A few people have also suggested that is unlawful to insert a clause preventing a member of staff from recruiting former players but there are a few precedents including this one involving Frank Arnesen: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/tottenham/article624838.ece
I agree.. and most players are happy with extensions as it means a pay rise and additional leverage in joining new clubs... we failed on this one as a club.... remember we have lost our CEO and that will be instrumental too..
I think not replacing a CEO is extremely bad business, what we save in a salary we will surely lose many times over in other areas.
a fan of every club in the championship shouldnt get too attatched to players - for a start we've lost burke, chopra, bothroyd and bellamy this season alone, all of whom have expressed their enjoyment at playing for cardiff. as well as players from our academy, ledley went on a free, ramsey for £4.8m when someone inferior like jordan henderson goes for £16m, those stick out the most i'd say. personally, if MM uses us as a stepping stone then the only way he can improve his and our reputation further is through promotion. if he delivers that and then leaves in 3-4 years then we'll all have to accept that this is professional football and its a short career. if he fails here then his reputation takes a knock, he's inherited a depleted, demoralised squad so he's by no means got a comfort zone here, he needs to deliver from the word go, otherwise fans will be on his back, although he will have money to spend.
My understanding is Leo, that he was guaranteed to be offered an extension once we were assured Championship football. Once we were we have offered him that extension which he has chosen to not to take up. Really, it is just like anyone wanting to run down their contract. Being somewhat of a legal geek, I like to see the clause as the club seem to think that he was still under contract, hence the lawyers have been called. If he signed a contract and there was an option for a third year exercisable by us, then he could actually still be under contract. From how GT described it that does not seem to have been the nature of the clause. But these things turn on very small interpretations and wordings, so it could explain why most people thought he was under contract for another year.
Well we can only speculate in the absence of seeing the contract but to me it looks like Watford were trying to have their cake and eat it - they did not want to tie him to a new contract in case they got relegated and faced a large drop in income when they would not be able ot afford his salary - so they kept their options open until too late - and so Cowie used that loophole to his advantage - you cant really bblame him if Watford were not prepared to commit to him.
24th June: Thread: Will Malky come sniffing? " If Cowie isn't sold this summer it is because he... If Cowie isn't sold this summer it is because he wants to go on a free next year. I'm certain he has no intention of signing another contract. If I'm wrong I will come on here and eat my hat! " Ok I was wrong when I said that a couple of weeks ago that he would be sold but only because we were all led to believe that he had an extention to his contract and it was automaticly confirmed. Makay left with the knowledge that in fact it was left unsigned (akin to insider trading I would say) and so got a valued player for free that nobody else knew was available. There's no hidding the fact that this is shady business from him. The fact is though that Cowie always planned to go on a free so we would either have sold him for a price (which we couldn't afford to do in January) or run his contract down.
People are saying elsewhere we should have sold him in January but that seems easy to say now given the recent events. Just think of the reaction had we sold Cowie when well placed in the winter.. Mind you we might have got Taylor then!
Cowie's departure is the hardest to take but I am not convinced that we could have done much about it. I suspect that Cowie had decided to leave if he could get a better offer in the knowledge that he could always sign on for us for another season if no one came in for him. But when the manager who bought him to Watford leaves for a larger, more fashionable and wealthier club then Cowie was likely to follow. If we had got 250k for him then I think most fans would have felt a lot less aggrieved. Hard for us to swallow but lets hope that Dyche and Woan with their contacts have a plan!
Err, not really. I think the club might think that Cowie held off signing a new contract because he might want to leave ...... and follow MM. Even if all of this were true, neither man has broken any rules (said the MP to the judge LOL). Cowie was entitled to a FT, because his contract had expired and the "optional extra year" wasn't binding. Even if MM had said to him "don't re-sign because ....." err whilst it might be unethical, worse has happened, like when a player knows he's going to join his new club from January onwards ....... this can be construed to be a "conflict of interest" in the current season, but you try and prove it. FACT - Malky could not have mislead the club as Watford FC's balance sheet would show that Cowie was worth nothing from 1st Feb 2011 (after the close of the transfer window. Watford FC have just got to let it go IMO.
i agree with you Elixir. He is someone we wouldn't have wanted to lose just yet, but he's gone, time to move on...let's just hope we don't lose Eustace and Taylor...
The whole point of 'options' in contracts are that they are binding on both sides and thus cannot be broken but it does all depend on what is actually the basis of the option. Hence, it could well be something has been broken. It all comes down to the drafting, unlikely in this case but not beyond the realms of possibility.
Spot on. Macker has been my best ever Watford defender for over 25 years, who remembers that debut against Sunderland in Nov 84? We had such a nervous defence, but straight from minute 1 he calmed it down. And he never broke sweat. And who remembers his bicycle? When he was at Watford he didn't drive, and he could be seen leaving the ground approx 5:30 after every game. Try suggesting that to some of the players we have ......... ahem mentioning no names (DG 10 DAN just happens to be a white Range Rover Sport).
Swamp, of course you're right about Cowie's agent. On another thread I have dug out a list of players and nect to Cowie's name there was a note "2.5 yr contract to 2011", so I had it recorded when his contract was due to expire. Watford have "new owners" and on the balance sheet there will be a list of names and their contractual status and VALUATION". If this crucial document was maintained accurately it would say : Cowie - Contract to 2011 (with option), value £0 at end of season. From what I've heard the club thinks there was a figure entered against his value. Therefore the club had less assets than previously stated. So red faces in the accounts department at this horrible error. Some people may have suggested that Cowie had deliberately declined the offer of a new contract (oh yes, he's is well within his entitlement to do a BOSMAN). Some have suggested that MM has somehow "tapped the player up" ........ IMO these people are clutching at straws, Don Cowie was entitled to a free transfer to any other club in the world as at 30 Jun 2011. I was shocked when I read the detail, angry even, but I reckon Watford FC have no legal redress. End of.
Elixir- player values are NOT counted in company accounts( for about the 25 time) dont bother replying i wont read it
