CONFIRMED John Brayford - Contract Mutually Terminated

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Snowman said:
IMHO doesn't depend on extra income. It's Clough being his usual spiteful FLN. If it happens it will happen at the last minute in an attempt to fuck up our purchasing plans which to a certain extent depend upon him going. I even expect him to pull out of any proposed deal at the last minute. Makes sense to him. It potentially weakens us financially, it devalues Brayford who he gets cheap in January and we have a demotivated wasting asset.
Click to expand...
I'd be amazed if our plans to strengthen hinge on us selling Brayford.

The money which we would potentially recover for Brayford is very little, particularly since the only team reportedly interested is Burton.
 

Smirth said:
I'd be amazed if our plans to strengthen hinge on us selling Brayford.

The money which we would potentially recover for Brayford is very little, particularly since the only team reportedly interested is Burton.
Click to expand...

Think it's more to do with room in the wage bill. We'd probably let him go for free just so we don't have to pay up his contract.
 
Snowman said:
IMHO doesn't depend on extra income. It's Clough being his usual spiteful FLN. If it happens it will happen at the last minute in an attempt to fuck up our purchasing plans which to a certain extent depend upon him going. I even expect him to pull out of any proposed deal at the last minute. Makes sense to him. It potentially weakens us financially, it devalues Brayford who he gets cheap in January and we have a demotivated wasting asset.
Click to expand...
Why would he do that! He was playing regular championship football last season why would he want to jeopardise a year of a short career. Wilder might not want him but he has always seemed professional to me! Stop the Brayford bashing and just say good luck to him and thanks
 
Snowman said:
IMHO doesn't depend on extra income. It's Clough being his usual spiteful FLN. If it happens it will happen at the last minute in an attempt to fuck up our purchasing plans which to a certain extent depend upon him going. I even expect him to pull out of any proposed deal at the last minute. Makes sense to him. It potentially weakens us financially, it devalues Brayford who he gets cheap in January and we have a demotivated wasting asset.
Click to expand...

Or Clough pulls out in hope we terminate his contract after the deadline.
 
Marty_Mcfly said:
Think it's more to do with room in the wage bill. We'd probably let him go for free just so we don't have to pay up his contract.
Click to expand...
It would sure help.

I don't think Wilder will be bullied in to letting him go if the deal isn't right though. If, for instance, we ended up having to pay 50% of his wages to get him gone I would imagine Wilder opting to keep him as back up instead.
 
Brayfords Burtons record

in the 31 leagues he has played in won 11 (35%)
in the 14 he has not played in won just 2 (14%)

Why the fuck would we sell to rivals Burton FFS.

Get a grip Tufty. Fuck Clough.
 
adebo said:
Why would he do that! He was playing regular championship football last season why would he want to jeopardise a year of a short career. Wilder might not want him but he has always seemed professional to me! Stop the Brayford bashing and just say good luck to him and thanks
Click to expand...

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I expect Clough to pull out at the last minute and it's not all about the transfer fee, it's the budgeted for wages.
 
Smirth said:
I'd be amazed if our plans to strengthen hinge on us selling Brayford.

The money which we would potentially recover for Brayford is very little, particularly since the only team reportedly interested is Burton.
Click to expand...

A further 43 weeks at a reported £18 k pw plus attendant NI pension and bonus payments? For a player who at the moment won't be touching the Desso. Reckon that millstone of a wage is around £800k which is a wage that should and could be invested in a top striker. Where am I wrong in that? It's not all about the transfer value.
 
Snowman said:
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I expect Clough to pull out at the last minute and it's not all about the transfer fee, it's the budgeted for wages.
Click to expand...


Pulling out at the last minute hardly makes it more palatable. Probably less so.
 
Snowman said:
A further 43 weeks at a reported £18 k pw plus attendant NI pension and bonus payments? For a player who at the moment won't be touching the Desso. Reckon that millstone of a wage is around £800k which is a wage that should and could be invested in a top striker. Where am I wrong in that? It's not all about the transfer value.
Click to expand...


He's had an eight grand a week rise?
 
Sean Thornton said:
He's had an eight grand a week rise?
Click to expand...

Just like you Mr Thornton, I am reliant on all the ITK ers on here who profess to know the wages of each player. £18k was one such figure. Even at £10k pw it is dead money which could be freed up for someone who will play.
 
Snowman said:
Just like you Mr Thornton, I am reliant on all the ITK ers on here who profess to know the wages of each player. £18k was one such figure. Even at £10k pw it is dead money which could be freed up for someone who will play.
Click to expand...


It was just the amount that surprised me, or rather the size of the increase.

To be honest, I take little notice of ITK on player wages. I was told by a board member he was on ten grand a week when some board members could have done with a beating to make them shut up not talk. And no, I didn't even ask in the first place.

I understand people taking itk stuff on board though as reliance on hard evidence is frowned upon by many on here :)
 
Snowman said:
Just like you Mr Thornton, I am reliant on all the ITK ers on here who profess to know the wages of each player. £18k was one such figure. Even at £10k pw it is dead money which could be freed up for someone who will play.
Click to expand...
It's only dead money if he isn't put into the team, or at least on the bench. He has the ability to play in this division, so let him.
 

Hamburg Blade said:
It's only dead money if he isn't put into the team, or at least on the bench. He has the ability to play in this division, so let him.
Click to expand...

1. I don't have the power to select the team.
2. Wilder seems to think Brayford is more valuable to the club not in the team (where he may get injured again) but off the wage bill asap.
3. Therefore until he goes it is dead money.
4. I don't doubt his ability. I even think CW doesn't doubt his ability, perhaps more his commitment to CW though.

At the moment, taking the rose tinted beardy specs off, what would you prefer. Play Brayford because he is proven and we pay him a lot even though we have Baldock and Freeman and CW shows no inclination to play him in front of them or get him off the wage bill and invest those wages in someone we desperately need to actually play?
 
Snowman said:
1. I don't have the power to select the team.
2. Wilder seems to think Brayford is more valuable to the club not in the team (where he may get injured again) but off the wage bill asap.
3. Therefore until he goes it is dead money.
4. I don't doubt his ability. I even think CW doesn't doubt his ability, perhaps more his commitment to CW though.

At the moment, taking the rose tinted beardy specs off, what would you prefer. Play Brayford because he is proven and we pay him a lot even though we have Baldock and Freeman and CW shows no inclination to play him in front of them or get him off the wage bill and invest those wages in someone we desperately need to actually play?
Click to expand...

What would I prefer? Well I don't select the team, so it's not up to me. See? We can all be pissy and sarcastic. Doesn't help any, does it?

My view is that he should be at the very least on the bench. If he has a chance to play he may prove to be a key member of the team and could be invaluable to us in our quest for a reasonable finish in the table - it isn't all about strikers and if we really can't bring anyone in until he leaves, which I don't believe, then we are in trouble. Yes he could get injured, but so could the new striker everyone wants, you still play your best players. First team exposure could generate interest and increase his price. The competition for places could push Baldock and Freeman to play better. He's a football player at a football club and the reasoning that says he shouldn't be on the pitch is illogical at best, emotionally based and spiteful at worst.
The problem of his wages not fitting into the structure CW wants is something inherited and I'm sure the players can be helped to understand that. If it's enough to cause a breakdown in morale I would be very disappointed in the players' attitudes.
So if CW wants to sell and Burton make an offer, fine, I hope it all works out, but as long as he's fit and available and being paid a wage, I want to see him in contention for a spot in the team. Until that happens, his wages are dead money by choice.
 
I think, and I stress think, that you are missing the point, having moved away from the point of my post.

Yes, wouldn't we all want a player with Championship class to whom United are paying a large wage to be playing or at least competing? Why do people think anything said about Brayford is an attack on him personally rather than an assessment of the position?

The point is that CW has identified him as the most obvious choice to release immediate funds for his wages budget either because he has players for his position or because he doesn't fancy him. In order to release those funds he has to sell him. At present Clough is the only one interested.

Imagine a scenario whereby CW has a striker lined up now, but needs the assurance that there are funds available for the wages. He is reliant on Clough making the move to buy Brayford and he is reliant on Brayford being uninjured and therefore being of use to Clough. CW can't put Brayford near a competitive game for fear of injury. (Why do players suddenly get withdrawn from a squad with a "niggly calf strain" when a transfer is imminent?). Clough can use this to his advantage against a rival team. At the moment, because of his supposed interest in Brayford, we can't play him and we are pissing away dead money. Now imagine negotiations get to 11.59 on deadline night and Clough says, we ain't buying, we can't afford a fee and we ain't taking him on loan unless you pay 80% of his wages. CW says, "Do one FLN". Result? We have wasted months not using him. We have still to pay him to June 30th 2018. He can just about walk away from January as he has no transfer fee value being out of contract in the summer. We have a demotivated player. It may be economically sensible to pay him up. After all being £250k down is better than £500k down AND we have no money to pay that strikers wage so that deal falls through.

The point is that I am not being illogical or spiteful. I am very logical in how I see the situation and the spitefulness (some may say cunning) is likely to come from Clough. The player is merely a pawn in this. I'm sure he'd like to play football, preferably to him at Burton. But the situation dictates that he can't.
 
If, as it looks like happening that Jackson Irvine is going to Hull. That should free up the funds for Burton to get Brayford without us having to pay him off or contribute to his wages.
 
Snowman said:
I think, and I stress think, that you are missing the point, having moved away from the point of my post.

Yes, wouldn't we all want a player with Championship class to whom United are paying a large wage to be playing or at least competing? Why do people think anything said about Brayford is an attack on him personally rather than an assessment of the position?

The point is that CW has identified him as the most obvious choice to release immediate funds for his wages budget either because he has players for his position or because he doesn't fancy him. In order to release those funds he has to sell him. At present Clough is the only one interested.

Imagine a scenario whereby CW has a striker lined up now, but needs the assurance that there are funds available for the wages. He is reliant on Clough making the move to buy Brayford and he is reliant on Brayford being uninjured and therefore being of use to Clough. CW can't put Brayford near a competitive game for fear of injury. (Why do players suddenly get withdrawn from a squad with a "niggly calf strain" when a transfer is imminent?). Clough can use this to his advantage against a rival team. At the moment, because of his supposed interest in Brayford, we can't play him and we are pissing away dead money. Now imagine negotiations get to 11.59 on deadline night and Clough says, we ain't buying, we can't afford a fee and we ain't taking him on loan unless you pay 80% of his wages. CW says, "Do one FLN". Result? We have wasted months not using him. We have still to pay him to June 30th 2018. He can just about walk away from January as he has no transfer fee value being out of contract in the summer. We have a demotivated player. It may be economically sensible to pay him up. After all being £250k down is better than £500k down AND we have no money to pay that strikers wage so that deal falls through.

The point is that I am not being illogical or spiteful. I am very logical in how I see the situation and the spitefulness (some may say cunning) is likely to come from Clough. The player is merely a pawn in this. I'm sure he'd like to play football, preferably to him at Burton. But the situation dictates that he can't.
Click to expand...
So Clough turns round at the last minute and says that. Fine, it's worth the money to fuck up the plans of one of our rivals.
If we're dependent on getting rid of Brayford to release money for a forward, after getting £5m + in windfall money, our planning has been done very badly.
 
BushBlade said:
So Clough turns round at the last minute and says that. Fine, it's worth the money to fuck up the plans of one of our rivals.
If we're dependent on getting rid of Brayford to release money for a forward, after getting £5m + in windfall money, our planning has been done very badly.
Click to expand...

Have we got £5 mill though?
 
Snowman said:
Have we got £5 mill though?
Click to expand...
I have no evidence of this but I think it's a reasonable assumption based on the plethora of newspaper reports that indicated we had sell on fees for Walker and Maguire, and a promotion add on for Murphy. I'm making quite a conservative estimate.

I have no real evidence that the world is round or that Australia exists (I haven't been in space or south of the equator) but I accept as fact the earth is round and Australia exists.

Whether we have or not, we shouldn't be relying on getting Brayford off the wage bill because it was always going to be difficult to do so.
 
BushBlade said:
I have no evidence of this but I think it's a reasonable assumption based on the plethora of newspaper reports that indicated we had sell on fees for Walker and Maguire, and a promotion add on for Murphy. I'm making quite a conservative estimate.

I have no real evidence that the world is round or that Australia exists (I haven't been in space or south of the equator) but I accept as fact the earth is round and Australia exists.

Whether we have or not, we shouldn't be relying on getting Brayford off the wage bill because it was always going to be difficult to do so.
Click to expand...

I wasn't asking for evidence! It is a reasonable assumption to make that if reports are correct we have received or are to receive some money. But, do we owe money to the bank who have first call? Is the deal between Prince or McCabe that a loan account is repaid? Do we owe HMRC or even instalments on paying off managers and players? It maybe too simplistic to think there's this big chunk of money just sat there ready and available.

And Australia exists. I got married there. Happiest day of my life. :(
 
Snowman said:
I wasn't asking for evidence! It is a reasonable assumption to make that if reports are correct we have received or are to receive some money. But, do we owe money to the bank who have first call? Is the deal between Prince or McCabe that a loan account is repaid? Do we owe HMRC or even instalments on paying off managers and players? It maybe too simplistic to think there's this big chunk of money just sat there ready and available.

And Australia exists. I got married there. Happiest day of my life. :(
Click to expand...
And it may be overthinking to suggest there isn't.
 
Snowman said:
I think, and I stress think, that you are missing the point, having moved away from the point of my post.

Yes, wouldn't we all want a player with Championship class to whom United are paying a large wage to be playing or at least competing? Why do people think anything said about Brayford is an attack on him personally rather than an assessment of the position?

The point is that CW has identified him as the most obvious choice to release immediate funds for his wages budget either because he has players for his position or because he doesn't fancy him. In order to release those funds he has to sell him. At present Clough is the only one interested.

Imagine a scenario whereby CW has a striker lined up now, but needs the assurance that there are funds available for the wages. He is reliant on Clough making the move to buy Brayford and he is reliant on Brayford being uninjured and therefore being of use to Clough. CW can't put Brayford near a competitive game for fear of injury. (Why do players suddenly get withdrawn from a squad with a "niggly calf strain" when a transfer is imminent?). Clough can use this to his advantage against a rival team. At the moment, because of his supposed interest in Brayford, we can't play him and we are pissing away dead money. Now imagine negotiations get to 11.59 on deadline night and Clough says, we ain't buying, we can't afford a fee and we ain't taking him on loan unless you pay 80% of his wages. CW says, "Do one FLN". Result? We have wasted months not using him. We have still to pay him to June 30th 2018. He can just about walk away from January as he has no transfer fee value being out of contract in the summer. We have a demotivated player. It may be economically sensible to pay him up. After all being £250k down is better than £500k down AND we have no money to pay that strikers wage so that deal falls through.

The point is that I am not being illogical or spiteful. I am very logical in how I see the situation and the spitefulness (some may say cunning) is likely to come from Clough. The player is merely a pawn in this. I'm sure he'd like to play football, preferably to him at Burton. But the situation dictates that he can't.
Click to expand...

My remark about spiteful comments about Brayford and his wages was referring to some posts made by other people on this thread. For what it's worth, I think you're overthinking it. Your scenario is plausible, but if we are that short of funds and that dependent on a decision by the manager of Burton Albion, then things are far, far worse than anyone imagines. Which surely they aren't.
 
We need another club to express interest. And for this interest to go public.

Clough would then need to put up or jog on.

UTB
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Trust or not
Replies
9
Views
768
Bladesman1968
B
Overthehills
Anel looking to manufacture a move?
2 3 4
Replies
106
Views
6K
Frank the tank
Frank the tank
S
John Welch
Replies
0
Views
658
SUFC Amateur
S
Ndiayewillalwaysloveyou
John Fleck - SUFC Legend
Replies
2
Views
608
DaveBassettsgoneonholiday
DaveBassettsgoneonholiday
Ball_Sup (Phil)
Ball Sup Blog... NUFC v SUFC - Fans Against Sportswashing
Replies
10
Views
947
Ball_Sup (Phil)
Ball_Sup (Phil)

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom