Matt Clarke

[Titchfieldbaggie]

Stoke interested, apparently.

https://the72.co.uk/2022/08/04/stoke...eport-reveals/

[Joy_Division]

If he is available I would snap him up again.

[saltnshake]

If he is available I would snap him up again.

I think he has always been available, the problem we have is we need to off load players so he fits into the wage budget, which is not easy given the contracts they are on.

[BaggieBlood]

Sjoke have finally rid themselves of high earners like Allen and we are still stuck with our sh ite.

Add to that the coates billions and that is why they are beating us to signings like Gayle and now possibly Clarke.

We stupidly keep on giving extensions to the likes of Bartley and Philips.

I think Clarke would be available for a fee between £500k to £1m as he's in the last year of his contract and they just want to recoup some of the £4m, I think, they paid pompey.

[Omegstrat6]

I think he has always been available, the problem we have is we need to off load players so he fits into the wage budget, which is not easy given the contracts they are on.

Exactly! In theory Clarke should be within our budget range and would certainly have him back given his performances with us previously but until we can either ship out the overpaid dross or miraculously get ourselves a rich new owner who cares cannot see anything further happening on the transfer front.

[kettering_baggie]

When I was at work we had performance related pay, if you didn’t perform as required there was no pay rise or bonus for you and if you persistently fell short, you were shown the door. The same principle should be applied to the likes of Zohore, shown the door with no pay off. That would be the way to get rid of underperformers. Of course it won’t happen, their contracts are far too cushy.

[Dubbag]

When I was at work we had performance related pay, if you didn’t perform as required there was no pay rise or bonus for you and if you persistently fell short, you were shown the door. The same principle should be applied to the likes of Zohore, shown the door with no pay off. That would be the way to get rid of underperformers. Of course it won’t happen, their contracts are far too cushy.

Who out of our lot would have gotten a performance related bonus?

[baggieal]

Sjoke have finally rid themselves of high earners like Allen and we are still stuck with our sh ite.

Add to that the coates billions and that is why they are beating us to signings like Gayle and now possibly Clarke.

We stupidly keep on giving extensions to the likes of Bartley and Philips.

I think Clarke would be available for a fee between £500k to £1m as he's in the last year of his contract and they just want to recoup some of the £4m, I think, they paid pompey.

I bet that useless c unt Robinson will be happy to sit on the bench with his huge wad!

Phillips and Zohorse must be laughing all the way to the donkey club! Wish Livermore would go f uck himself too - useless t wat

[Albionic68]

When I was at work we had performance related pay, if you didn’t perform as required there was no pay rise or bonus for you and if you persistently fell short, you were shown the door...... That would be the way to get rid of underperformers. Of course it won’t happen, their contracts are far too cushy.........

........ and legally binding.

[Omegstrat6]

In most workplaces employees are only entitled to x amount of company sick pay and if someone is unable to do their job through ill health/injury and cannot be offered an alternative position (employers legally have to make all efforts to make reasonable adjustments ) then they may have their employment terminated as they are no longer able to fulfil their contract, regardless of the reasons for this.

Obviously in football the players run a high risk of injury and this is part and parcel of their job but I still would have thought that clubs would take steps to protect themselves from the Zahore like situation where they pay out a lot on wages for no return. Or maybe the only protection is in short time contracts so that worse case scenario they only have to cover this for that period and they either take the risk to offer a contract or not?