[Official Site] CARLTON MORRIS DEPARTS OAKWELL

He didn’t have two years, he had one, with an option for the final year in our favour. That isn’t the same thing. That option might not have included a reduced salary had we remained in league one for 23/24; it might actually have had an automatic pay rise (from his championship wage) built in which we’d never afford. There will also have been getouts for the player, probably based on relegation.

It isn’t fair to assume we could have had him signed for another two years - it could have been completely unviable or even invalid.

Let’s be clear. I’m disappointed Morris has left, I rate him highly. I’d have loved to see him play for us for longer. I’m not happy as such - it’s just that I am fully on board with why he, Woodrow and the ones to follow had/have to be sold.

It’s all well and good saying we could and should have kept him - what if Styles or Helik don’t get bids? Or fail a medical at their prospective new club?

It’s obvious things are pretty precarious. The new board had to inject £1million just to keep things going to the summer period. It was clear that this wasn’t going to be enough, just a sticking plaster over a stab wound whilst they could get proper treatment - i.e. cash injections from sales and reduced wage outgoings.

As plenty have said, I though this was pretty clear, in fact 100% transparent, from the press conference and forum. Some disagree - I can’t see what it is you thought you were told though. I really can’t.

 

Massive blow to lose him, but that’s based on the presumption that he wouldn’t get injured again this season.

Fact is £2million or thereabouts is good money for him. We paid 50k, so we’ve made a tidy profit. Hopefully Styles & Helik bring us more money in so we can go about our business sooner rather than later, we need a settled squad going into the season.

 

Don Rowing told a group of supporters with whom he met, and I was amongst, that it is standard practice (and possibly part of employment law but I'm not sure about that) that if a contract includes a drop in wages due to relegation it will also include a release clause because you can't force (and no player would accept) a pay cut and still hold the player to the terms of the contract. A means of release, by way of a transfer fee, is also included. So I would imagine we had no choice in accepting Luton's offer if they met that clause, which I'm guessing they did.

 

If that’s the case then fair enough. Seen as they’ve been so transparent over the clubs financial position then I think they should be open about this in the very near future.

 

I take your point Paul and indeed they acted on their concerns in the summer.
But as directors of the business they have responsibilities to monitor performance and manage risk. They were members of a board at a time when the financial and operational performance of the business deteriorated considerably such that we're now in a position where there are risks to the future of the club, necessitating the sales we're now seeing. And whilst it's good that they are taking action to address those risks, I don't believe they can just avoid any responsibility for how we got to this point. The evidence suggests that they didn't perform their roles and meet their responsibilities properly, particularly Robert Zuk. "I was concerned but was outvoted so there was nothing I could do" isn't an acceptable excuse imo.

 

I will always remember a conversation with Patrick.
He said he so wish he could go back to being just a suporter , knowing what he knows now regards player contracts etc.
We have no idea the player power since bossman rule.
We would have a much different view if players were pulling our trousers down.