Jimmy Bullard

[Yorkshire Canary 118]

I had assumed he had switched to QPR but it would appear that this is not the case although i think they had talks. Ipswich stated yesterday that they could not afford his wages as hull demanded a substantial contribution. May still be wortha season long punt paying 50% of his salary could help ease our way back into season 1 in the premiership

[canarytom 0]

He''s on £45K per week at Hull so would rather we didn''t!

[Yorkshire Canary 118]

Well 50% of that would be @ £20 000 a week. I would think some of our players are on or around that now with promotion bonuses etc

[CanaryOne 0]

Believe Hull want somebody to take him on a free but pay all his £45,000 a week wages for the next two seasons .

[paul moy 235]

Pay per play would be ok if on a free, but 45K a week if crocked is ridiculous. Hull were crazy to give him such a lucrative contract IMO.

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="Ncfc"]Believe Hull want somebody to take him on a free but pay all his £45,000 a week wages for the next two seasons .[/quote]Sounds like a very good deal for Hull if they can find someone daft enough.

[Yorkshire Canary 118]

Cannot see anyone being daft enough to do that. Bright boy good himself a good contract. I hope our management team ensure massive salary reductions in contract should we be relegated

[Bovril 215]

The fact the Hull chief executive at the time (adam pearson?) didn''t put in a relegation decrease in wage clause is absolute madness for a team not established in the premiership.

One thing paying a ''star'' player good money in the premiership but not to have a clause in case of relegation is utter madness.

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="Yorkshire Canary"]I had assumed he had switched to QPR but it would appear that this is not the case although i think they had talks. Ipswich stated yesterday that they could not afford his wages as hull demanded a substantial contribution. May still be wortha season long punt paying 50% of his salary could help ease our way back into season 1 in the premiership[/quote]

 

Not in a million years

[Rupethebear 0]

Don''t blame the lad, he didn''t even have an agent, don''t think he could believe the size and length of the contract......however no thanks, he jumps out of tackles, and is tooooo expensive.

[Bill 1,788]

"Pay per play would be ok if on a free"

God, not that old nonsense again.

If Bullard joins another club, that will require that club to buy out his current contract - at £45k a week for the next 30 months.

The idea that Bullard would walk away from that for nothing beggars belief, as does the ridiculous twaddle that he would sign for another club on no wages - merely the possible chance of a fee if he is selected to play. On that basis alone the contract would be not only worthless, but pointless.

The suggestion that Bullard would command a fee is also ridiculous - if only for his age and injury prone record. He carries a £5m pus liability (value of contract) that the best Hull can hope for is that someone will take him on loan and pay part of that liability or sign him and again pay part of the contract.

Either way Bullard gets that £5m plus, unless he walks (hobbles) away from the contract. Age 32 and inury prone ? What would you do ?

[Jacko 0]

Good player who could do a decent job in the Premiership. But I think others have hit the nail on the head really. If you took him on, given his huge wage packet it would probably make him the highest paid player at the club by some margin. For me he isnt worth that kind of money. There are also wider implications of signing him. For him to the biggest earner would totally unfair on the rest of the squad, given the immense effort they have invested to get to this level and would cause understandable resentment. Team spirit has been the hallmark of Norwich under Lambert so we can''t afford to risk upsetting that.

 

I don''t blame Bullard for sitting on his contract at all. He is doing the sensible thing, that any sane person would. His knees are dodgy and he is potentially one injury away from having to pack the game up. It was Hull''s decision to effectively give him a pension of around £2 million a year for 3 1/2 years. So they will have to suffer the consequences of that reckless spending for some time. Why a relegation clause wasn''t written into his contract I will never know.

[Bill 1,788]

o" Why a relegation clause wasn''t written into his contract I will never know"

For someone supposedly without an agent this does seem an extraordinary generous contract. Relegation contracts are not always that easy (if you want a player it is usually on their terms).

A quick read of Tom Bower''s excellent book Broken Dreams might help.

[Jacko 0]

[quote user="City1st"]o" Why a relegation clause wasn''t written into his contract I will never know" For someone supposedly without an agent this does seem an extraordinary generous contract. Relegation contracts are not always that easy (if you want a player it is usually on their terms). A quick read of Tom Bower''s excellent book Broken Dreams might help.[/quote]

I agree it''s tough getting such clauses in but it is possible. Wolves are the best example to follow. They insist all their players have them. Mick McCarthy has admitted they lose out on players because of it but at least they know the club will be solvent if they do go down. They are one of the few clubs in that division with a decent balance sheet. Such a policy also probably shows whether you are recruiting the right players or not. I think accepting a wage cut is a massive statement that a player has really bought into what the club is trying to achieve. Rather someone just looking to get on board the Premiership gravy train.

[colneycanary 0]

As there would be no transfer fee, the way to do it, is pay him say a 1 million pound signing on fee and negotiate a new contract with him, in line with the rest of the team.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="colneycanary"]As there would be no transfer fee, the way to do it, is pay him say a 1 million pound signing on fee and negotiate a new contract with him, in line with the rest of the team.[/quote]

Agreed.  If the outlay is the same over two years as it would be with the likes of CMS, then Bullard has to be the better deal, but only on a pay per play basis and a with a relegation clause. 

[Bill 1,788]

"but only on a pay per play basis "

you don''t sound too bright, how close is your part of Berkshire to suffolk ?

[Nexus_Canary 1,016]

Would not want Bullard here tbh !

[T 190]

There seems to be an outbreak of commonsense on this message board. Where are all the people who used to say that we should be like Hull or Portsmouth? The club has and is quite rightly taking a policy of prudence with ambition which the directors are legally obliged to do. The realistic probability is that we will be relegated so we should only enter into player contracts that allow us to reduce payments if we get relegated so that we can still meet loan repayments. Thankfully, football with its move to financial fair play is finally starting to adopt basic good financial practice.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="City1st"]"but only on a pay per play basis " you don''t sound too bright, how close is your part of Berkshire to suffolk ?[/quote]

Well, if you have to bully and abuse I suppose you aren''t too bright either. How about putting forward an intelligent argument instead of resorting to insults.

[Bill 1,788]

Or how about you reading the "intelligent argument " that was put earlier on ?