Loyalty Contracts

[Yorkie]

Carlisle home (4-1)
Sheffield United (2-1)
Hereford (1-1)

Impressed?

Yes. I wondered if you knew them. Well done. (wrong order chronologically though)

 

[thedonkeycentrehalf]

Putting aside the views on individual players, the problem with these contracts are that they create a vicious circle. Player gets contract, the club only has so much money for additional signings and is playing the player money so manager plays him rather than waste money on him sitting in the reserves. This in turn brings him up to the reqauired number of games, triggers the clause and the around we go again.

What is needed is for some renegotiation to get out of the clause.

I'm not a Mayo fan but we only had limited options last season which is why he appeared in as many games as he did. What doesn't make sense is the Hart situation. Wilkins obviously doesn't rate him or else he would have played more often so why then play him at the end of the season to trigger the clause?

 

[Yorkie]

. What doesn't make sense is the Hart situation. Wilkins obviously doesn't rate him or else he would have played more often so why then play him at the end of the season to trigger the clause?

We need to have cover for injuries. It's ok saying we don't need this player or that player but we do need to have a squad of players with mixed abilities ie experience and youth.

 

[Yorkie]

I'm officially SAD

Can I have that in writing?

 

[Yorkie]

Was I actually right? Oh dear

I don't know. I just liked your confession.

 

[thedonkeycentrehalf]

We need to have cover for injuries. It's ok saying we don't need this player or that player but we do need to have a squad of players with mixed abilities ie experience and youth.

I wasn't saying that Harty should have gone - I'd rather him stay than Mayo and Loft. However, we had injuries etc for ages and yet Harty 'disappeared' for the best part of 3 months which seems to show Wilkins didn't rate him.

 

[Les Biehn]

Yes, 'cos negativity always works.

In many cases, my stinkers line is with regard to some of the youngsters. Jake Robinson has had some stinkers, as has El-Abd, Frutos (though not really seen enough of him to form a proper opinion this season), Henderson had some stinkers, yet was still on contract (the fact that he buggered off is not the point - he was still on contract).

Some might say, 'ah, they're young, they'll get better'. That's very true, but then I don't think there's any age limit to being able to improve. All players are capable of improving at whatever age.

So by that yardstick, what does it take for a player not to earn a contract? I would say when they no longer have anything positive to contribute to the club. And, as I have said ad infinitum - for me, Kerry hasn't fallen into that group yet. Many feel otherwise - so be it.

Because I of course said being negative does work I wouldn't say wanting the team to improve is negative.

Robinson and El-Abd are young players so thats why they will get more of a chance to prove themselves but if things don't improve then they would have to go.

I don't think there is any age limit to improving but a player at 28 has a lot less chance of improving than a player at 19.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Because I of course said being negative does work I wouldn't say wanting the team to improve is negative.

Robinson and El-Abd are young players so thats why they will get more of a chance to prove themselves but if things don't improve then they would have to go.

I don't think there is any age limit to improving but a player at 28 has a lot less chance of improving than a player at 19.

Thats my in my view Rents should be first choice left back, he is likely to learn from his mistakes, Kerry isnt and hasnt.
If you get tight to your man pace isnt an issue, Kerry doesnt do this so he gets done for pace a lot.

 

[Trigger]

Thats my in my view Rents should be first choice left back, he is likely to learn from his mistakes, Kerry isnt and hasnt.
If you get tight to your man pace isnt an issue, Kerry doesnt do this so he gets done for pace a lot.

But he is loyal.

 

[Nibble]

Thats my in my view Rents should be first choice left back, he is likely to learn from his mistakes, Kerry isnt and hasnt.
If you get tight to your man pace isnt an issue, Kerry doesnt do this so he gets done for pace a lot.

Saying that if he does get tight to his man he usually gets turned anyway.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

This cant be nibble.....

 

[Les Biehn]

This cant be nibble.....

No it was me.

 

[rusty redeyes]

But take the example of a young player, with promise.

What would you do then?

discounts any player in our squad then, except maybe Lynch

 

[B.W.]

Slow? Yup. Like Butters. And Gatting.

Caught out of position? Conjecture. Really. Actually, his positional sense is oodles better than Harding's was. Now there was someone who went AWOL. Mayo actually has very good positional sense. 350 game for the Albion has taught him that.

Woeful distribution? No better or worse than the other full-backs. A few bad balls, but others are equally guilty. Good passes are conveniently forgotten when it comes to justifying an agenda.

Central defenders...? It's one of their roles. They have to when, for example, the left midfielder is AWOL.

Liability? Conjecture.

When I say 'blind spot', you have just highlighted your own blind spot. All the negative qualities you have mentioned, other full-backs - including right-backs - often play bad passes, but only Mayo gets screamed at. You only see Mayo's deficiencies, and no-one else's.

Mayo is still good in the air, very good in the tackle (he certainly never bottles them), good communicator, a 90-minute workhorse, never anonymous, excellent throw-ins, good corner-taker (yes, really), good help to the youngsters. That's not a blind spot, that's acknowledging someone's contribution.

... which aptly demonstrates your blind spot!...

BTW... I made no mention of the other defenders (except Harding), so why are you accusing me of ignoring their shortcomings?

Butters, for example, is admirable in that he generally overcomes his lack of pace with his excellent positional play... Mayo doesn't...

 

[B.W.]

And why do you think the clause was placed there? By way of saying that if you play enough, we'll have you back. Meaning, of course, that the club wants him.

If the club really weren't prepared to want and retain him, they wouldn't have agreed to the clause in question - they'd have told Mayo to sling his hook. Pertinently, they didn't.

But it is NOW that is the issue, not when the contract with the offending clause was inserted... flawed logic / bias from you, I'm afraid...

 

[B.W.]

Pro-club agenda? What sort of statment is that? I'd like to think every Brighton fan has a pro-club agenda. One thing automatically means the other.

You're saying positional sense and distribution are erratic - others are saying he is total shit. Now, which one am I supposed to reply to?

I don't have a blind spot - I am prepared to believe (no, I DO believe) that Kerry Mayo is good enough for Brighton in this division. That's not blind faith, it's a considered opinion.

Although your opinion is contrary to that of many fans, who genuinely believe it is in the best interests of the club to get rid of Mayo...

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

[B
Butters, for example, is admirable in that he generally overcomes his lack of pace with his excellent positional play... Mayo doesn't... [/B]

Indeed, Pace is always a plus at centre back but not a must if have the right partner.

At full back however it is.