move.

I''m really disappointed that both these players did not stamp their authority on the team and had to go. Roder has quite clearly stated that both players were unlikely to play. However much money was paid to the players, it leaves them to find new clubs to continue their careers and ensures that the momentum with is with Norwich to ensure that their places are filled. Surely this is a win/win.

While I''m on the subject, I''m sad that big Joe had to go - but again, I can understand why and for me this is a positive step too.

I remember being happy that we had rejected a 4million bid for O''Neil, only to see him too often injured. I was happy to see McVeigh sign his extensions, only for him to fail to live up to the promise of his golden spell. Hindsight is a wondeful thing.....

 

Steve

[Steve H 0]

I''m different I do like to have some fact(s) or at least a plausible rumour to go on but that wasn''t one. When people post statments such as "I know there was interest from other clubs" It would be nice for them to be able to back it up with a bit more to make it a touch more credible. To me the phrase "I know" is a statment of knowledge So why not post that knowledge at the time rather than wait until today.

I don''t understand this sentence - And the debate/question is as you point out "could we have raised enough money from Brellier and Strihavka to purchase Taylor?"........ You quoted somebody there by refering to "you" and by using quotation marks but I can''t find that statment it in this thread who said that?

Your post didn''t come across angrily written, and I know that this is a message board and people will post rumours and claim to have inside knowledge but after a while it realy does get tedious if people don''t try to back it up just a little.

I did treat the post in it''s context I said that you can file it under "B" for B*******.

 

[Steve Ritchie 0]

Piffle?? Rubbish.

The club said they "spent" 240,000. It also quite clearly states that they would have had to pay approx 1.1 million to secure the contract extension, which if already included in the long term team budget planning, could be seen as a saving.

Even if you disagree with the words used or the amounts stated, its certainly far more factual than contract buy-out speculation.

Steve

[Steve H 0]

They won''t have walked for nothing, similarly the club won''t have released them if it was cheaper to leave them in the reserves, I suspect a compromise!!!

I particularly think that Strihavka''s deal was well negotiated due to the fact that we only lost £240K of the transfer fee instead of the whole sum - whatever that may have been.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="Arthur Whittle"][quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

We had to pay up the remaining contracts, you do understand ''contract'' dont you?

[/quote]How do you know that?  They may well have agreed less or even nothing to have their contracts cancelled.  Both players were unhappy here and wanted moves.[/quote]

I dont know, but  i doubt they walked for nothing  even if they hated it here they would''ve sat it out. The club has already said we lost £240000 on big Dave, so to say we saved 1.1 million is utter piffle!

[/quote]Yes, the £240,000 fee we payed his previous club to sign him.  but you knew that already Arthur. [*-)]As for sitting it out, that depends entirely on the player, Brellier seems to have signed for a club just a couple of days after leaving us - a deal already in the pipeline perhaps?  Less hassle for all parties if we just terminate his contract??Strihavka looks to want to get his career back on track, in his case a negotiated settlement was probably made.

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"][quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

We had to pay up the remaining contracts, you do understand ''contract'' dont you?

[/quote]

How do you know that?  They may well have agreed less or even nothing to have their contracts cancelled.  Both players were unhappy here and wanted moves.
[/quote]

I dont know, but  i doubt they walked for nothing  even if they hated it here they would''ve sat it out. The club has already said we lost £240000 on big Dave, so to say we saved 1.1 million is utter piffle!

[/quote]
Yes, the £240,000 fee we payed his previous club to sign him.  but you knew that already Arthur. [*-)]

As for sitting it out, that depends entirely on the player, Brellier seems to have signed for a club just a couple of days after leaving us - a deal already in the pipeline perhaps?  Less hassle for all parties if we just terminate his contract??

Strihavka looks to want to get his career back on track, in his case a negotiated settlement was probably made.
[/quote]

You seem to be missing my point, i was replying to Obi 1 who said we neither lost or gained on either player and stated we saved 1.1 million on Dave. I''m at odds to see how we''ve saved money and not lost any?

[Coelho 0]

[quote user="sig"]Dave''s contract sounded like a complicated one.  It sounds like we didn''t really own him in the first year, and that if we chose to extend the contract beyond that, it would have cost us substantially more.  After we extended that, he would have been our player to sell, but the club decided that it was more likely we''d make a bigger loss.  I can only assume his former club still own him, should anyone want to buy him now.  If he''s a free agent, his former club would really have missed out on the money Norwich might have eventually paid for him.  I could be completely wrong but it didn''t sound like the contract was straight forward and we would have been unlikely to let a player we signed only 6 months ago  (for over half a million) walk out the door.[/quote]Which is going back to the original rumour, suggesting that Strihavka was only ever here on loan. Might not be so far from the truth, that one. If it was a straight year-long loan with an option to make the transfer permanent, I think the club would have announced it as such if we had first option on the player. I suspect some kind of Tevez-esque third-party involvement here, which isn''t uncommon in Eastern Europe. If he does end up back at Banik, you''d expect them to start paying his wages again.As for Brellier, I can''t imagine that we would have released him if we had to pay him 18 months of wages – assuming he would be on about £5k per week (a total guess, admittedly), that would be about a £400k severance payment. I can''t imagine for the life of me that thrifty Mr. Roeder would have sanctioned that. Given that Brellier was well regarded at Hearts and within six months has been completely frozen out at a struggling Championship club, I''d imagine he''d be desperate to restart his career ASAP, and would thus have taken a seriously reduced payoff.

[Buncey 1]

[quote user="Coelho"][quote user="sig"]Dave''s contract sounded like a complicated one.  It sounds like we didn''t really own him in the first year, and that if we chose to extend the contract beyond that, it would have cost us substantially more.  After we extended that, he would have been our player to sell, but the club decided that it was more likely we''d make a bigger loss.  I can only assume his former club still own him, should anyone want to buy him now.  If he''s a free agent, his former club would really have missed out on the money Norwich might have eventually paid for him.  I could be completely wrong but it didn''t sound like the contract was straight forward and we would have been unlikely to let a player we signed only 6 months ago  (for over half a million) walk out the door.[/quote]Which is going back to the original rumour, suggesting that Strihavka was only ever here on loan. Might not be so far from the truth, that one. If it was a straight year-long loan with an option to make the transfer permanent, I think the club would have announced it as such if we had first option on the player. I suspect some kind of Tevez-esque third-party involvement here, which isn''t uncommon in Eastern Europe. If he does end up back at Banik, you''d expect them to start paying his wages again.As for Brellier, I can''t imagine that we would have released him if we had to pay him 18 months of wages – assuming he would be on about £5k per week (a total guess, admittedly), that would be about a £400k severance payment. I can''t imagine for the life of me that thrifty Mr. Roeder would have sanctioned that. Given that Brellier was well regarded at Hearts and within six months has been completely frozen out at a struggling Championship club, I''d imagine he''d be desperate to restart his career ASAP, and would thus have taken a seriously reduced payoff.[/quote]No it isn''t at all. Does that mean ashton is on loan to west ham till he starts for england? No. He was signed for £240,000 and if he signed on for 3 more years the fee would go upto £1mill. We would have been able to sell him but of course there was the risk we might not have sold-him off and his wages would eat money up. He is a free-agent now. Because he wasn''t on loan, otherwise he would be being linked to Sparta Prague. He would not be owned by a third party considering that banick owned him fully to begin with.I heard that when we signed both murray and taylor they both had a term in their clause saying that their contract could be cancelled in January (like it has been). If not then mutual consent would probably mean that glenn has said: "you''re not going to play for us ever again, want to leave now for free" or somehing to that nature. I would think that brellier would be one of our highest earners considering he was a big player for hearts up north.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

You seem to be missing my point, i was replying to Obi 1 who said we neither lost or gained on either player and stated we saved 1.1 million on Dave. I''m at odds to see how we''ve saved money and not lost any?

[/quote]We have obviously lost money on both players as we bought then and didnt play them much.  We have however cut our losses. In the end we only lost around 250K plus wages in these two players signing. Not a huge amount in footballing terms.  The money saved on Dave was obviously a payment to be made to his club should he prove a success and we keep him after the first season.  A good deal negotiated by Doncaster don''t you think?? pay a small sum now, check if he is up to the job, and pay a fair price should he prove successful.  Certainly worked better than had we paid £700K for him.You can''t get every signing right.  At least these two haven''t proved problematic in getting rid, unlike say a Winston Bogarde.

[Coelho 0]

[quote user="Fellas"][quote user="Coelho"][quote user="sig"]Dave''s contract sounded like a complicated one.  It sounds like we didn''t really own him in the first year, and that if we chose to extend the contract beyond that, it would have cost us substantially more.  After we extended that, he would have been our player to sell, but the club decided that it was more likely we''d make a bigger loss.  I can only assume his former club still own him, should anyone want to buy him now.  If he''s a free agent, his former club would really have missed out on the money Norwich might have eventually paid for him.  I could be completely wrong but it didn''t sound like the contract was straight forward and we would have been unlikely to let a player we signed only 6 months ago  (for over half a million) walk out the door.[/quote]Which is going back to the original rumour, suggesting that Strihavka was only ever here on loan. Might not be so far from the truth, that one. If it was a straight year-long loan with an option to make the transfer permanent, I think the club would have announced it as such if we had first option on the player. I suspect some kind of Tevez-esque third-party involvement here, which isn''t uncommon in Eastern Europe. If he does end up back at Banik, you''d expect them to start paying his wages again.As for Brellier, I can''t imagine that we would have released him if we had to pay him 18 months of wages – assuming he would be on about £5k per week (a total guess, admittedly), that would be about a £400k severance payment. I can''t imagine for the life of me that thrifty Mr. Roeder would have sanctioned that. Given that Brellier was well regarded at Hearts and within six months has been completely frozen out at a struggling Championship club, I''d imagine he''d be desperate to restart his career ASAP, and would thus have taken a seriously reduced payoff.[/quote]No it isn''t at all. Does that mean ashton is on loan to west ham till he starts for england? No. He was signed for £240,000 and if he signed on for 3 more years the fee would go upto £1mill. We would have been able to sell him but of course there was the risk we might not have sold-him off and his wages would eat money up. He is a free-agent now. Because he wasn''t on loan, otherwise he would be being linked to Sparta Prague. He would not be owned by a third party considering that banick owned him fully to begin with.I heard that when we signed both murray and taylor they both had a term in their clause saying that their contract could be cancelled in January (like it has been). If not then mutual consent would probably mean that glenn has said: "you''re not going to play for us ever again, want to leave now for free" or somehing to that nature. I would think that brellier would be one of our highest earners considering he was a big player for hearts up north.[/quote]It''s only a hunch about the third-party involvement, I admit it''s total conjecture, especially now he''s a free agent. Agree with your second point - would imagine that''s exactly what Glenn has said to Brellier and Murray. Don''t remember us signing Taylor, though! Wishful thinking perhaps...? ;)

[O.T.B.C 0]

[quote user="Arthur Whittle"][quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

We had to pay up the remaining contracts, you do understand ''contract'' dont you?

[/quote]

How do you know that?  They may well have agreed less or even nothing to have their contracts cancelled.  Both players were unhappy here and wanted moves.
[/quote]

I dont know, but  i doubt they walked for nothing  even if they hated it here they would''ve sat it out. The club has already said we lost £240000 on big Dave, so to say we saved 1.1 million is utter piffle!

[/quote]

I doubt we paid anything to Brellier to leave, he had a club pretty quickly and it would have suited both parties. I don''t think Big Dave would have wanted to sit out for the rest of his time here, I''m not sure how the contracts worked, but I''m sure it was an option to sign him after a year here, so does that mean that we only would have paid him a small fee if anything.

[The Fish Seller 0]

Smartass!!

 

Oh forgot you need proof, well here it is.

 

[quote user="Steve H"]

I''m different I do like to have some fact(s) or at least a plausible rumour to go on but that wasn''t one. When people post statments such as "I know there was interest from other clubs" It would be nice for them to be able to back it up with a bit more to make it a touch more credible. To me the phrase "I know" is a statment of knowledge So why not post that knowledge at the time rather than wait until today.

I don''t understand this sentence - And the debate/question is as you point out "could we have raised enough money from Brellier and Strihavka to purchase Taylor?"........ You quoted somebody there by refering to "you" and by using quotation marks but I can''t find that statment it in this thread who said that?

Your post didn''t come across angrily written, and I know that this is a message board and people will post rumours and claim to have inside knowledge but after a while it realy does get tedious if people don''t try to back it up just a little.

I did treat the post in it''s context I said that you can file it under "B" for B*******.

 

[/quote]

 

Some people need to lighten up it''s a messageboard not a Court of Law.

[Steve H 0]

Who mentioned court of laws I just can''t stand people posting random B*******.