If you were the owner Tash we'd be broke again, Ashley isn't using the club as a toy, he's running a business, businesses need to make money otherwise they go .. . . well . . . . out of business. Look at Portsmouth or Leeds paying wages and buying players they couldn't afford, be crying soon enough if we went bust and were deducted 10 points. And Barton has made personal appearances where he has slagged off Ashley, people who post on this board were there and reported it back on here.
Nolan's Contract Offer.....
- Thread starter Lord Beer
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
If you were the owner Tash we'd be broke again, Ashley isn't using the club as a toy, he's running a business, businesses need to make money otherwise they go .. . . well . . . . out of business. Look at Portsmouth or Leeds paying wages and buying players they couldn't afford, be crying soon enough if we went bust and were deducted 10 points. And Barton has made personal appearances where he has slagged off Ashley, people who post on this board were there and reported it back on here.
Advertising generates income. It allows the club to invest in other projects that would otherwise be ignored due to the majority of income going on the wage bill. It allows extra money to go on transfers, youth policies, grassroots, training facilities.
We don't need a chairman or owner who know's about football, 9 times out of 10 they think the can run the football club better than the manager and start firing people at will. We want someone with a sound business mind who isn't prepared to put the club at risk for short term financial gains.
This isn't football manager, this is real life, real money.
I just don't think that Ashley wants to immediately give a new contract to a guy who has 2 years on his contract remaining. He would rather start that improved contract with one year left. This new info also fits in very well with the rumours that Nolan wasn't stalling on a contract, but he was just asked to wait until the end of next season to negotiate. Perhaps the truth is that his new contract would only begin next season, but it was misheard by the press (before it emerged that Nolan WAS actually stalling).
As for whether it's a poor offer or not, I think it is poor in-terms of providing incentive. If Ashley is going to insert these 'you get this offer only if we do this' type clauses, then it has to provide an incentive to the player to perform well. However, if the incentive is based on the performance of the entire team, then it's out of Nolan's hands. In fact, it could cause more harm than good, because a player performing badly could cost Nolan his improved deal. I know captains have a part to play in keeping the team motivated, but that responsibility falls primarily to Pardew - not Nolan.
Chappaz,
From an Owner's stand point it's a sensible offer. Nolan has 2 years to run, answer me this, if he's so devoted to Newcastle and would hate to leave, why does he need a new contract now?
The board have played it right, they don't want to negotiate a new one now because of what's left to run BUT rather than come across like they don't give a **** they've put something to him. If the club does well, we'll see you right. I see nothing wrong with that. If we signed Nolan to 4 years now at 50k a week and we get relegated, we'll be cursing the high wages we have to pay in the Championship.
The incentive is to ensure Nolan continues to act as a fantastic ambassador for the club and be a leader on the pitch. If he does that and maintains his high standard then he'll be rewarded, as, in fairness, all good 'employees' should.
From an Owner's stand point it's a sensible offer. Nolan has 2 years to run, answer me this, if he's so devoted to Newcastle and would hate to leave, why does he need a new contract now?
The board have played it right, they don't want to negotiate a new one now because of what's left to run BUT rather than come across like they don't give a **** they've put something to him. If the club does well, we'll see you right. I see nothing wrong with that. If we signed Nolan to 4 years now at 50k a week and we get relegated, we'll be cursing the high wages we have to pay in the Championship.
The incentive is to ensure Nolan continues to act as a fantastic ambassador for the club and be a leader on the pitch. If he does that and maintains his high standard then he'll be rewarded, as, in fairness, all good 'employees' should.
I don't understand who is trying to hold the club to ransom.
Barton asked for a longer deal than the club was offering. Is that holding the club to ransom ? How ?
He now hasn't been offered an extension and says he will play out his contract and do his best while he's here. Is that holding the club to ransom ?
Nolan now has second thoughts about whether he wants to sign. Is that holding the club to ransom ?
Barton hasn't said a word since his tweets got a lot of press coverage. Nolan hasn't said anything at all.
What are we saying they have done wrong ?
Barton asked for a longer deal than the club was offering. Is that holding the club to ransom ? How ?
He now hasn't been offered an extension and says he will play out his contract and do his best while he's here. Is that holding the club to ransom ?
Nolan now has second thoughts about whether he wants to sign. Is that holding the club to ransom ?
Barton hasn't said a word since his tweets got a lot of press coverage. Nolan hasn't said anything at all.
What are we saying they have done wrong ?
I'm in two minds over Barton.
However, I believe that Nolan should be retained if at all possible. His importance goes beyond the double figures he plundered from midfield, last season. By all accounts, he's the middle man between the players and management, in much the same way that Ray Wilkins was for Chelski. Look what happened to them, after he got the boot! Had that not happened, I firmly believe that they would have won the PL in a canter.
Nobby is club captain, and the "main man" in the dressingrom. All the younger players look up to him for advice, and I believe that he probably helped keep Carroll out of jail last season.
He has acted with great dignity, in all of this saga, keeping his own counsel. He has not gone "shouting his mouth off" as has been suggested.
MA must understand that football is more than just a business, and different criteria apply. He must surely start to learn from his past mistakes, and remember that whereas the might oak will be knocked over by the storm, the slender reed will bend, and survive.
Which therefore is the stronger?
HWTL
However, I believe that Nolan should be retained if at all possible. His importance goes beyond the double figures he plundered from midfield, last season. By all accounts, he's the middle man between the players and management, in much the same way that Ray Wilkins was for Chelski. Look what happened to them, after he got the boot! Had that not happened, I firmly believe that they would have won the PL in a canter.
Nobby is club captain, and the "main man" in the dressingrom. All the younger players look up to him for advice, and I believe that he probably helped keep Carroll out of jail last season.
He has acted with great dignity, in all of this saga, keeping his own counsel. He has not gone "shouting his mouth off" as has been suggested.
MA must understand that football is more than just a business, and different criteria apply. He must surely start to learn from his past mistakes, and remember that whereas the might oak will be knocked over by the storm, the slender reed will bend, and survive.
Which therefore is the stronger?
HWTL
End of the day none of us have any idea about what happens behind closed doors at the club. I just prefer to wait and see what happens come the new season and support my team no matter what happens.
He doesn't. I'm not saying that he's declined the contract because he has to wait a year before it comes into effect. I'd imagine that he's declined it due to other terms.
I know. I agree with that part. I never disagreed.
So, if you were a manager in a company, you would bring an employee into your office and say "we want to give you a raise, but there's a risk we might go bust one day, so if the market picks up, then you'll get your raise". How do you think your employee would react to that? How do you think he would react if other staff members had already been given raises?
Businesses can do what they feel is the safest option, and what they feel is in their best interests, but it's not necessarily fair on the employee, so a compromise must be reached. If every business went down the safest possible route in-terms of employment, everyone in the UK would refuse to work.
This raise isn't some kind of unexpected bonus for Nolan. He signed to the club on quite a low wage, but he's matured into a key player and our captain who can net 12 goals a season. Players like Tiote have signed new contracts at much better wages when their true talents have came to light, but in the case of Nolan, his raise is dependent on how well the ENTIRE team does. Not just him. How do you expect him to see that?
Let's use a hypothetical situation involving employees. You're an employee in an office of 10 other staff members all at their desks. You've been told that you will get a personal raise of £10,000 per year if the entire office reaches a specific goal. Just you. However, if the target is not reached by everyone in the office (including your 10 workmates), YOU will miss out on an extra £10,000 per year.
How is that a fair incentive? What if you work your socks off, but there's a workmate at another desk who is lagging, and his poor workrate scuppers the chance of reaching that goal for the whole office? There's a chance that it may cause some negative feelings and confrontation, is there not?
This sort of incentive would only work for a manager, i.e. someone already given the responsibility for the performance and workrate of the entire team. However, that person is Pardew, not Nolan.
If Ashley wants to give Nolan an incentive, it has to be a personal incentive. That's something which ONLY relies on his workrate and his level of commitment, so if he wants his reward, he can do what's needed to get it. Finishing 7th is nothing like that, because it relies on the workrate of the entire team far more than the workrate of Nolan himself. You would call that a fair incentive? It's actually awful man-management.
H
Heavy Metal Toon
Guest
He doesn't. I'm not saying that he's declined the contract because he has to wait a year before it comes into effect. I'd imagine that he's declined it due to other terms.
I know. I agree with that part. I never disagreed.
So, if you were a manager in a company, you would bring an employee into your office and say "we want to give you a raise, but there's a risk we might go bust one day, so if the market picks up, then you'll get your raise". How do you think your employee would react to that? How do you think he would react if other staff members had already been given raises?
Businesses can do what they feel is the safest option, and what they feel is in their best interests, but it's not necessarily fair on the employee, so a compromise must be reached. If every business went down the safest possible route in-terms of employment, everyone in the UK would refuse to work.
This raise isn't some kind of unexpected bonus for Nolan. He signed to the club on quite a low wage, but he's matured into a key player and our captain who can net 12 goals a season. Players like Tiote have signed new contracts at much better wages when their true talents have came to light, but in the case of Nolan, his raise is dependent on how well the ENTIRE team does. Not just him. How do you expect him to see that?
[B]Let's use a hypothetical situation involving employees. You're an employee in an office of 10 other staff members all at their desks. You've been told that you will get a personal raise of £10,000 per year if the entire office reaches a specific goal. Just you. However, if the target is not reached by everyone in the office (including your 10 workmates), YOU will miss out on an extra £10,000 per year.
How is that a fair incentive? What if you work your socks off, but there's a workmate at another desk who is lagging, and his poor workrate scuppers the chance of reaching that goal for the whole office? There's a chance that it may cause some negative feelings and confrontation, is there not?
This sort of incentive would only work for a manager, i.e. someone already given the responsibility for the performance and workrate of the entire team. However, that person is Pardew, not Nolan.
If Ashley wants to give Nolan an incentive, it has to be a personal incentive. That's something which ONLY relies on his workrate and his level of commitment, so if he wants his reward, he can do what's needed to get it. Finishing 7th is nothing like that, because it relies on the workrate of the entire team far more than the workrate of Nolan himself. You would call that a fair incentive? It's actually awful man-management.Agreed.
I think a more wise offer would be if he scores 15 goals he gets a 1 million pound bonus.
Why do we even care??
Sure they are alright, barton is much better than nolan on the pitch nolans main strengths are off the pitch.
But they are not going to be leaving unless we get good money for them...they have contracts so unless they are sold for a reasonable sum (what teams would want them for decent money?? and would they want to go to those teams anyway??) they will be here next season.
We should all just relax and stop talking about it, talking about contracts is bloody dull.
Sure they are alright, barton is much better than nolan on the pitch nolans main strengths are off the pitch.
But they are not going to be leaving unless we get good money for them...they have contracts so unless they are sold for a reasonable sum (what teams would want them for decent money?? and would they want to go to those teams anyway??) they will be here next season.
We should all just relax and stop talking about it, talking about contracts is bloody dull.
"But posting on a thread where we place a value each player is jolly exciting? "
I dont think its jolly exciting its a message board not a theme park or nailing a bird, but i do think its more interesting than discussing contracts.
"Let's use a hypothetical situation involving employees. You're an employee in an office of 10 other staff members all at their desks. You've been told that you will get a personal raise of £10,000 per year if the entire office reaches a specific goal. Just you. However, if the target is not reached by everyone in the office (including your 10 workmates), YOU will miss out on an extra £10,000 per year.
How is that a fair incentive? What if you work your socks off, but there's a workmate at another desk who is lagging, and his poor workrate scuppers the chance of reaching that goal for the whole office? There's a chance that it may cause some negative feelings and confrontation, is there not?
This sort of incentive would only work for a manager, i.e. someone already given the responsibility for the performance and workrate of the entire team. However, that person is Pardew, not Nolan.
If Ashley wants to give Nolan an incentive, it has to be a personal incentive. That's something which ONLY relies on his workrate and his level of commitment, so if he wants his reward, he can do what's needed to get it. Finishing 7th is nothing like that, because it relies on the workrate of the entire team far more than the workrate of Nolan himself. You would call that a fair incentive? It's actually awful man-management."
Yeh but thats an office job hypothetical...most office workers dont earn bloody 50 grand a week do they?
who cares about an extra 10 grand when your earning bloody 50 a week? dont you guys see how unreasonable it is to even try and negotiate when 50 grand a week is on the table? its a discrace, even 10 grand a week is bloody mint and barton has 2 years left they will probs offer him a contract next year.
I dont think its jolly exciting its a message board not a theme park or nailing a bird, but i do think its more interesting than discussing contracts.
"Let's use a hypothetical situation involving employees. You're an employee in an office of 10 other staff members all at their desks. You've been told that you will get a personal raise of £10,000 per year if the entire office reaches a specific goal. Just you. However, if the target is not reached by everyone in the office (including your 10 workmates), YOU will miss out on an extra £10,000 per year.
How is that a fair incentive? What if you work your socks off, but there's a workmate at another desk who is lagging, and his poor workrate scuppers the chance of reaching that goal for the whole office? There's a chance that it may cause some negative feelings and confrontation, is there not?
This sort of incentive would only work for a manager, i.e. someone already given the responsibility for the performance and workrate of the entire team. However, that person is Pardew, not Nolan.
If Ashley wants to give Nolan an incentive, it has to be a personal incentive. That's something which ONLY relies on his workrate and his level of commitment, so if he wants his reward, he can do what's needed to get it. Finishing 7th is nothing like that, because it relies on the workrate of the entire team far more than the workrate of Nolan himself. You would call that a fair incentive? It's actually awful man-management."
Yeh but thats an office job hypothetical...most office workers dont earn bloody 50 grand a week do they?
who cares about an extra 10 grand when your earning bloody 50 a week? dont you guys see how unreasonable it is to even try and negotiate when 50 grand a week is on the table? its a discrace, even 10 grand a week is bloody mint and barton has 2 years left they will probs offer him a contract next year.
Can someone explain to this kid what a 'hypothetical situation' is? And every single player will care. Anyone who thinks that a player will be unfussed about money like this are completely deluding themselves. No matter how much they earn, money is money, and a few grand isn't just considered a few meaningless pennies. £10,000 per week is an extra half a million quid per year. You expect a player to just not give a crap?
It's 1/5th of their wage. An extra £10k on a £50k wage is like being given an extra £50 per week on a £250 wage. It's a meaningful sum.
And Nolan isn't earning £50k per week. He isn't earning anywhere near that. As far as I'm aware, he's still on the wage he had when he signed for us from Bolton. That will be quite low, and incredibly low considering his new-found importance to the team. I'd be very surprised if he's making more than £20,000 per year.
To be honest, in a modern day world, if someone who had a 2 years remaining on a contract went to their employer and asked for an extension they'd probably get laughed at.
My point was that rather than dismiss Nolan's request they have put something together. I appreciate what your saying about it being based on the entire team doing well but i don't believe that the club wouldn't offer him a new contract based on the teams failings.
I think you'll also find he's on around 40k a week.
Because as club captain it is his responsability to motivate players on the pitch and give them a shake when they need it or support them when they are struggling during a game.
A good captain is vocal, and with the added incetive it should help push him on.
Most people have targets or goals to aim for and Nolan has mentioned time and time again how he wants success at Newcastle, so I don't see what's wrong with writing it into his contract. He has 2 years left and a contract can always be re-negotitated.
As for Barton, we've had one good season out of him but I think he's pissed the club off with his comments. Regardless of whether he thinks MA is a twat, the club still stood by him when he was in bother. So really he should have kept his views on them to himself, it's just being proffesional after all.
Barton has a year left and has said he wants to see it out, so who's saying we won't offer anything in that last season?
As for his advertising on the roof, who really sees it?
It's also more income into the club from one of MA other businesses, which saves him using his own personal money while still funding the club!!! Not so stupid really
I'm sure the sheik at Man City does something similar to fund the team.
- Status