caleyboy

Who wants Gary Warren to stay?

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Gregor said:

Its quite simple for me , Gary Warren has a contract for another year, the club feel they could use the money more wisely and invest in some other player but finances are tight.

If He can find another club we will surely give him a payoff to go and the player could get a club that wants him to play rather than sit on the bench with ourselves. It happens all the time and most times it’s just down to finances.

I don’t think the club is doing anything wrong at all here.

It would all be so much better if Gary Warren would stop being so selfish and just ask for that contract he signed in good faith to be terminated to save ICT some money so they can go and sign some other players.

I mean they done the right thing by going public on the situation making it clear that he is costing them too much. He should really do the right thing and just leave!

/sarcasm

Edited by RiG
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, RiG said:

It would all be so much better if Gary Warren would stop being so selfish and just ask for that contract he signed in good faith to be terminated to save ICT some money so they can go and sign some other players.

I mean they done the right thing by going public on the situation making it clear that he is costing them too much. He should really do the right thing and just leave!

/sarcasm

so if your employer asked you to take a pretty heavy pay cut you would be ok with it.

  • Facepalm 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, caleyboy said:

so if your employer asked you to take a pretty heavy pay cut you would be ok with it.

I would say 'wooosh' but he's literally written 'sarcasm' at the end...

Edited by Fraz
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Fraz said:

I would say 'wooosh' be he's literally written 'sarcasm' at the end...

 

1 hour ago, RiG said:

It would all be so much better if Gary Warren would stop being so selfish and just ask for that contract he signed in good faith to be terminated to save ICT some money so they can go and sign some other players.

I mean they done the right thing by going public on the situation making it clear that he is costing them too much. He should really do the right thing and just leave!

/sarcasm

Think you have missed the point I was making,he will surely get a pay-off ,which means in reality the club and player can be effectively both better off.

 

However if he doesn’t get another club we are contracted to pay him what is on his contract,the ball is firmly in Gary’s court mate and rightly so.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gregor said:

Think you have missed the point I was making,he will surely get a pay-off ,which means in reality the club and player can be effectively both better off.

However if he doesn’t get another club we are contracted to pay him what is on his contract,the ball is firmly in Gary’s court mate and rightly so.

The club can't afford to pay players off otherwise the likes of OFW and Raven would have been gone long ago.

The ball may well be in Warrens court but only after we've very publicly made it clear we really don't want him to be here anymore. Not exactly a great way to treat a long serving player.

  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, RiG said:

The club can't afford to pay players off otherwise the likes of OFW and Raven would have been gone long ago.

The ball may well be in Warrens court but only after we've very publicly made it clear we really don't want him to be here anymore. Not exactly a great way to treat a long serving player.

It's symptomatic of the way the club was ran under the previous board....unfair that guys like Gary Warren should have to be forced out as a result. 

Yes, he was given a long contract which, I presume, didn't contain a relegation clause. You can hardly blame Gary for signing it!  

This is the same group of people that thought giving Richie Foran a 4 year contract as a rookie manager was a good idea, don't forget!

I don't have a problem with the club saying to Gary "look, if you get a move to another club that suits you & your family, we won't ask for a fee & will let you go for free", but I DO have a problem with the club going public &, basically, forcing him out - it's a pretty shoddy way to treat a long serving player & captain, who would, clearly, run through a brick wall for the jersey!

Said it before, but I feel that Gary still has a role to play at the club, even other than as a player. He's a great example to the kids on how working hard will bring you success.

Edited by jingsmonty
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Gregor said:

 

Think you have missed the point I was making,he will surely get a pay-off ,which means in reality the club and player can be effectively both better off.

 

However if he doesn’t get another club we are contracted to pay him what is on his contract,the ball is firmly in Gary’s court mate and rightly so.

What pay off will he surely get? 

He either stays on and sees off his contract and we pay him what was signed up for

OR

He leaves and goes to another club and the contract will be torn up. 

I don't have an issue with the club being willing to let Gary go it's the way we've gone public. We are terrible at getting out communications that people want to know about but we make public things that should be kept private. Bizarre. 

It's not even a current manager / board thing we seem to be atrocious at dealing with departing (or possibly departing) long term players. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jingsmonty said:

It's symptomatic of the way the club was ran under the previous board....unfair that guys like Gary Warren should have to be forced out as a result. 

Yes, he was given a long contract which, I presume, didn't contain a relegation clause. You can hardly blame Gary for signing it!  

I believe that relegation clauses are standard. Usually around 20-25%.

Or so I'm told.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, RiG said:

The club can't afford to pay players off otherwise the likes of OFW and Raven would have been gone long ago.

The ball may well be in Warrens court but only after we've very publicly made it clear we really don't want him to be here anymore. Not exactly a great way to treat a long serving player.

I  dont agree . 

This is not a lose lose situation only a potential win win or stay same .

Gary can potentially be better off never worse so positive for him.

Club may be financially better off but lose a great player or keep a good leader and coach for the defenders for a year. 

If you want to help Gary what can you do about it. 

Can you help  push for  a testimonial or does club  lose money on that? Can we have testemonial events etc . Sponsor gary as a player. 

 

Thats what we could do to positively reward Gary at a fan level.

Rather than criticise the club - organise, support and voice positives we can aim for? 

Or is to easy to criticise the club rather than be the club?

Signed

john graham  kenny cameron rae robertson the third 

Up the board

Up the happy clappers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fraz said:

I believe that relegation clauses are standard. Usually around 20-25%.

Or so I'm told.

If that is the case, then it makes the club's conduct look even more suspect

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fraz said:

I believe that relegation clauses are standard. Usually around 20-25%.

Or so I'm told.

I've been told this was the contracted cut for players and some took a bigger cut. A lot of the bonus and appearance money has also been removed and not just for players.

I was also told that our standard dismount payment for managers is 8 months pay unless there's less than that left on their contract and it then reduces accordingly.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Moogthurso said:

I  dont agree . 

This is not a lose lose situation only a potential win win or stay same .

Gary can potentially be better off never worse so positive for him.

Club may be financially better off but lose a great player or keep a good leader and coach for the defenders for a year. 

If you want to help Gary what can you do about it. 

Can you help  push for  a testimonial or does club  lose money on that? Can we have testemonial events etc . Sponsor gary as a player. 

 

Thats what we could do to positively reward Gary at a fan level.

Rather than criticise the club - organise, support and voice positives we can aim for? 

Or is to easy to criticise the club rather than be the club?

Signed

john graham  kenny cameron rae robertson the third 

Up the board

Up the happy clappers

 

 

So after long-service your employer, a year before retirement,  says ‘actually -change of plan - better for us if you leave’.  And you think that’s ‘staying the same’ and not at all negative...

You also seem to be implying that people who have issue with this decision are just malcontents.  Plenty of people who have an issue with this are ‘happy clappers’ towards the players.  They are less inclined to give board decisions a free pass.  I’d say that is good practice, indeed it’s what makes democracy to have robust opposition (or should do).  Happy clapper or being positive does not equate to agreeing with the board’s decisions, certainly not when a fan has a rational objection to that.  

I find myself to be a ‘player happy clapper’, and perhaps you are a ‘board happy clapper’.  Let’s be happy together.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Glover said:

So after long-service your employer, a year before retirement,  says ‘actually -change of plan - better for us if you leave’.  And you think that’s ‘staying the same’ and not at all negative...

You also seem to be implying that people who have issue with this decision are just malcontents.  Plenty of people who have an issue with this are ‘happy clappers’ towards the players.  They are less inclined to give board decisions a free pass.  I’d say that is good practice, indeed it’s what makes democracy to have robust opposition (or should do).  Happy clapper or being positive does not equate to agreeing with the board’s decisions, certainly not when a fan has a rational objection to that.  

I find myself to be a ‘player happy clapper’, and perhaps you are a ‘board happy clapper’.  Let’s be happy together.

I think I might be in love with you 😍

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is purely speculation but I presume with the players who have left/loaned out, that Gary is perhaps the biggest earner by some way (no fault of his own). If he is not a stand out player and perhaps not a guaranteed starter then you could imagine other players you are performing well may be phoning agents to request parity to GW earnings if not more.

The club have perhaps used a self preservation tactic to prevent this, it needed to be done publicly so the rest of the dressing room know the situation. The board want the wage level reduced and the squad earning similar amounts.

Again this has no evidence base, just some thoughts bouncing about my coupon . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jingsmonty said:

It's symptomatic of the way the club was ran under the previous board....unfair that guys like Gary Warren should have to be forced out as a result. 

Yes, he was given a long contract which, I presume, didn't contain a relegation clause. You can hardly blame Gary for signing it!  

This is the same group of people that thought giving Richie Foran a 4 year contract as a rookie manager was a good idea, don't forget!

I don't have a problem with the club saying to Gary "look, if you get a move to another club that suits you & your family, we won't ask for a fee & will let you go for free", but I DO have a problem with the club going public &, basically, forcing him out - it's a pretty shoddy way to treat a long serving player & captain, who would, clearly, run through a brick wall for the jersey!

Said it before, but I feel that Gary still has a role to play at the club, even other than as a player. He's a great example to the kids on how working hard will bring you success.

Agree with pretty much all of this.

12 minutes ago, Stirling Observer said:

The club have perhaps used a self preservation tactic to prevent this, it needed to be done publicly so the rest of the dressing room know the situation. The board want the wage level reduced and the squad earning similar amounts.

Again this has no evidence base, just some thoughts bouncing about my coupon . 

Can't agree with this. The rest of the dressing room could be told without going public. It would certainly set a very dangerous precedent whereby the club go public any time they need to get players on their side when tackling potentially problematic or divisive issues.

Edited by RiG
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We aren't in the premiership we need to cut costs. Gary is on a large wage and not the player he was. Past two seasons he was poor. Don't see the problem. SEVERAL players now above him in the pecking order. Lots of folk on here keep harping on about not looking back but looking forward, time to look forward and let him go. It is a business at the end of the day. 

  • Agree 2
  • Facepalm 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people making comment on the assumption that Gary is on some kind of super wages...based off what?  The mention of the term "Premiership Wage"?  What is a "Premiership Wage"?  Would anyone care to put a figure against what they consider to be a "Premiership Wage" and what level they think Gary Warren may be on?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, CaleyD said:

A lot of people making comment on the assumption that Gary is on some kind of super wages...based off what?  The mention of the term "Premiership Wage"?  What is a "Premiership Wage"?  Would anyone care to put a figure against what they consider to be a "Premiership Wage" and what level they think Gary Warren may be on?

Exactly, he's clearly on the same amount as the likes of bell, Oakley, Trafford etc. I don't really see the issue. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MorayJaggie said:

We aren't in the premiership we need to cut costs. Gary is on a large wage and not the player he was. Past two seasons he was poor. Don't see the problem. SEVERAL players now above him in the pecking order. Lots of folk on here keep harping on about not looking back but looking forward, time to look forward and let him go. It is a business at the end of the day. 

Out of interest who are the several players ahead of Warren in the team at the minute?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RiG said:

Out of interest who are the several players ahead of Warren in the team at the minute?

Until I'm convinced we have a decent RB I'd be having him in with Donaldson and McKay on the right. 

  • Agree 1
  • Disagree 1
  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MorayJaggie said:

 It is a business at the end of the day. 

Correct and like any other business if you sign a contract and wish to break those terms you have to agree compensation otherwise expect the other party to take you to court otherwise suck it up and see the terms through.

Going public and trying to put across bad press about the other party is not only a dangerous game, but also will probably do more damage to your reputation than the party you attack.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No-one said super wages. Obviously assumptions are made but assumptions are based on educated guesses. The fact that he has been at the club for several years, renegotiating contracts whilst he was a key player and the club were earning/spending much more. Also the fact the club hinted his wages could be used for 3 players. What are your assumptions that he wouldn't be the highest earner or at the very least, one of the highest earners at the club?

 

Oakley and bell are kids. They would have been relatively cheap I would imagine. Trafford, not so sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the longest-serving and most senior player, I imagine he is one of the top earning players at the club.  These 3 players thing is bunkum - it’s reported as being to slash the wage bill and nothing else.

The issue is not about what Gary earns - as I’ve said before, if it had been prohibitive the board would have made this move a year ago.  We can infer that at least.  The board in 2017 also forecast where they would be (I hope) and still didn’t act.  

Its not the wage.  The club have obviously arranged for a reporter to come to the club (or phone) during the holidays with one story, that Gary had been told to leave.  I guess that John Robertson was asked to give the interview.  I also guess the decision to tell the press came after Gary had refused  to take a pay cut and or early termination for a sum much less than his contract value.  

If that sits easy with some then that’s their prerogative.  Personally, I think it was an overstepping by the board on the playing squad to allocate his wage else where.

If hiring in backroom non-football staff and cutting at the football squad level is what is wanted and is the modus operandi then we shall have a very well operated stadium, submitting its accounts seamlessly, and very little stress for the directors, and hosting part-time football in League one.  How many season tickets would we sell then?  Is that what the board means when they talk about ‘sustainable’?  

 

  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Glover said:

As the longest-serving and most senior player, I imagine he is one of the top earning players at the club.  These 3 players thing is bunkum - it’s reported as being to slash the wage bill and nothing else.

The issue is not about what Gary earns - as I’ve said before, if it had been prohibitive the board would have made this move a year ago.  We can infer that at least.  The board in 2017 also forecast where they would be (I hope) and still didn’t act.  

Its not the wage.  The club have obviously arranged for a reporter to come to the club (or phone) during the holidays with one story, that Gary had been told to leave.  I guess that John Robertson was asked to give the interview.  I also guess the decision to tell the press came after Gary had refused  to take a pay cut and or early termination for a sum much less than his contract value.  

If that sits easy with some then that’s their prerogative.  Personally, I think it was an overstepping by the board on the playing squad to allocate his wage else where.

If hiring in backroom non-football staff and cutting at the football squad level is what is wanted and is the modus operandi then we shall have a very well operated stadium, submitting its accounts seamlessly, and very little stress for the directors, and hosting part-time football in League one.  How many season tickets would we sell then?  Is that what the board means when they talk about ‘sustainable’?  

 

The local.journalist that posted the story first on twitter said the story was sent to him by text from Robbo (who was on holiday). 

I agree totally with your views on this. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.