Bobby Hassell's wage

Can understand a significant drop in wages due to his age & been more of a squad player than regular starter but 70% is ridiculous if true, seems harsh to be cutting his wages more than 30-40% especially when you consider how well he performed at the end of the season when we needed him.

Can't help but think Flitcroft wants rid of the old guard (Steele, Foster, Hassell) and rather than just release them he'd rather offer them wages which he knows they'll turn down so he can say 'We wanted them to stay'

 

So you don't know how much Bobby earns? And what that 30% wage he's been offered now is?

 

I got a PM from a regular poster telling me that they knew the number. So perhaps he uses it as his ice-breaker when he meets a stranger?

 

'Alright mate, I'm Bobby Hassell - Barnsley footballing legend, Christian and charity worker. Nah then - have a guess ar much I get a week!! **** loads more than you mate. Haha!'

 

I don't get why people have a problem with telling friends/family how much they earn. If they do it to brag, it can be irritating but generally I think it's good to be aware of how much friends/family are earning. I think it's something that bothers older generations more (my parents wouldn't ever do it), but I don't see the harm. Someone please explain to me why it's so strange?

With regard to Hemsworth not getting it, he's probably never earned a wage in his life and he almost certainly won't have had to support himself or anyone else on that wage. Therefore he can't really comment on how a 70% reduction in income (especially if it's a sole income) would affect a person's confidence, morale and general state of mind - or why it might be insulting. Bobby has been a great servant to the club, and when he signed his last contract he was really in his prime - which probably means he was offered a good wage. We can no longer sustain a 32 year old squad player on those wages. It may prevent us from signing another exciting "investment", who will have a tidy resale value. We all need to admit that football is a ruthless game and unfortunately nice guys can sometimes be offered what looks like an unfair deal. I want what is best for Barnsley Football Club, and if Flicker believes that Bobby is only worth 30% of his previous wage then I'll support him.

I'm sure Bobby would easily get fixed up with a club in League 1 on similar wages to what he is on now. I could see him going to Bradford and doing very well - he just doesn't want to leave. That puts the bargaining power back in our hands. You all wanted ruthless transfer dealings, but when you see it you don't like it. New era.

 

I really do wonder how those who are claiming this is the right thing to do would feel if, as they got older and more experienced, the firm they worked for offered them less and less money in a 'take it or leave it' approach. Particularly if they were on a final salary pension.

Bobby Hassell probably gets paid more than the vast majority of Barnsley fans, although certainly not all. He's not earning Premier League wages or the kind of money that will allow him to retire when his football career is over. He'll be working, or trying to, until pension age. No matter how much you think he's on or how much you think footballers are over paid, a 70% wage reduction will have an enormous affect on him. It seems like a very weird way to reward someone who has given 9 years of a short career to one club. Next season is his testimonial year. It's supposed to give him a chunk of money he can use while he sorts himself out with a new career. Maybe pay to retrain himself, or, if we were still living in the 1970s, buy a pub or a sports shop. What it's not supposed to do is make up the shortfall of a massive wage cut.

In discussing Luke Steele's contract offer in last week's Chronicle, David Flitcroft alluded to how Manchester United do things. (I think it spectacularly backfired as we all know Man Utd don't offer their number one goalkeepers one year contracts when they're 28 years old, but anyway.) Do you think Ryan Giggs and Paul Scholes have had their wages cut to the point where they are earning similar wages to what the young players who are just making their mark on the team are earning? Or, despite them not playing every week, do you think they're still very well paid because Man Utd know how to look after players who have been loyal to them? Bobby Hassell is just as important to Barnsley as Scholes and Giggs are to Man Utd. Think of the home game against Watford when he came on as sub and scored the winner. Or how he helped the defence concede just one goal in the run of three games against Leicester, Palace and Cardiff. Without Bobby to call on last season we would have gone down.

Man Utd have more to spend on wages than most and pay their players a good deal more than most, but they have a wage budget just like everyone else and they choose to reward loyalty. Rather than just pay lip service to what they do, we should have a proper look and follow suit.

 

Pottin? Whats that?

 

Ahhhh....but we're all faaaaaaaaar too clever, eh?

 

Suppin' or in your case quaffing on fine wine.

Are you coming or what ?

 

But what he earns from a testimonial is what he deserves to top up his wage as a thank you for his service. That's he's a testimonial season coming up shouldn't be used as a reason to treat him badly in the hope that he will be happy with his testimonial simply topping up his salary from the wage reduction. When the next Vaz Te, Buttercup etc leaves we can't go on harping about a lack of loyalty from players when we aren't showing it to our long standing players.

 

An injury or two early doors would see him in the team and performances could see him stay there just like the others in the squad who those on this board dont deem worthy of being an ever present next season.

 

I think the average person would leave if they were able to get the same job at a different employer on a comparable salary. However, I know a few people who love working in the current role and when redundancies came around they were willing to accept reduced hours/wages, just so that they didn't have to move. I think this is where Bobby finds himself - he wants to stay at Barnsley, but it makes no financial sense to do so - especially as he might only have 2/3 years left in him. He needs to get the best possible wage he can, and on a 2/3 year contract.

I feel that players should be rewarded for their service to a club, and Bobby is a rare example of someone who has been loyal to a club. However, if our budget is so tight that we need to free up cash to bring other players in, then we have to do it.

I like your argument Jay, but I think the analogy falls down when comparing football and normal life. Football clubs don't play by the rules and it means people can get rick quick and lose everything even quicker. I'm hopeful that real life isn't quite as extreme.

 

Any chance you could be a bit more disrespectful to a player who has served the club we love for nine years in the most exemplary manner? Maybe you could go and **** on his lawn or call him a lovely person on Twitter or something?

 

I don't think Dyson's having a go at Hassell there to be fair.

 

Any chance you could completely misunderstand the tone of my post any more?

 

When?

Get it reight, I prefer champagne...

 

I don't know who you think think you were aiming at, but you hit Bobby Hassell with both barrels mate.

 

It must be a bad situation for Bobby, he loves the club, fans & area, the fans love him, he wants to stay & he's proven he can still do a job at this level yet he's been asked to take a far greater wage reduction than anyone else (if the 70% is true)