Grant deserves the three years!!!

[Skerritt 0]

I know many people will say that now he is getting older and it is a big risk but if it makes him stay for the next few years and most importantly next year, it could be the difference in staying up and going down. He is also very much a Kevin Davies like player and IMO Kevin Davies is still very much so a prem worthy player and if anything Grant is a better player. He has also only been getting better and better. He has proved his worth to the club over the first three years and IMO is a necessity both on and off the pitch.

[nutty nigel 7,598]

Should have already been sorted [Y]

 

 

[Supermarket Prodigy 0]

I think the problems are:

1) The way he''s gone about it, hence the fierce opposition and ridiculing of the lad.

2) He''s already got the security of 2 years, financially wise it could be troublesome to be stuck with a 34 year old not scoring and what not. Yes I know the Davies examples, but I sort of think why not just up his wage a tad and tell him you''re still doing it in 2 years time, you can have another year...

3) Attitude wise he''s far likelier to have more grounds to get this third year if he sorts himself out. He''s not conducting himself very well, I have no doubt Mr. Payne is not helping. He sorts that out, professional and all - it''ll help no end.

Whatever happens I think the new manager will be key in what Holt wants to do, no doubt he''s been great for us! I guess at the end of the day a peer into the future would come in handy!

Surely a compromise can be met whatever?

[SWP = Poor Mans Ruel Fox!! 0]

[quote user="Skerritt"]I know many people will say that now he is getting older and it is a big risk but if it makes him stay for the next few years and most importantly next year, it could be the difference in staying up and going down. He is also very much a Kevin Davies like player and IMO Kevin Davies is still very much so a prem worthy player and if anything Grant is a better player. He has also only been getting better and better. He has proved his worth to the club over the first three years and IMO is a necessity both on and off the pitch.[/quote]

 

Maybe he should have waited for the club to deal with the other business first as McNally was quoted as saying, then his contract issues could have been dealt with, rather than getting his knickers in a twist and taking advice from his Mr 20% and then throwing his toys out of his pram.

[Guest]

[quote user="Supermarket Prodigy"]Whatever happens I think the new manager will be key in what Holt wants to do, no doubt he''s been great for us![/quote]I wonder how he would take to Colin Calderwood coming in as Chris Hughton''s assistant. According to Wikipedia, Holt had a similar contract dispute during Calderwood''s tenure at Forest. I think it was him who used to play Holt out on the wing as well.

[JC 0]

2 Year Deal, Pay Rise with an option of a third year due to appearance/goals scored

I think we all agree he deserves a pay rise (an annual increase is probably written into his contract anyway) <-- random assumption, I do feel that the way this has been banded out in the press has been wrong but a swift conclusion once the new boss is in place would be welcome

[chicken 0]

I dont see it as that much of a risk.

I think he has two more good seasons in him yet. His game isn''t reliant on pace alone. If he can give us one and a half seasons more of what he gave us last season and then support the team from the bench I think he would be worth it.

Even for 30minute cameo appearances last season, he was able to change a game. When you have that ability on the bench then you know you have another option.

I am pretty much convinced he would be good for two more seasons yet at least. An extra year doesn''t seem that big a deal to me. He is only 31. Kevin Davies is older and was playing regularily until this season and he is what? 34/35.

[andy cousins 9]

he has earned it over the last seasons

[lake district canary 0]

This agent - who looks to have cocked up big time -  plainly miscalculated on what would happen when confronting McNally.  Now we know McNally doesn''t suffer fools gladly - and you can  imagine the scene................ 

 

 

" Mr McNally, my client feels hard done by that our contract  hasn''t been renegotiated yet.  You promised months ago that it would be discussed by now. "  

 

Stoney silence.

 

Err.....Mr McNally??

 

"What is it you want??"

 

"My client wants a year''s extension on his existing contract and upping his salary to match the highest paid earners at the club." 

 

"Now let me see, that would take your client up to the age of 34.   Its unusual for a player his age to get a contract up to the age of 34"

 

"Are you saying my client is too old for a three year contract?"

 

"He''s not too old, I''m simply saying it''s unusual to give such a contract to someone his age"

 

"So you are saying he''s too old"

 

"I''m saying that at his age it is not reasonable to give a three year contract"

 

"So you''re saying he''s too old"

 

"If thats how you want to put it, then yes"

 

So from a conversation like this the agent has engineered a situation where he can report back to GH that McNally - who had tried to be reasonable - has said -  "You are too old".       Holt might say - "What can I do??"   The agent will say   -  "Your only course of action is to ask for a transfer."   Cock up complete.    Wrong approach.    Wrong strategy for getting an improved contract.  Just wrong.     A better approach from the agent would have been simply to request a renegotiation of the existing contract.  

 

 

But no - you always ask for more than you want and then compromise.  Except that he forgot he was dealing with McNally.    Maybe in his first contract talks with McNally last year he didn''t get a good enough deal for Grant, so he was feeling that McNally got the better of him then.   \So he tries again - tries to force the issue - oops -cock up.   

 

 

Whichever way you look at it, the blame lies with the agent.    Grant - if he had been advised better - would have realised that a raise in salary over the existing contract would be enough.   But he has been forced into a situation - not by McNally - but his agent.  

 

 

Now I''ve had a couple of glasses of wine this evening, and all this may be twaddle and Grant may be acting like a big time charlie - but somehow I don''t think so.  He is a down to earth character - I think he''s being taken for a ride - by someone who is supposed to be on his side - his agent.

 

 

 

 

 

[SWP = Poor Mans Ruel Fox!! 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"]

This agent - who looks to have cocked up big time -  plainly miscalculated on what would happen when confronting McNally. 

........................... 

Whichever way you look at it, the blame lies with the agent.    Grant - if he had been advised better - would have realised that a raise in salary over the existing contract would be enough.   But he has been forced into a situation - not by McNally - but his agent.  

 

[/quote]

 

Agree with your post entirely, if we look at McNally''s comments/tweets on the matter we can see where this has all stemmed from:

 

"At your club, we deal with the out of contract players first of all when each season ends. We then deal with players where the club may have an option to extend their contracts. This season, there are several in this category. We are almost at the end of this part of our end of season process but we still have some work to do. We will then gladly meet with other players and their representatives, including those that may have time left on their contracts."

 

Clearly from this, Holt was not at the top of the pecking order when it came to contract discussions, but he (or more likely his agent) felt he should have been at the top.  Therefore a discussion probably took place whereby McNally reiterated the above agenda and Holt/his agent threw the toys out of the pram and the transfer request took place. 

[ZLF 274]

reputedly his contract means he already gets the same basic wage of the best paid player in the squad so I cant have too much sympathy with him when he comes back asking for even more, moaning about the bonus'' he had not negotiated into his contract and looking for another year at the same rates he is on now when age WILL have caught up with him and he wont be worth that much to us.

Kevin Davies played regularly - but its clear he is past his best. As would Grant - so why would we pay todays wages for yesterdays man?

The club are right to stick to the term - that extra year is simply not worth it, IMO.

[step 0]

LDC

I couldnt agree with you more, McN is too shrewd a cookie to let the agent get the upper hand and I can almost imagine the conversation going like you said.

If you are in the Lake District keep an eye on GH tweets as you could play Where''s Wally with him as he tweets his location. If you see him try and talk some sense into his head.

[Just Dan 10]

It was said that this had nothing to do with money and everything to do with comments made about him byan official at the club.  Now it comes out that it has been said that he is too old for an extra year on the three year contract that he was happy (and happily advised) to sign at the end of last season.  But how is this not to do with money?  Is he offering to reduce his wages and for them to be paid over the next 3 years instead of 2?  Very good of him!

 

No, as it has been said before, the lad has got some bum advice hear and has decided to play hardball with the wrong man.  Will he get 3 years at another premiership club? Perhaps, but this us should not force us down that road.

[Just Dan 10]

[quote user="Just Dan"]

It was said that this had nothing to do with money and everything to do with comments made about him byan official at the club.  Now it comes out that it has been said that he is too old for an extra year on the three year contract that he was happy (and happily advised) to sign at the end of last season.  But how is this not to do with money?  Is he offering to reduce his wages and for them to be paid over the next 3 years instead of 2?  Very good of him!

 

No, as it has been said before, the lad has got some bum advice hear and has decided to play hardball with the wrong man.  Will he get 3 years at another premiership club? Perhaps, but this us should not force us down that road.

[/quote]

Apologies for the spelling, should really preview my messages.

[Ivan Easter 0]

I think Holt is trying to do a Rooney and we as a club I presume cannot go down that road. I would like to see him stay but, If he is not happy then get as much as we can for him and let him go (no one is irreplaceable). He has done very well for the club but so has the Club for him. Alas when money is involved some of these things are forgotten.

[star_manic 0]

as has been said, stick to the two years and review the situation at the end of next season. would be very surprised if any of his suitors are prepared to offer him 3 years, though a couple with no finacial sense may do just that to get him unsettled with us and continue to try for a transfer.

[Salopian 1]

Do we pay a extra pension year or two for every player who makes an extra commitment? Drury, Lappin? This could be expensive, if he becomes a passenger - best part of a million pounds a year? He has made a great contribution on and off the pitch, - all the players would say that about him. Clearly he has been until the past few weeks a good influence in all sorts of ways, quite apart from his goals, assists and defensive qualities. The club has judged that a third year would be too much of a risk, as they have every right.

 

Holt wants a guaranteed high income for the next three years, before he drops down among the kickers of lower divisions. We all understand that.

 

It was CR (Brian Gunn) who fetched him out of relative obscuirty, and presumably paid him well. His game improved under Lambert. If the club now decides that a third year is too risky, we can''t accuse them in any way of being unfair to him, except in what McN was alleged to have said to him. It is a family club, but not a family. It can''t afford to "carry" an expensive has been. It operates in a compeititive industry, and if the supporters want continued succes, then the club has to be hard-headed. You could argue that until McN and Lambert arrived, it was over indulgent, and we saw the consequences.

[Jim Smith 2,339]

In my view Hughton coming in provides the perfect opportunity for this all to be resolved without too much loss of face for all concerned. McNally has already alluded to the fact it will be up to the manager to sort out day to day players issues. it would not surprise me at all if Hughton sorts out a new deal with Holt and with him being a new manager McNally will back him. Holt can stay, Hughton is a hero and its a morale boosting start to his regime for everyone.

The only unknown fator in this is Calderwood. If his relationship with Holt is as bad as it was rumoured to be during their Forest days then that might scupper the whole plan and mean bye bye Holt.

 

[BigFish 1,988]

There is a lot of this straw clutching around Holt going on. It makes no sense. Whether it is McNulty or Houghton it doesn''t change the fact that a million quid a year doesn''t stack up for a 34 year old Holt.

[nutty nigel 7,598]

[quote user="BigFish"]There is a lot of this straw clutching around Holt going on. It makes no sense. Whether it is McNulty or Houghton it doesn''t change the fact that a million quid a year doesn''t stack up for a 34 year old Holt.[/quote]

 

Somethin'' fishy there BigFish[;)]

 

[BigFish 1,988]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="BigFish"]There is a lot of this straw clutching around Holt going on. It makes no sense. Whether it is McNulty or Houghton it doesn''t change the fact that a million quid a year doesn''t stack up for a 34 year old Holt.[/quote]

 

Somethin'' fishy there BigFish[;)]

 

[/quote]

Damn, caught by the spelling police

[nutty nigel 7,598]

[quote user="BigFish"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="BigFish"]There is a lot of this straw clutching around Holt going on. It makes no sense. Whether it is McNulty or Houghton it doesn''t change the fact that a million quid a year doesn''t stack up for a 34 year old Holt.[/quote]

 

Somethin'' fishy there BigFish[;)]

 

[/quote] Damn, caught by the spelling police[/quote]

 

Don''t worry....

 

I''ll throw you back.

 

 

[Cambridgeyellow 0]

If he goes to villa i would suspect that he will spend a lot of time on the bench. Cant see him being played before Bent or Abonglahor. Just take a look at how good they were ( against us ) when they were fully fit. On top of that Lamberts first act would surely not to be to upset the fans by dropping the star players. Should he sign Holt just maybe Abonglahor would want out