Should we be doing a Woolwich

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Should we cancel contracts of our deadwood

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 72.7%
  • No

    Votes: 3 27.3%

  • Total voters
    11
It's reported that Woolwich have cancelled the contract of Mustafi. That makes three players they have let go, along with Ozil and Sokratis.

It got me thinking, Should we do the same ?
Get rid of our deadwood and free up spaces in the squad, even if it means playing the kids and, possibly, to the detriment of our best players being overplayed.
 
Yes, why not? I've never understood the point of having players not in the squad just hanging around for years doing nothing like Rose is doing.

Cut your losses, get rid and move on.
 

Mrs Perryman

Supporter
I'm a Cockney Malteser 👑
If there's no chance that we can't move certain people on, then surely it makes sense to pay off their contract and let them go. No good in them sticking around, for us or for them. I would rather take a chance on having one of the kids playing in their specialist position than putting a squad player in one that they struggle with.
 
To be honest, I still find it a little strange that the semi-feudal arrangement of the transfer market persists. Seems the major factor in keeping the system running is that clubs have already paid transfer fees for certain players and so have a vested interest in selling these players to recover fees. I do believe we're starting to see it crack with many players now asserting control over their careers and running their contracts down.

Shorter contracts with more wages, I say. Deadwood is easier to move on from, then.
 
I say no because you never know what could happen. Crazy amount of injuries, change in manager, a club suddenly wanting a player.

If you’re paying them the same amount, might as well keep them as emergency help.
 
Good point.

I think (?) Woolwich only cancelled the contracts to allow them to join other clubs on a free.
So no obligation to pay their wages.
 
Good point.

I think (?) Woolwich only cancelled the contracts to allow them to join other clubs on a free.
So no obligation to pay their wages.
I've only seen it said that there have been payoffs involved.

https://www.teamtalk.com/news/all-over-mesut-ozil-Woolwich-pay-off-contract-transfer-close

Maybe not the full whack but I would guess the lions share in most cases.
 
Hard to release players like that if the club is not paying them a hefty severance pay (golden handshake), and they make sure they would get the rest of the amount in their new club. Unless there is at least a small interest to release them (saving a few million) and the club is financially desperate, I think it's not a good idea.

Why pay them off their whole amount and let them go? It sends the wrong message that anyone who wants can down tools and still get their money.
 
This topic reminds me of Bobby Bonilla Day. For those who don't follow, Bobby Bonilla was a baseball player - a pretty good one, in fact, from 1986-2001. Before the 2000 season, the New York Mets wanted to dump Bonilla and his $5.5M wages left on his contract. So they reached an agreement to defer payment and effect his immediate release...and so, with interest included, every July 1(Bobby Bonilla Day) Bobby Bonilla receives a $1.2M payment from the New York Mets and will do so until 2035. Bobby Bonilla retired from baseball in 2001.

:adesalute:
 

TommyD123

Supporter
This topic reminds me of Bobby Bonilla Day. For those who don't follow, Bobby Bonilla was a baseball player - a pretty good one, in fact, from 1986-2001. Before the 2000 season, the New York Mets wanted to dump Bonilla and his $5.5M wages left on his contract. So they reached an agreement to defer payment and effect his immediate release...and so, with interest included, every July 1(Bobby Bonilla Day) Bobby Bonilla receives a $1.2M payment from the New York Mets and will do so until 2035. Bobby Bonilla retired from baseball in 2001.

:adesalute:
What interest rate did they agree???
 
What interest rate did they agree???
8%, and deferred all payments 10 years so didn't cut a check until 2011. The owners got swindled because they were major Madoff (remember him?) investors and thought they could easily count on raking in 10%+ with the hedge fund god.

Mets had a penchant for this sort of thing. They're paying Darryl freakin' Strawberry $1.6M/yr until 2033 because they wanted to sack him in 1990.
 

TommyD123

Supporter
8%, and deferred all payments 10 years so didn't cut a check until 2011. The owners got swindled because they were major Madoff (remember him?) investors and thought they could easily count on raking in 10%+ with the hedge fund god.

Mets had a penchant for this sort of thing. They're paying Darryl freakin' Strawberry $1.6M/yr until 2033 because they wanted to sack him in 1990.
Suppose Bobby’s taking the counterparty risk that the Mets will still be about but still sounds like a pretty good deal.
 
100%
Bring back Skipp, and Parrot and the players we point blank refuse to use or can’t play to the level required of their wages, let go.

Get Tanganga in the team.....how is he behind Sanchez?

And why isn’t this in the Spurs forum?
 
Last edited:
This topic reminds me of Bobby Bonilla Day. For those who don't follow, Bobby Bonilla was a baseball player - a pretty good one, in fact, from 1986-2001. Before the 2000 season, the New York Mets wanted to dump Bonilla and his $5.5M wages left on his contract. So they reached an agreement to defer payment and effect his immediate release...and so, with interest included, every July 1(Bobby Bonilla Day) Bobby Bonilla receives a $1.2M payment from the New York Mets and will do so until 2035. Bobby Bonilla retired from baseball in 2001.

:adesalute:
Owe him 5.5M but pay him 40M

:tanguythumb:
 

Blanchflower

Supporter
Woolwich are paying up the majority, if not all, of the contract value to cancel the contracts.

Literally pouring money down the drain.

We definitely shouldn't follow their lead, they are having a nightmare.

All they've achieved is to set a precedence where any player they want out knows they will pay up his contract and he can take that money and also take money from a new club to get paid twice.
 
100%
Bring back Skipp, and Parrot and the players we point blank refuse to use or can’t play to the level required of their wages, let go.

Get Tanganga in the team.....how is he behind Sanchez?

And why isn’t this in the Spurs forum?
I wouldn't taint the Spurs forum with a thread title with the "W" word in it!
 
What is the situation with our youngsters? Woolwich have Saka/Martinelli/Smith Rowe/Nelson/Nketiah in addition to the likes of Willock and Maitland-Niles who they've loaned out, plenty of talent to plug the gaps of other players who've left, we have nowhere near enough quality or quantity when it comes to our youth for them to step up and be ready for the first team if needed. Especially with that dinosaur of a manager who's arguably the the absolute worst when it comes to developing young players.
 

Blanchflower

Supporter
What is the situation with our youngsters? Woolwich have Saka/Martinelli/Smith Rowe/Nelson/Nketiah in addition to the likes of Willock and Maitland-Niles who they've loaned out, plenty of talent to plug the gaps of other players who've left, we have nowhere near enough quality or quantity when it comes to our youth for them to step up and be ready for the first team if needed. Especially with that dinosaur of a manager who's arguably the the absolute worst when it comes to developing young players.


Partly they have better youngsters because their first team has been shit for ages.

As a youth team player, if you had zero affiliation to any club, you choose one with a clear route to first team football.
 
Partly they have better youngsters because their first team has been shit for ages.

As a youth team player, if you had zero affiliation to any club, you choose one with a clear route to first team football.

I'm asking who are our up and comers? those teetering on the edge of a big breakthrough? Man utd have Greenwood, Liverpool have Jones, Woolwich have Saka, City have Foden, Chelsea have Hudson-Odoi what do we have? Troy Parrott?

My main point is still that this idea we can get rid of deadwood and blood some youth is I'm afraid ridiculous for this club at this time with this manager.
 
Top Bottom