Hammond willing to take a pay cut

[Grecian2000]

I wonder if Hammond will turnup for the Team Photo in August

Might be another example of his "invisible" skills.

 

[Bladesince59]

Adkins

It is a toss up who I dislike more, Hammond or James Shield.

.

 

[Grecian2000]

It is a toss up who I dislike more, Hammond or James Shield.

To be fair to Shields, anyone who could write " The terms of that deal were designed to protect United’s interests had Hammond proved a success during his spell in South Yorkshire" without putting a smiley face at the end (and not requiring a change of piss stained underwear) has great self restraint.

 

[The Crab]

Think I've found a role to suite Hammond

 

[Houston_Blade]

Surely in order to benefit the club the clause should have been ours to activate and not his?! I don't see anyway in which a clause done in the way Hammond's has could have benefitted the club.

If he was good, we have the clause and we activate it, if he wasn't we let him go. What we have conspired to do is give a clause where if he wasn't good and didn't have a better offer from elsewhere he could decide to stay. The mind boggles how some of the negotiators at the Lane manage to breathe and walk at the same time.

 

[Alfreton14Blade]

To be fair to Shields, anyone who could write " The terms of that deal were designed to protect United’s interests had Hammond proved a success during his spell in South Yorkshire" without putting a smiley face at the end (and not requiring a change of piss stained underwear) has great self restraint.

Be nice to see James earn his corn on this one.

Howsabout a bit of journalistic follow up work, James? - was the pay cut offer accepted? was it an any way serious offer? how were the terms of the deal intended to protect United's interests? etc.

Will it happen? ... Is that a pig I see up there amongst the clouds?

 

[Dec]

Poor article which tells us nowt IMO.

In reality, it actually tells us...

• that Dean Hammond's new contract is a 12 month one
• that Dean Hammond was willing to take a pay cut
• that the initial deal was made with the intentions of benefiting United (though I thought this was obvious, it clearly wasn't to some)
• that a representative of the owners will now sit on the technical board responsible for 'selecting and recruiting'

 

[BushBlade]

Surely in order to benefit the club the clause should have been ours to activate and not his?! I don't see anyway in which a clause done in the way Hammond's has could have benefitted the club.

If he was good, we have the clause and we activate it, if he wasn't we let him go. What we have conspired to do is give a clause where if he wasn't good and didn't have a better offer from elsewhere he could decide to stay. The mind boggles how some of the negotiators at the Lane manage to breathe and walk at the same time.

I'd guess it would be reciprocal. For us to gain the right to retain him (when theoretically he could have received a bigger offer than what we were paying him) we had to give him the right to unilaterally activate the clause too.

 

[Houston_Blade]

I'd guess it would be reciprocal. For us to gain the right to retain him (when theoretically he could have received a bigger offer than what we were paying him) we had to give him the right to unilaterally activate the clause too.

Still crazy, if we can't negotiate better than that then the people on the "Technical Board" need to have a long hard look at themselves. Hats off to Hammonds agent though, he's had our pants down.

 

[lazyfecklessblade]

Well, if we're going to be stuck with him - at least we might be stuck with him on a bit less money.

Pay cut could well be on his appearance fees to make him appear a more attractive option in terms of getting game time.

 

[BushBlade]

Still crazy, if we can't negotiate better than that then the people on the "Technical Board" need to have a long hard look at themselves. Hats off to Hammonds agent though, he's had our pants down.

Our negotiators were carrying out their negotiations on the basis that Hammond was a quality player and individual who would play a major role in our promotion. They were being advised by someone who was being paid a lot of money because he was supposed to be an expert on this. A man with four promotions behind him.

If we'd have just signed him in the first place on an eighteen month contract there wouldn't be half the moaning about it, we'd have just shrugged our shoulders and thought 'fucking hell, another one', even if by signing him in Jan we'd have ended up paying more as Leicester weren't making any contribution.

At the time, we thought we'd got a decent player who we could hold to contract for a season and a half but had got Leicester to pay some of his wages.

Adkins has to take responsibility for this. He could have said in Jan, when we extended the loan and presumably added this clause 'actually I think his legs might be going, let's look elsewhere, can we afford Morsy or...' But he didn't. He was determined to sign him, just like Clough was determined to sign Coutts, another fucking crock. Of shit.

 

[Houston_Blade]

Our negotiators were carrying out their negotiations on the basis that Hammond was a quality player and individual who would play a major role in our promotion. They were being advised by someone who was being paid a lot of money because he was supposed to be an expert on this. A man with four promotions behind him.

If we'd have just signed him in the first place on an eighteen month contract there wouldn't be half the moaning about it, we'd have just shrugged our shoulders and thought 'fucking hell, another one', even if by signing him in Jan we'd have ended up paying more as Leicester weren't making any contribution.

At the time, we thought we'd got a decent player who we could hold to contract for a season and a half but had got Leicester to pay some of his wages.

Adkins has to take responsibility for this. He could have said in Jan, when we extended the loan and presumably added this clause 'actually I think his legs might be going, let's look elsewhere, can we afford Morsy or...' But he didn't. He was determined to sign him, just like Clough was determined to sign Coutts, another fucking crock. Of shit.

This wasn't an 18 month contract so that point is void, we had the opportunity to get shut of Hammond of the end of the season and failed.

Adkins is culpable but he's been fired so he's had his comeuppance. We've been making decisions akin to this for a long time before Adkins joined and still we keep doing it (i.e. offering ageing players favourable contracts at the expense of common sense).

Defend the club as much as you want but this is pure stupidity and must have been signed off by more than just Adkins. A decent governance structure would have a technical reviewer (Adkins maybe), Commercial reviewer (finance/commercial) & legal reviewer then a senior point of sign-off. As the senior person in charge of signing off the first question I'd ask would be "are we putting any stupid clauses in this contract that will mean the player wins and the club loses as so far he's been a bit shit", if they didn't ask the question then they are not doing their job.

I'm assuming SUFC have a governance structure in place but I may be giving them more credit than they deserve. Do you reckon McCabe's Scarborough minions sign property deals with the same laissez-faire attitude the football club signs player contracts?

 

[wizadry]

As a side note because I don't think it needs another thread starting, how come a manager can get the sack for under performance but a player can't? I'm very interested on peoples answers and views on this one.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

As a side note because I don't think it needs another thread starting, how come a manager can get the sack for under performance but a player can't? I'm very interested on peoples answers and views on this one.

Of course they can be sacked. It's just that they aren't because unlike managers, there is a transfer system in place. There's no point in sacking a player if you think you can get some money out of them.

 

[wizadry]

Of course they can be sacked. It's just that they aren't because unlike managers, there is a transfer system in place. There's no point in sacking a player if you think you can get some money out of them.

I'm obviously speaking as regards Hammond here. You can't seriously be suggesting we'd ever get money for Hammond?

 

[Highbury_Blade]

I'm obviously speaking as regards Hammond here. You can't seriously be suggesting we'd ever get money for Hammond?

Maybe, maybe not. We'd still have to pay him compensation to get rid of him.

 

[wizadry]

If a club came straight in for him but aren't willing to pay a transfer fee would this have any effect on what compensation we'd pay?

 

[Highbury_Blade]

If a club came straight in for him but aren't willing to pay a transfer fee would this have any effect on what compensation we'd pay?

Yes, it would be reduced. But i think that any club that potentially wants him would know we were looking to get rid, and we would probably just release him from his contract with us, though if the new club were offering him less, we'd probably end up paying the difference.

 

[wizadry]

Yes, it would be reduced. But i think that any club that potentially wants him would know we were looking to get rid, and we would probably just release him from his contract with us, though if the new club were offering him less, we'd probably end up paying the difference.

That will do, Cheers! This is how we get rid then.

 

[S5Blade]

As a side note because I don't think it needs another thread starting, how come a manager can get the sack for under performance but a player can't? I'm very interested on peoples answers and views on this one.

I have actually always wondered the same point, you can obviously terminate players contract but I imagine its a lot harder to justify in a dissmal hearing as they are part of a team and have no real set "objectives" which their contract can be judged against accurately as there are always mitigating circumstances.

 

[wizadry]

I have actually always wondered the same point, you can obviously terminate players contract but I imagine its a lot harder to justify in a dissmal hearing as they are part of a team and have no real set "objectives" which their contract can be judged against accurately as there are always mitigating circumstances.

Yes, I thought it was an interesting question anyway. It got answered very well straight away but i don't think it's as easy as it sounds.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

I have actually always wondered the same point, you can obviously terminate players contract but I imagine its a lot harder to justify in a dissmal hearing as they are part of a team and have no real set "objectives" which their contract can be judged against accurately as there are always mitigating circumstances.

Managers and players are not regular employees, they've got contracts, and unless they do something that breaches that contract (i.e. gross misconduct), then if you want them to go earlier than the contract says, then you've got to compensate for them. We could bin Hammond off right now if we wanted to, but we'd still have to pay him the appropriate amount of compensation.

 

[S5Blade]

Managers and players are not regular employees, they've got contracts, and unless they do something that breaches that contract (i.e. gross misconduct), then if you want them to go earlier than the contract says, then you've got to compensate for them. We could bin Hammond off right now if we wanted to, but we'd still have to pay him the appropriate amount of compensation.

Surely there is some clauses in the contracts about performing their duties to the club, it could be argued that hammond is so wank / not putting the effort in then he is not performing his duties and we have reason to cancel his contract but its all open to interpretation I suppose...

 

[sheffielder]

I am interested to hear what chris has to say when asked bout Hammond in the future, but not as much as wanting to hear from Hammond himself.

Has he lost faith in his own ability that he activated the clause because he thinks nobody will sign him?

Or did he offer a pay cut because he knows he can offer more than he did last year and wants to prove it to us?

I hope it's the latter and we get the player we thought we were getting when he joined. Let's face it nearly every player underperformed last season and it can't be suddenly we had 40 shit players on our hands.

Time will tell but at least Adkins and brannigan have left the club.

 

[wizadry]

Managers and players are not regular employees, they've got contracts, and unless they do something that breaches that contract (i.e. gross misconduct), then if you want them to go earlier than the contract says, then you've got to compensate for them. We could bin Hammond off right now if we wanted to, but we'd still have to pay him the appropriate amount of compensation.

So all in all, we could do it but it all depends how desperate we are and how much money we're willing to waste?

The thing is, he could cause disharmony in the camp if he stays. It needs sorting as soon as really because we've already seen what bad eggs can do to a dressing room.

 

[sheffielder]

So all in all, we could do it but it all depends how desperate we are and how much money we're willing to waste?

The thing is, he could cause disharmony in the camp if he stays. It needs sorting as soon as really because we've already seen what bad eggs can do to a dressing room.

The strange thing for me and I could be wrong or missed it is that usually when you get a situation like Adkins and Hammond you hear about the disharmony in the camp. Can't remember any rumours around that the players have been against Hammond?

 

[wizadry]

The strange thing for me and I could be wrong or missed it is that usually when you get a situation like Adkins and Hammond you hear about the disharmony in the camp. Can't remember any rumours around that the players have been against Hammond?

I'm not saying there has been any regarding Hammond or Adkins previously, mate but my point is there has been over the last couple of years with other players and with Hammond still being on a decent whack whilst not playing, some of the other players might not like this. I admit this is all guesswork but footballers are mostly fannies and get the kite on over the slightest of things. Wilder does seem to be the bloke to sort this kind of thing out so we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[sheffielder]

I'm not saying there has been any regarding Hammond or Adkins previously, mate but my point is there has been over the last couple of years with other players and with Hammond still being on a decent whack whilst not playing, some of the other players might not like this. I admit this is all guesswork but footballers are mostly fannies and get the kite on over the slightest of things. Wilder does seem to be the bloke to sort this kind of thing out so we'll just have to wait and see.

I was just saying I find it strange that there hasn't been any disharmony. Maybe Hammond was not such an Adkins man by the time the wheel stopped. It's just one weird situation.

 

[Lord Bos of Eckington.]

In reality, it actually tells us...

• that Dean Hammond's new contract is a 12 month one
• that Dean Hammond was willing to take a pay cut
• that the initial deal was made with the intentions of benefiting United (though I thought this was obvious, it clearly wasn't to some)
• that a representative of the owners will now sit on the technical board responsible for 'selecting and recruiting'

Dec, that has made me feel 100% better , and wonder why we put the blighter on the transfer list in the first place.

UTB

 

[Dec]

Dec, that has made me feel 100% better , and wonder why we put the blighter on the transfer list in the first place.

UTB

Didn't say it would make you feel better. Not all news is good news, unfortunately. In fact, most of it's bad.