Now that Craig Davies' buy out clause is out in the open...

Yes, have to agree. I was very cheesed off when he came out with that and the first meeting he said their wasn't. I would have much preferred he said their was even if he refused to say who. At least then we know we are likely to be shafted at some point in the future. But each to their own, most likely he didnt confirm any more as he would have have got a lot of grief....

Anyway, 300k as he is playing at the minute I don't think anyone would refuse. Then again he probably wouldn't be playing like he has if that clause wasn't their. So ultimately I would now like to know why we let him have it, can't remember if he said why in the 2nd meeting.

 

The release clause doesn't have to be set at a paltry level though. It's negotiable and anyone on BFC's side signing a striker who was then a hot property in the lower leagues, albeit untested at a higher level, and thinking that £300k would be a decent price for him if he was a success was seriously deluded.

On the same basis we should therefore easily be able to afford to buy Tom Pope from Port Vale to replace him. However, I'm struggling to believe that Port Vale will sell him for £300k.

 

Once Lee Hughes signs on a free for them tomorrow that's them promoted with those two up front.

 

I imagine Davies wanted the release clause not to be too large so he could get a good pay increase if a larger team comes in for him.

 

how would you like your employer discussing your terms and contract with a bunch of strangers ?

 

But he DID discuss the terms of his contract with a bunch of strangers. The only thing is that the first time they asked him he said no players had a clause but when they asked him a few months later he said Davies had one.

 

Don't think Vaz Te had a release clause

I'm pretty sure we only gave him a one year contract. I'm sure they thought anything more than that would be too big a gamble. His contract was up in the summer so they decided to cash in rather than let him go for nowt in the summer. To be honest, I thought Davies was is in the same situation i.e. contract up in summer so cashing in now.

 

We can all come on here and slate the directors for putting together offers & contracts which in hindsight seem short sighted.

However, we were not involved in the negotiations at the time.

Davies would have been pushing for a big pay rise jumping two divisions so maybe the buy out clause was a concession to get Craig to agree to a lower salary?

I understand that we were the only Championship club prepared to make him an offer but he probably got better offers from clubs in League 1. In fact I seem to remember our friends from S6 trying to tempt him there.

So complain away but sometimes you have to do things that you maybe don't want to do in order to get the deal done.

 

well he was out of order, he should have said all contracts are between employer and employee and i'm sure there must be something in employment law saying some to that effect

 

True mate, concessions always have to be made but everything suggests to me we are weak negotiators. Case in example, vaz te. 500k. 500 fcking grand for a very good quality striker. If west ham sold him tomorrow they would get in excess of 5m. And no promotion clause....when they were on the brink...naive, senseless, amateur. Any % sell on clause....nope.

300k release clause in a strikers contract is ludicrous for a player that we know had no other championship clubs with an offer on the table.

 

On the other hand, maybe a player insisting on an escape clause at such a level isn't exactly highlighting his commitment to signing for you, and if he isn't willing to negotiate on this point then perhaps you'd be better off looking elsewhere for someone who isn't shouting out "I'm going to jump ship at the first opportunity".

 

Chef Tyke, Sheriff, both good responses.

The truth is we don't know what other options we had that were willing to come to Barnsley for the wages that we could afford.

Despite our love for the club, we have to admit that we're probably not the most attractive alternative open to players these days.

Added to that, we are, quite rightly in my view, trying to run the club on an even keel and not overspending on wages.

So all in all I can't imagine many players telling their agents to go and get them a 4 year deal at Barnsley.

 

I do totally agree with you on all fronts mate but can't help but feel we get rolled over in negotiations. The image we seem to portray to the outside world is little old Barnsley, happy to receive anything vaguely reasonable for a player as we need to break even. Whilst that may be true, the image to external parties does not have to be like that, as it weakens our negotiating position.

It should be, Barnsley, an efficient and effective well run outfit. We develop quality players through being able to give them game time, for that, you will pay us a premium and we won't get our pants pulled down. Figures of 3m should have been put on vaz te and butterfield. We got around 1.5m for the pair and that is the reason why we are now bottom of the league, in my opinion of course. Vaz te refusing to play? Well him to fck off, we pay his wages. Set a precedent that shows the footballing community that we won't be pushed around. It feels like we do get pushed around in what I know is a very brutal and cut throat world.

 

I think we can all agree on that, in general.

The main point I'm trying to make though is that I expected us to have a 'line in the sand' where the prospect of retaining a player is so low (due to the ease of escape) or the money received in return isn't sufficient to even seriously consider signing the player.

Personally, my line in the sand would be much higher than £300k, and it quite rightly makes us appear to be a laughing stock in the transfer market yet again, thus perpetuating the next cycle of incoming players who will take advantage of us, with the help of their agents.

I have no issue with the insertion of an escape clause in general. They're part and parcel of player power these days and we've seen Newcastle fall victim to one this week. However, the reward has to match the risk, and this one quite blatantly doesn't, as far as I'm concerned.

As per my post higher up the thread, I think BFC lost focus on what's required to maintain an even keel. Maximising the income streams makes it much easier to control costs, and we fail on that aspect in so many ways it's gone beyond a joke. This is just one example, I'm afraid.

 

You asked us what went on that meeting

We told you what we could. When it was pointed out some matters were told to us in confidence, you then started complaining as to why we couldn't, as it was an open meeting. Once Don Rowing came out with the sensitive information, we couldn't pretend he hadn't. Whether he should have broached the topic is another matter. As the information in question has now come out into the open, and not from any of us present at the meeting, I believe it's appropriate to debate the issues.
If there's to be any more of these meetings (and I'm able to attend), there's no way I'm going to talk about it on here. The hassle and negative comments directed towards those who go is simply not worth it.

 

If I recall correctly the question was put to Don who stated that none of the new signings had escape clauses however he was unsure about the ones already at the club. He then confirmed this with Sharon.

Being sobers ace. I remember things.

 

Re: You asked us what went on that meeting

That.

 

You didn't give me any hassle

I'd have crumbled had you done so.
It bugged me at the time, and still does, the grief we were getting from some. I appreciate, now I'm retired, I'm in a more convenient position to attend these get togethers than those who have work and personal commitments. Because of this, I felt I ought to let these folk know everything that had been said, apart from information Don Rowing had asked us not to divulge. In future, I'm not going to bother.