Did he sign for 3 or 4 years
Printable View
Did he sign for 3 or 4 years
Not telling ...and I do know the answer too... :P
In this day and age is that of any meaningful relevance ??? ;D
He signed for 5 years, so he's got 3 left.
Its absolutely relevant. Without the long initial contract, his asking price would be less meaning clubs could have met it by now and Rovers would have been forced to sell. The only reason he's still here (and will continue to be here next season I'd wager) is because of the length of his initial contract. A A£40k a week for 5 years was a big risk by Rovers and if he'd been a flop we'd have paid big time for it, but as he wasn't its definitely working in our favour.
So 'modern day player power' has no relevance ? ;D
Neither does FFP edict ? ;D
Not being flippant, but there are many, many factors involved surrounding his staying or going.
As for his valuation, he is only worth what someone is prepared to pay. Everything is negotiable.
Until they have to sell him to pay the FFP fine..
Well yeah I factored in modern player power by saying that if clubs met our valuation, Rhodes would force the move. But player power isn't all powerful, its just a factor whose influence depends on the length left on the contract. Rhodes signed a long contract with no release clause, he stripped himself of the ability to dictate terms. Rovers will sell at the price that suits us and if Rhodes doesn't like it, he's not sitting in the reserves for 6 months, he's doing it for 3 years. Which would ruin his career and be too self-detrimental, hence he won't sulk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Despair
As for FFP, the only people who seem to take the thing seriously are overly dramatic fans. Plenty of clu
Well yeah I factored in modern player power by saying that if clubs met our valuation, Rhodes would force the move. But player power isn't all powerful, its just a factor whose influence depends on the length left on the contract. Rhodes signed a long contract with no release clause, he stripped himself of the ability to dictate terms. Rovers will sell at the price that suits us and if Rhodes doesn't like it, he's not sitting in the reserves for 6 months, he's doing it for 3 years. Which would ruin his career and be too self-detrimental, hence he won't sulk.Quote:
Originally Posted by blueandwhitehalves1
As for FFP, the only people who seem to take th
Couldn't agree more. Find it a bit strange when Rovers fans take as fact the wildly optimistic doom mongering of some dingles with a very obvious hidden agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by champs95
Irrespective of FFP's 'real power' or otherwise, it is still something that is 'operational' and something that owners need to take heed of.
We are still a long, long way from being a ideal business model i.e. not a great deal has changed in the last 9 months or so (even though good strides have been made and achieved in that period). However, those 'dealings' have yet to reach the audit listing for our accountants to wade through. It will still be far from pretty reading.
On top of which none of us still do not really know what is in the Venky mind set as regards our club. Yes they have backed off and seemingly left it to the 'boys in long trousers', but they still hold the reins and purse strings.
Whether BRFC support like it or not it is a case of; IF SD determined JR was for them he could (with his boards agreement) pick him up very, very easily.
My personal opinion is that SD would not rate JR anything like our 'aspirational valuation' of the same. People can rate that situation a