By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Not refusing to play, not anything to do with his contract. No smoke, no fire. > I will leave the aforementioned original post above because we can’t always know everything, part true, however, there’s most certainly an issue. And if he has refused to play for the club then get rid.
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 13:23 - Jan 17 by guthrieintherain
Well if that's the case let him train with the under 23s till the end of January and see what he thinks about that.
The way i see it even if the contract was not extended by the club he would still have refused to play once there was bigger money elsewhere. 25 games and its automatic. He could have only play 2 more games for 'contractual freedom'.
Wise sage since Toshack era
0
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 15:41 - Jan 17 with 2771 views
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 15:41 - Jan 17 by Whiterockin
I recon his agent dropped a B when negotiating the contract and is trying to claw something back.
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 12:33 - Jan 17 by KeithHaynes
I am personally certain that the club have done this whole extension thing appropriately and in accordance with the initial contract he agreed to.
If that’s the case, as described by Keith, then this bollocks now from him and his Agent, means he should never pull on a Swans shirt ever again.
It sums up the modern player’s money grabbing, don’t give toss mentality. Especially considering he was probably at the last chance Championship saloon, when Bristol got shot of him, and Martin mentored him into the style of football that ideally suited him.
He has put himself in the shop window with above average performances, and in an ideal world, a better paid contract would have been totally merited. But it sounds like he and his agent fecked up, and by refusing to play, has now burned any bridges in SA 1
18 months contract, attacking championship midfielder, 8 goals and 4 assists, sounds good to me. £3m + anyone ?
0
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 20:17 - Jan 17 with 2527 views
Does anyone seriously think that the extension and detail moving forward was not discussed & agreed with Paterson & his agent before this strop kicked in ?
0
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 22:39 - Jan 17 with 2323 views
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 22:28 - Jan 17 by EagleEye
Does anyone seriously think that the extension and detail moving forward was not discussed & agreed with Paterson & his agent before this strop kicked in ?
So what are you implying - that the brought forward contract extension was fully discussed and approved by Paterson and his advisors?
So what then explains the petulance?
Surely it's more likely he wasn't properly informed? (I don't blame the club for this by the way, if Paterson shouldn't have signed his initial contract if he felt so strongly about it).
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 22:39 - Jan 17 by Chief
So what are you implying - that the brought forward contract extension was fully discussed and approved by Paterson and his advisors?
So what then explains the petulance?
Surely it's more likely he wasn't properly informed? (I don't blame the club for this by the way, if Paterson shouldn't have signed his initial contract if he felt so strongly about it).
I am just asking the question. I don’t think it’s credible that any club could be so unprofessional to invoke a change to an extension clause then make it public without discussion & agreement between both parties. Do you ?
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 08:36 - Jan 18 by EagleEye
I am just asking the question. I don’t think it’s credible that any club could be so unprofessional to invoke a change to an extension clause then make it public without discussion & agreement between both parties. Do you ?
I don't see how the club could invoke a change to the contract without Patterson agreeing full stop. Possibly the original contract said that Patterson could have an extension after 25 matches played and the club could apply the extension at any time. Last summer I could not see him disagreeing to this, just that he and his advisors have been amateurs the last week or so.
0
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 09:31 - Jan 18 with 2038 views
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 08:45 - Jan 18 by Whiterockin
I don't see how the club could invoke a change to the contract without Patterson agreeing full stop. Possibly the original contract said that Patterson could have an extension after 25 matches played and the club could apply the extension at any time. Last summer I could not see him disagreeing to this, just that he and his advisors have been amateurs the last week or so.
I think we did the same thing with Van Der Hoon and then let him go for free when his contract expired as he wouldn’t sign a new one.
Strange situation all round. Ayew and Gylfi refused to play for us but that was in August and both subsequently left the club. My opinion like others is he’s had his head turned and unfortunately he’s a distraction the club don’t need.
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 09:31 - Jan 18 by Luther27
I think we did the same thing with Van Der Hoon and then let him go for free when his contract expired as he wouldn’t sign a new one.
Strange situation all round. Ayew and Gylfi refused to play for us but that was in August and both subsequently left the club. My opinion like others is he’s had his head turned and unfortunately he’s a distraction the club don’t need.
No doubt he has had his head turned. But if the contract now states there is 18 months on it not 6 surely is value will be greater, either way he goes and we move on. I still think our system is perfect for him and he will not be as good elsewhere.
0
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 09:41 - Jan 18 with 1991 views
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 09:37 - Jan 18 by Whiterockin
No doubt he has had his head turned. But if the contract now states there is 18 months on it not 6 surely is value will be greater, either way he goes and we move on. I still think our system is perfect for him and he will not be as good elsewhere.
I agree….but give him a rocket…with no pay rise and he’ll just amble about the pitch. He’s made his stand and personally I think there’s no going back. If he stays it’ll send the wrong signal to the squad.
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 08:36 - Jan 18 by EagleEye
I am just asking the question. I don’t think it’s credible that any club could be so unprofessional to invoke a change to an extension clause then make it public without discussion & agreement between both parties. Do you ?
Any club? Absolutely. There are some very dodgy dealers in football.
0
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 12:53 - Jan 18 with 1740 views
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 08:36 - Jan 18 by EagleEye
I am just asking the question. I don’t think it’s credible that any club could be so unprofessional to invoke a change to an extension clause then make it public without discussion & agreement between both parties. Do you ?
Surely the discussion would have been at the point of drawing up the original contract? If the clause is in there, what would need to be discussed/signed when triggered? Obviously the sticking point might be if it’s been triggered early or without meeting the requirements of the clause.
0
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 13:54 - Jan 18 with 1613 views
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 08:36 - Jan 18 by EagleEye
I am just asking the question. I don’t think it’s credible that any club could be so unprofessional to invoke a change to an extension clause then make it public without discussion & agreement between both parties. Do you ?
By that logic there'd never be any contract disputes in sport?
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 12:53 - Jan 18 by BillyChong
Surely the discussion would have been at the point of drawing up the original contract? If the clause is in there, what would need to be discussed/signed when triggered? Obviously the sticking point might be if it’s been triggered early or without meeting the requirements of the clause.
Well we know it definitely was triggered early.
But how did the club go about it and what was the communication with Paterson surrounding it?
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 15:06 - Jan 18 by Chief
Well we know it definitely was triggered early.
But how did the club go about it and what was the communication with Paterson surrounding it?
I remember Mike Van de Horn doing an interview. In it, he was asked if he was staying at Swansea?. He replied it was out of his hands and up to Swansea City FC. This seemed odd but clearly he understood his own contract and had no say in the matter. He was on a good wack for the Championship so went along with it and delivered good performances.
If the contract is the same then the club could trigger the contract without the players agreement as per contract. In this event the contract extension was at the behest of the club not Patterson nor his advisor. If Patterson was playing badly Patterson would want to get to 25 games so the club had no choice but to extend.
The club will having confirmed Patterson of the extension as part of everyday business activity from the Personnel Department. If Patterson does not like the contract he signed then there needs to be discussion. He appears to be breaking his contract. What other players are getting is none of his business. Ayew was getting 4 x 'anyone else' and 'anyone else' accepted it and did not complain.
[Post edited 18 Jan 2022 15:53]
Wise sage since Toshack era
0
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 15:46 - Jan 18 with 1433 views
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 15:36 - Jan 18 by ReslovenSwan1
I remember Mike Van de Horn doing an interview. In it, he was asked if he was staying at Swansea?. He replied it was out of his hands and up to Swansea City FC. This seemed odd but clearly he understood his own contract and had no say in the matter. He was on a good wack for the Championship so went along with it and delivered good performances.
If the contract is the same then the club could trigger the contract without the players agreement as per contract. In this event the contract extension was at the behest of the club not Patterson nor his advisor. If Patterson was playing badly Patterson would want to get to 25 games so the club had no choice but to extend.
The club will having confirmed Patterson of the extension as part of everyday business activity from the Personnel Department. If Patterson does not like the contract he signed then there needs to be discussion. He appears to be breaking his contract. What other players are getting is none of his business. Ayew was getting 4 x 'anyone else' and 'anyone else' accepted it and did not complain.
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 15:46 - Jan 18 by vetchonian
You know that for certain do you?
I do not know anything for certain. The world is a sphere. Its a forum designed to illicit opinion view and to speculate. I have nothing to do with the club.
Wise sage since Toshack era
0
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 16:12 - Jan 18 with 1356 views
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 15:36 - Jan 18 by ReslovenSwan1
I remember Mike Van de Horn doing an interview. In it, he was asked if he was staying at Swansea?. He replied it was out of his hands and up to Swansea City FC. This seemed odd but clearly he understood his own contract and had no say in the matter. He was on a good wack for the Championship so went along with it and delivered good performances.
If the contract is the same then the club could trigger the contract without the players agreement as per contract. In this event the contract extension was at the behest of the club not Patterson nor his advisor. If Patterson was playing badly Patterson would want to get to 25 games so the club had no choice but to extend.
The club will having confirmed Patterson of the extension as part of everyday business activity from the Personnel Department. If Patterson does not like the contract he signed then there needs to be discussion. He appears to be breaking his contract. What other players are getting is none of his business. Ayew was getting 4 x 'anyone else' and 'anyone else' accepted it and did not complain.
[Post edited 18 Jan 2022 15:53]
Yes the fact that there's an extension clause isn't disputed. It is probably also the case that club could extend it without too much discord, it is after all in the contract Paterson signed. However the contract he signed was extension could be triggered after 25 games. We know the contract was extended earlier than that.
The rest you're guessing I assume. We don't know if Paterson was informed / consulted and under what grounds did the club bring the extension trigger forward.
So it is possible the club broke the contract, renewing before 25 games. Paterson is breaking his contract which is still running until the end of the season (putting the extension aside) by not training or playing though.
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 16:12 - Jan 18 by Chief
Yes the fact that there's an extension clause isn't disputed. It is probably also the case that club could extend it without too much discord, it is after all in the contract Paterson signed. However the contract he signed was extension could be triggered after 25 games. We know the contract was extended earlier than that.
The rest you're guessing I assume. We don't know if Paterson was informed / consulted and under what grounds did the club bring the extension trigger forward.
So it is possible the club broke the contract, renewing before 25 games. Paterson is breaking his contract which is still running until the end of the season (putting the extension aside) by not training or playing though.
Patterson would certainly have been informed, if the personnel department does its job properly. Why are you speculating on this? Its everyday administration under very experience mangers like Jenkins Birch and Winter.
Why do you need to know what grounds? He was playing well, the club wanted to extend his contract and did. Like Van de Horn they simply typed a letter and sent it to him.
I gave you the Van de Horn example as a precedent. I will find the video.
1 minute in. "its up to them".
Credit Luther for reminding me.
[Post edited 18 Jan 2022 16:35]
Wise sage since Toshack era
0
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 16:50 - Jan 18 with 1262 views
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 16:23 - Jan 18 by ReslovenSwan1
Patterson would certainly have been informed, if the personnel department does its job properly. Why are you speculating on this? Its everyday administration under very experience mangers like Jenkins Birch and Winter.
Why do you need to know what grounds? He was playing well, the club wanted to extend his contract and did. Like Van de Horn they simply typed a letter and sent it to him.
I gave you the Van de Horn example as a precedent. I will find the video.
1 minute in. "its up to them".
Credit Luther for reminding me.
[Post edited 18 Jan 2022 16:35]
More speculation .. How do you know the personnel department has done its job correctly The Van der Hoorn situation is totally different, yes it was up to the club if they would extend or not but rememebr he was signed on PL terms and we would have been happy to get his wages off the books. Again thats me summising
Lets look at PAto's situation and I am not defendinmg him but what if the club has had an offer or hint of anoffer for him from elsewhere...they have triggered the contract early therefore upping the fee the club could command..I wouldnt put it past the club to try this. Maybe the interpretation when siging also was different maybe it was explained the club could trigger this earlier than the stippulated number of appearances so Pato thought he was in the clear. Whichever way this needs resolving PDQ and a proper official statement as you would expect from a properly run business rather than leaked snippets allowing speculation in social media!
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 16:23 - Jan 18 by ReslovenSwan1
Patterson would certainly have been informed, if the personnel department does its job properly. Why are you speculating on this? Its everyday administration under very experience mangers like Jenkins Birch and Winter.
Why do you need to know what grounds? He was playing well, the club wanted to extend his contract and did. Like Van de Horn they simply typed a letter and sent it to him.
I gave you the Van de Horn example as a precedent. I will find the video.
1 minute in. "its up to them".
Credit Luther for reminding me.
[Post edited 18 Jan 2022 16:35]
- you assume he was informed. Did the personnel dept definitely do its job correctly? I'm speculating because I'm trying to understand Patersons hissy fit. His reaction suggests that there maybe more to this. And this is a forum as you say. Jenkins &Winter are unrelated.
- because the grounds under which the club brought forward the extension to what Paterson and the club signed up to could potentially be the reason why he's annoyed. The agreement was 25 games. How did they bring that forward? And did they fulfill their contractual obligations in doing so?
- VDHs contract wasn't renewed early as far as I know, so it has no relevance.
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 17:01 - Jan 18 by Chief
- you assume he was informed. Did the personnel dept definitely do its job correctly? I'm speculating because I'm trying to understand Patersons hissy fit. His reaction suggests that there maybe more to this. And this is a forum as you say. Jenkins &Winter are unrelated.
- because the grounds under which the club brought forward the extension to what Paterson and the club signed up to could potentially be the reason why he's annoyed. The agreement was 25 games. How did they bring that forward? And did they fulfill their contractual obligations in doing so?
- VDHs contract wasn't renewed early as far as I know, so it has no relevance.
I know Patterson was informed because I was informed last week in the press by Martins statement.
The van de Horn example shows in some cases that the club can act independently on the basis of the contract signed by the player. It works BOTH WAYS.
If Patterson was playing badly and had played 25 games the club could not ditch him and would need to pay him a full years salary regardless. The club could not simply disregard the contract.
Similarly if Patterson is playing well the club can theoretically extend the contract as per contract he signed.
The question you need to be asking is would Patterson agree to play in the next three games if his contract was not extended?
Wise sage since Toshack era
0
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 17:25 - Jan 18 with 1176 views
The Paterson report from Thursday ! on 17:18 - Jan 18 by ReslovenSwan1
I know Patterson was informed because I was informed last week in the press by Martins statement.
The van de Horn example shows in some cases that the club can act independently on the basis of the contract signed by the player. It works BOTH WAYS.
If Patterson was playing badly and had played 25 games the club could not ditch him and would need to pay him a full years salary regardless. The club could not simply disregard the contract.
Similarly if Patterson is playing well the club can theoretically extend the contract as per contract he signed.
The question you need to be asking is would Patterson agree to play in the next three games if his contract was not extended?
- Was Paterson Informed prior to the news being released in the press? No articles mention Paterson bring consulted.
- irrelevant because it's a different situation. We don't know if either party can act independently with a brought forward extension.
- I think you're missing the point. There's potentially been a change to the contract. The extension occurred under different circumstances to what was the perceived contract condition (25 games).
- I can only assume he would have. The change in his attitude has been brought about in someway as a result of the extension.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
