|
Post by mrdiaz on Jan 18, 2011 17:12:12 GMT
Depends if he stays to the end of season he might cost them £100k in wages, therefore if they both agree that they just pay him £50k and he is free to get a new club then they would do it. He'd then get a new club and earn about £80k for the remaining 20 weeks of the season. £130k in his pocket, good business for both parties. There is no way we could afford to pay him that! I reckon the best he (and us if we want to sign him) could hope for is he gets half his contract payed up and terminated. Then he could sign for us for half the money he was on then he doesn't lose out and we sign a good player on reasonable money. If we cant afford that then we aint going to get him, its only £4k a week. Surely after the wembley win we can afford to splash a bit of cash. He might just be that ingredient that could see us promoted?
|
|
|
Post by Best Mate on Jan 18, 2011 17:20:42 GMT
That would be double what every one else is on.
I want him to stay but he will need to conform to the structure - otherwise, long-term - it would not be healthy for the club UNLESS it was a short term contract that could be renegotiated depending on where we are next season.
Imagine we did not go up - that is would probably be 3 players from our squad for next season if he had a long term deal on that cash.
Not saying he does not deserved to be paid well - just it needs to make sense for OUFC as well.
|
|
|
Post by risdon on Jan 18, 2011 17:20:53 GMT
The club could never afford to pay someone £4,000 per week in this division. Even £2,000 per week could be a budget buster.
|
|
|
Post by Londonroader on Jan 18, 2011 18:02:52 GMT
Depends if he stays to the end of season he might cost them £100k in wages, therefore if they both agree that they just pay him £50k and he is free to get a new club then they would do it. He'd then get a new club and earn about £80k for the remaining 20 weeks of the season. £130k in his pocket, good business for both parties. Your figures are out.
|
|
|
Post by rollsy89 on Jan 18, 2011 19:10:30 GMT
Wembley money did help obviously. But we could never afford to pay him anything near 4k a week. And i would never want us too. Do we wana do what Plymouth are doing now? We have to pay 500k a year rent, and are £4million in debt already. So paying players anything near 4k would only make things worse.
|
|
|
Post by North West Ox on Jan 18, 2011 19:22:37 GMT
I doubt that Maclean will get 4k a week at any club, bar Crawley maybe? (I thought "those in the know" said he was on 7k a week anyway?) But then, he's not even getting the 4k a week he is entitled to from his contract at Plymouth. Ideally, Plymouth would pay up a proportion of his contract, terminate his contract and he'd be free to move to another club, wherever that be us or someone else. The trouble is, Plymouth really are on the brink and they simply cannot afford to do that. www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/mattslater/2011/01/plymouth_calling_kagami_please.html
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Jan 18, 2011 19:31:10 GMT
Depends if he stays to the end of season he might cost them £100k in wages, therefore if they both agree that they just pay him £50k and he is free to get a new club then they would do it. He'd then get a new club and earn about £80k for the remaining 20 weeks of the season. £130k in his pocket, good business for both parties. its good business if you can lay your hands on 50k, but that's my point. 50k now might mean the club goes into administration, but 100k over a few months might mean it doesn't. It depends on how bad Plymouth's plight is, but if its true that players arent being paid then i'd guess it's pretty bad. I doubt anyone on here knows the real figures but it may be in both parties interest if his contract is paid up and he is then allowed to go to another club (hopefully us) who will pay him something. If I was him and not being paid then I would want something sorted to ensure that I got paid something rather than signing a new loan deal and all money Oxford pay goes into Plymouth's bad debt black hole. Whether that be terminating contract or ensuring that OUFC pay direct all or part of what they are paying to Plymouth. In the long term Plymouth will gain because their debt to Maclaren will be reduced rather than increasing by the full amount of his pay each month. If that could not be worked out then I would say ok I come back and you pay/owe me all of my wages and the loan money stops coming in so you are worse off. It has to be in all parties interest to work something out.
|
|
|
Post by foghornleghorn on Jan 18, 2011 21:01:19 GMT
My understanding is that Plymouths main problem is their playing budget. They have an unnecessarily large squad and some expensive contracts. Relegation really hit them hard but most of Plymouths contracts come to an end at the end of this season so their main priority right now is to get to the end of this season without going into administration. Unfortunately the Inland Revenue are on their case as they owe them a heap of money. The reason wages weren’t paid was because IR issued a winding up order and while that is active their bank are obliged to withdraw banking facilities (so obviously couldn’t transfer player’s wages). Clearly Plymouths immediate priority is to avoid going into administration and they only way they can do that is to make IR their number one priority.
So, back to my point, if there is 50k (or whatever the figure is) kicking around that money is always going to go to IR first, second, and third regardless of how much money it might save them in three or four months time. Now, if Plymouth can pay IR and still have 50k left over then fair enough (but doesn’t sound likely). The hard fact is Plymouth aren’t going to put into immediate administration because they owe MacLean some money, but it’s very possible the IR will put them into administration. I think a contract payoff is unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by OxYellow on Jan 18, 2011 21:31:13 GMT
We have to be careful with him, because the last thing we would want to do is end up breaking the bank to get him and pay his wages, 4k a week it has been said is a no go, so can only hope that if we do attempt to sign him permanently he is willing to take a pay cut, with the guarantee of regular football, and recieving his wages every month.
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Jan 18, 2011 22:36:32 GMT
My understanding is that Plymouths main problem is their playing budget. They have an unnecessarily large squad and some expensive contracts. Relegation really hit them hard but most of Plymouths contracts come to an end at the end of this season so their main priority right now is to get to the end of this season without going into administration. Unfortunately the Inland Revenue are on their case as they owe them a heap of money. The reason wages weren’t paid was because IR issued a winding up order and while that is active their bank are obliged to withdraw banking facilities (so obviously couldn’t transfer player’s wages). Clearly Plymouths immediate priority is to avoid going into administration and they only way they can do that is to make IR their number one priority. So, back to my point, if there is 50k (or whatever the figure is) kicking around that money is always going to go to IR first, second, and third regardless of how much money it might save them in three or four months time. Now, if Plymouth can pay IR and still have 50k left over then fair enough (but doesn’t sound likely). The hard fact is Plymouth aren’t going to put into immediate administration because they owe MacLean some money, but it’s very possible the IR will put them into administration. I think a contract payoff is unlikely. I am sure you are right that if Plymouth are not paying wages and presumably not paying other creditors then they are not going to be able to pay a lump sum to anyone let alone a player. I am sure that other creditors are likely to have more of a say regarding whether or not Plymouth go into Administration rather than one player. However, if Mclean stays with them then their will either owe him wages until the end of his contract or whatever settlement is agreed so that he can be released early. I do not know if what I am about to suggest is possible but I think it is logical. If Plymouth agree to a pay off in order to release McLean from his contract then he will become (and already is by the sounds of it) another creditor for the amount of any unpaid wages to date plus any settlement. That will release him from his contract, it may mean that Plymouth have to pay out less in the long term and mean that he gets paid by another club whilst everything is sorted out. This means that the contract pay off will have taken place but McLean will have to wait for his cash and take the risk that he never sees a penny. The same risk applies if he sees out his contract at Plymouth. It is likely that he will not be getting paid so eventually, at the end of his contract, he will be owed more than if a reduced settlement is agreed and he will not have received any cash in the meantime. I know which option I would take if a sensible agreement can be made.
|
|
|
Post by foghornleghorn on Jan 18, 2011 22:58:13 GMT
My understanding is that Plymouths main problem is their playing budget. They have an unnecessarily large squad and some expensive contracts. Relegation really hit them hard but most of Plymouths contracts come to an end at the end of this season so their main priority right now is to get to the end of this season without going into administration. Unfortunately the Inland Revenue are on their case as they owe them a heap of money. The reason wages weren’t paid was because IR issued a winding up order and while that is active their bank are obliged to withdraw banking facilities (so obviously couldn’t transfer player’s wages). Clearly Plymouths immediate priority is to avoid going into administration and they only way they can do that is to make IR their number one priority. So, back to my point, if there is 50k (or whatever the figure is) kicking around that money is always going to go to IR first, second, and third regardless of how much money it might save them in three or four months time. Now, if Plymouth can pay IR and still have 50k left over then fair enough (but doesn’t sound likely). The hard fact is Plymouth aren’t going to put into immediate administration because they owe MacLean some money, but it’s very possible the IR will put them into administration. I think a contract payoff is unlikely. I am sure you are right that if Plymouth are not paying wages and presumably not paying other creditors then they are not going to be able to pay a lump sum to anyone let alone a player. I am sure that other creditors are likely to have more of a say regarding whether or not Plymouth go into Administration rather than one player. However, if Mclean stays with them then their will either owe him wages until the end of his contract or whatever settlement is agreed so that he can be released early. I do not know if what I am about to suggest is possible but I think it is logical. If Plymouth agree to a pay off in order to release McLean from his contract then he will become (and already is by the sounds of it) another creditor for the amount of any unpaid wages to date plus any settlement. That will release him from his contract, it may mean that Plymouth have to pay out less in the long term and mean that he gets paid by another club whilst everything is sorted out. This means that the contract pay off will have taken place but McLean will have to wait for his cash and take the risk that he never sees a penny. The same risk applies if he sees out his contract at Plymouth. It is likely that he will not be getting paid so eventually, at the end of his contract, he will be owed more than if a reduced settlement is agreed and he will not have received any cash in the meantime. I know which option I would take if a sensible agreement can be made. Yes, I was thinking payoff could happen as some kind of preferential bond deferred for 6 or 12 months as I was writing it, but didn’t want to complicate it anymore! Chances are if Plymouth gets to the end of this season unscathed then they will almost certainly survive. To them 50k now will be a lot more than 50k in 12 months time (I don’t know where this 50k figure comes from, I’m just using it as an example).
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Jan 18, 2011 23:01:58 GMT
Another thought is that a number of people on this forum seem to think that Mclean is able to demand several thousands of pounds in wages per week because his contract at Plymouth is for that amount. I notice that he has only played 88 games since he signed for cardiff in June 2007 (3 1/2 seasons) and has only scored 13 goals in that time. He was out of favour at Cardiff after only 15 games then was told he could look for another club by Plymouth in October 2009. He only played 16 games on loan to Aberdeen last season but they did not retain him and he dropped down to League Two to play for us. Does this really suggest that he is worth the same deal that he signed for Plymouth? Why has he not secured a well paid position with another club in the last 15 months? Was he asking for too much money and stayed on Plymouth's books because he did not want to take a cut?
Maclean has looked good for us so far and I hope he stays but he does not appear to be a prolific goalscorer. Would he look as good when up against League One or Championship defenders? A move to us may be an opportunity to put himself in the limelight if he continues his good form so maybe we do not have to break the bank to keep him.
|
|
|
Post by jimmycarterxi on Jan 18, 2011 23:24:28 GMT
Am more confident of Maclean being available for Saturday's game after seeing that midson started at Thame, wouldn't have thought any of sat starting xi would have started tonight. Maybe craddock, beano and Maclean to be front 3 on sat
|
|
|
Post by mrdiaz on Jan 19, 2011 13:32:29 GMT
Depends if he stays to the end of season he might cost them £100k in wages, therefore if they both agree that they just pay him £50k and he is free to get a new club then they would do it. He'd then get a new club and earn about £80k for the remaining 20 weeks of the season. £130k in his pocket, good business for both parties. Your figures are out. Are they?
|
|
|
Post by hadouken on Jan 19, 2011 13:35:21 GMT
Am more confident of Maclean being available for Saturday's game after seeing that midson started at Thame, wouldn't have thought any of sat starting xi would have started tonight. Maybe craddock, beano and Maclean to be front 3 on sat 442?
|
|