Hammond willing to take a pay cut

[Dellas Cowboys]

Hammond is just a scapegoat. From what I saw he tried hard enough. He didn't have the pace needed but he was surely committed - the combination of these probably account for his yellow card collection. Everyone would take the best contract they could get, it's human nature. If our club are daft enough to commit in such a way without thinking through what would happen if it didn't work out they need to take a long look at themselves.

 

[BushBlade]

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?

I'm not defending the club. I think generally its fucking useless, KM is useless and his son would be flipping burgers if his dad didn't own companies to employ him.
I just think that in this particular case, it's not the fault of the negotiators. Adkins obviously wanted Hammond here on loan this season and permanently next season. They did a deal so that could happen.

There's a fine line between diligently questioning the manager and interfering. We keep wanting KM to back the manager then criticising him when he does, blindly.

I'm sure that when KM's other companies enter into contracts they do so based partially on the professional advice given to them, much of which will be from consultancies who they can sue if they get it badly wrong. If it's done in-house and is badly wrong, then they take the hit like they've done with Hammond.

The bottom line is, if Hammond was as good as Adkins said he was, it would have been a decent deal. But he's not, he's shit, so the deal is.

 

[DronnieBlade]

And in other news, DronnieBlade is willing to take a Hammond cut.

Uppercut !

UTB

 

[DronnieBlade]

Hammond is just a scapegoat. From what I saw he tried hard enough. He didn't have the pace needed but he was surely committed - the combination of these probably account for his yellow card collection. Everyone would take the best contract they could get, it's human nature. If our club are daft enough to commit in such a way without thinking through what would happen if it didn't work out they need to take a long look at themselves.

Shocking shocking CM player.

In this engine room of the team you need good stamina strength and technical prowess. Hammond consistently showed us he had none of these attributes.

Not scapegoating, just telling it as it is.

UTB

 

[sheffielder]

Shocking shocking CM player.

In this engine room of the team you need good stamina strength and technical prowess. Hammond consistently showed us he had none of these attributes.

Not scapegoating, just telling it as it is.

UTB

Total agree but stamina bit you could say this about nearly all of our players last season. I don't think I have ever seen a team blowing out of its arse after 30 minutes as much as this lot.

In an ideal world we would be able to his off the wage bill playing somewhere else, but we are sheff Utd and it's likely he will be with us. Will a fitter Hammond under a different system be enough for him to improve?

 

[DronnieBlade]

Total agree but stamina bit you could say this about nearly all of our players last season. I don't think I have ever seen a team blowing out of its arse after 30 minutes as much as this lot.

In an ideal world we would be able to his off the wage bill playing somewhere else, but we are sheff Utd and it's likely he will be with us. Will a fitter Hammond under a different system be enough for him to improve?

No.

Why ?

His legs have gone. Obviously.

An observation I made after seeing him for about 45 mins !

They won't be coming back anytime soon, no matter how nice Hammond asks Santa !

UTB

 

[zablade]

Hammond is just a scapegoat. From what I saw he tried hard enough. He didn't have the pace needed but he was surely committed - the combination of these probably account for his yellow card collection. Everyone would take the best contract they could get, it's human nature. If our club are daft enough to commit in such a way without thinking through what would happen if it didn't work out they need to take a long look at themselves.

Ha ha!

Nice try!

 

[Dellas Cowboys]

Ha ha!

Nice try!

I think he was brought in with the theory of backing up the bunch of nesh and midget midfielders we had. Sometimes, where the other team were as ponderous as us it worked, though often it didn't and as we know changing tactics mid game wasn't the strongest skill that Nigel displayed.

 

[Teddy]

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 think the key difference in how clubs deal with managers as opposed to players is that you only have one manager. You can't appoint Wilder but also keep Adkins because he's too expensive to move on, or because he might come good in the end?

 

[zablade]

I think he was brought in with the theory of backing up the bunch of nesh and midget midfielders we had. Sometimes, where the other team were as ponderous as us it worked, though often it didn't and as we know changing tactics mid game wasn't the strongest skill that Nigel displayed.

But... the guy couldn't fuckin run. Was he not scouted? Why on earth did we not terminate the loan when the first month was up? We could have.

 

[wizadry]

I think the key difference in how clubs deal with managers as opposed to players is that you only have one manager. You can't appoint Wilder but also keep Adkins because he's too expensive to move on, or because he might come good in the end?

Good point.

 

[Dellas Cowboys]

But... the guy couldn't fuckin run. Was he not scouted? Why on earth did we not terminate the loan when the first month was up? We could have.

he can run faster than me - but I take your point he'd have a job keeping up with Tony Agana (I'd buy a "how to keep fit over 50" book if he wrote one after watching him in the Legends game). I seem to recall everyone thought that maybe he needed to get match fit after first seeing him - and he did but it just wasn't enough.

 

[finlaytheblade]

U

I'm not defending the club. I think generally its fucking useless, KM is useless and his son would be flipping burgers if his dad didn't own companies to employ him.
I just think that in this particular case, it's not the fault of the negotiators. Adkins obviously wanted Hammond here on loan this season and permanently next season. They did a deal so that could happen.

There's a fine line between diligently questioning the manager and interfering. We keep wanting KM to back the manager then criticising him when he does, blindly.

I'm sure that when KM's other companies enter into contracts they do so based partially on the professional advice given to them, much of which will be from consultancies who they can sue if they get it badly wrong. If it's done in-house and is badly wrong, then they take the hit like they've done with Hammond.

The bottom line is, if Hammond was as good as Adkins said he was, it would have been a decent deal. But he's not, he's shit, so the deal is.

I agree BushBlade that's as close to what probably happened without knowing the full facts.I was one of the fans hoping we would get him ( much to my regret ).Adkins was banking on him making a big impact,unfortunately the I mpact he had was with referees as bookings came at regular intervals.
His commitment can't be questioned but the influence on the team never really materialised.
The contract which Hammond Now has for next season is probably one of the reasons Adkins was sacked .

 

[1danewhitehouse]

I'm not defending the club. I think generally its fucking useless, KM is useless and his son would be flipping burgers if his dad didn't own companies to employ him.
I just think that in this particular case, it's not the fault of the negotiators. Adkins obviously wanted Hammond here on loan this season and permanently next season. They did a deal so that could happen.

There's a fine line between diligently questioning the manager and interfering. We keep wanting KM to back the manager then criticising him when he does, blindly.

I'm sure that when KM's other companies enter into contracts they do so based partially on the professional advice given to them, much of which will be from consultancies who they can sue if they get it badly wrong. If it's done in-house and is badly wrong, then they take the hit like they've done with Hammond.

The bottom line is, if Hammond was as good as Adkins said he was, it would have been a decent deal. But he's not, he's shit, so the deal is.

I think part of the problem is that Hammond was only potentially an asset in terms of a Nigel Adkins plan. The reason I say this is the mutual respect between manager and player and what Adkins believed Hammond brought to the dressing room, how he might influence the culture etc. You take away Adkins (and his wants in terms of dressing room culture etc.) and Hammond becomes completely useless (I know some would argue he was anyway). This is the dilemma that occurs when you have a club set up for relative managerial autonomy coinciding with a manager-sacking culture.


The “technical board” might be a sign that we are trying to become more stable above manager level with a blueprint for playing style, recruitment strategy etc. I hope so anyway but not counting on it as I know just how short term this club’s thinking tends to be.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Shocking shocking CM player.

In this engine room of the team you need good stamina strength and technical prowess. Hammond consistently showed us he had none of these attributes.

Not scapegoating, just telling it as it is.

UTB

I’d say he had decent strength, positioning, aerial prowess, aggression etc. but was badly lacking in pace, agility and technical ability. Stamina seemed about on par with most of the team I thought. Better than Coutts, Cuvelier, Baxtrer.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

he can run faster than me - but I take your point he'd have a job keeping up with Tony Agana (I'd buy a "how to keep fit over 50" book if he wrote one after watching him in the Legends game). I seem to recall everyone thought that maybe he needed to get match fit after first seeing him - and he did but it just wasn't enough.

I’ll see your Tony Agana and raise you Adiran Littlejohn. Came back to the lane at 38 and was still the fastest player in the squad. Then I watched him in a legends match at Shirecliffe a few years ago and he is still lightening quick. Probably still faster than any of our current squad.

 

[BushBlade]

I think part of the problem is that Hammond was only potentially an asset in terms of a Nigel Adkins plan. The reason I say this is the mutual respect between manager and player and what Adkins believed Hammond brought to the dressing room, how he might influence the culture etc. You take away Adkins (and his wants in terms of dressing room culture etc.) and Hammond becomes completely useless (I know some would argue he was anyway). This is the dilemma that occurs when you have a club set up for relative managerial autonomy coinciding with a manager-sacking culture.


The “technical board” might be a sign that we are trying to become more stable above manager level with a blueprint for playing style, recruitment strategy etc. I hope so anyway but not counting on it as I know just how short term this club’s thinking tends to be.

If Adkins had a plan. It seems though that every manager we've had over the last few years have signed players that don't suit the system we want to play.

Blackwell did it frequently, with the likes of Britton, Evans; Adams just panicked, Wilson seemed a bit more thoughtful tbf, Weir was just hopeless, Clough signed McNulty when he wanted to play with a lone striker, Adkins signed Hammond when really he wanted to play 442.

Outside the top division you don't really get many 'all-round' footballers, they tend to be more specialist and you have to assemble a team from 11 specialists who compliment each other.

So why do managers sign players that don't fit the system? Some are more understandable, like McNulty (impact sub when you need a goal, develop him a bit and sell him on for a profit) but others just don't make sense. Hammond, IMHO, is one of those that just doesn't make sense. And I don't know why. I don't know what happens to managers that clouds their thinking so much, that causes them to make these strange decisions.

I get that things go wrong, everyone makes mistakes and, often, things just don't work out and it's no one's fault really but I struggle to understand what Adkins was thinking in January after seeing Hammond play a number of times.

 

[Dellas Cowboys]

it looks like Littlejohn played alongside Billy Sharp who was on loan from us at Rushden & Diamonds in second half of 2004/2005 season. My dad enjoyed watching Billy as a Diamonds fan. Billy got 9 in 16 while there. Took my dad to the Lane couple of times this year where he claimed that Rushden made him the player he is today.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

If Adkins had a plan. It seems though that every manager we've had over the last few years have signed players that don't suit the system we want to play.

Blackwell did it frequently, with the likes of Britton, Evans; Adams just panicked, Wilson seemed a bit more thoughtful tbf, Weir was just hopeless, Clough signed McNulty when he wanted to play with a lone striker, Adkins signed Hammond when really he wanted to play 442.

Outside the top division you don't really get many 'all-round' footballers, they tend to be more specialist and you have to assemble a team from 11 specialists who compliment each other.

So why do managers sign players that don't fit the system? Some are more understandable, like McNulty (impact sub when you need a goal, develop him a bit and sell him on for a profit) but others just don't make sense. Hammond, IMHO, is one of those that just doesn't make sense. And I don't know why. I don't know what happens to managers that clouds their thinking so much, that causes them to make these strange decisions.

I get that things go wrong, everyone makes mistakes and, often, things just don't work out and it's no one's fault really but I struggle to understand what Adkins was thinking in January after seeing Hammond play a number of times.

I really think he saw Hammond's influence on the dressing room, training pitch etc. as a huge catalyst for Southampton's success. Having seen his achieve again at Leicester this probably compounded the notion. It did for a lot of fans too. Perhaps he thought Reed, Whiteman, Adams etc would become better players for playing and training with him. Perhaps he saw so many inflated egos of technically decent players who couldn't be arsed (Baxter, Coutts etc,) and thought Hammond's personality was needed to try to drag the dressing room away from that culture. He talked more and more about his qualities as a man, as a leader and role model even acknowledging that he's "not the greatest player".

 

[BushBlade]

I really think he saw Hammond's influence on the dressing room, training pitch etc. as a huge catalyst for Southampton's success. Having seen his achieve again at Leicester this probably compounded the notion. It did for a lot of fans too. Perhaps he thought Reed, Whiteman, Adams etc would become better players for playing and training with him. Perhaps he saw so many inflated egos of technically decent players who couldn't be arsed (Baxter, Coutts etc,) and thought Hammond's personality was needed to try to drag the dressing room away from that culture. He talked more and more about his qualities as a man, as a leader and role model even acknowledging that he's "not the greatest player".

That's all well and good but first and foremost he has to do it on the pitch. That's basic management.
The further away we get from Adkins tenure, the more I question him. Like you, I wouldn't have had a problem with him getting another year but I'm starting to think we were perhaps better getting rid. It's a shame because his record showed he had something but he just couldn't get to grips with what was needed. Maybe being able to have the clear out we have would have helped and the coming season would have been much better but he showed so little to give confidence that it would.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

That's all well and good but first and foremost he has to do it on the pitch. That's basic management.
The further away we get from Adkins tenure, the more I question him. Like you, I wouldn't have had a problem with him getting another year but I'm starting to think we were perhaps better getting rid. It's a shame because his record showed he had something but he just couldn't get to grips with what was needed. Maybe being able to have the clear out we have would have helped and the coming season would have been much better but he showed so little to give confidence that it would.

I guess we'll never know for sure. I think being able to release 10 of last season's squad would be a big help to any manager so would have expected some improvement regardless of who is in charge next season. Let's hope it's enough to see us promoted.

 

[Houston_Blade]

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

Yes, although it will never happen!

 

[Worksop II]

You see, you lot think we are at the bottom end of the Hammond saga, it cant get any worse, the only way is up

Nah, a club take him on loan and pay part of his wages .... thats a larf

I bet we end up up paying some fucker to take him, and still end up paying his wages

Hammond, the gift that keeps on taking

 

[Grappler]

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.

"...I am interested to hear what chris has to say when asked bout Hammond in the future,..."

I think he said it all by immediately putting him on the transfer list mate

 

[alcoblade]

"...I am interested to hear what chris has to say when asked bout Hammond in the future,..."

I think he said it all by immediately putting him on the transfer list mate

There's a chance he could rate him highly (I know, I know) but not think he's worth near what we're paying him?

The fact that Brayford wasn't listed makes me doubt that mind.

UTB

 

[alcoblade]

If our club are daft enough to commit in such a way without thinking through what would happen if it didn't work out they need to take a long look at themselves.

The club has looked at itself, and concluded that it's been "unlucky". Again.

UTB

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

I’d say he had decent strength, positioning, aerial prowess, aggression etc. but was badly lacking in pace, agility and technical ability. Stamina seemed about on par with most of the team I thought. Better than Coutts, Cuvelier, Baxtrer.

Once pace has gone your useless, Speed had lost the pace but some thought he was good.

That said Speed was better than Hammond.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Once pace has gone your useless, Speed had lost the pace but some thought he was good.

That said Speed was better than Hammond.

Speed was very good by Championship standards because he adjusted his game to cope with the lack of pace. Giggs did a similar thing towards the end of his career. Some players get by without pace. Paul McGrath was excellent in his short time with us.

 

[Finn Keane o' Balmaqueen]

Paul McGrath was excellent in his short time with us.

Omnipotent.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Omnipotent.