| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week 12:30 - Sep 10 with 9937 views | E15Hoop |
Couldn't see an existing thread on this. Apologies if I've just missed it, as work has been extremely full on recently, hence my lengthy absence from here apart from the occasional pop-in.
This is WELL worth a listen, as I think listening to the Chief always is anyway.
A lot of it we know already to be fair, but there are some interesting new revelations which I'm not going to spoil by going into detail on here. What I would say, though, is you should definitely listen right to the end, as he makes specific reference as to why we haven't seen him inducted into the Forever R's Club yet. Given the amount of games he played for the club and the fact that he was basically the only constant through 6 1/2 years of complete chaos and madness on an epic scale, I've long felt this was a ridiculous oversight. There is a ray of hope shone on this injustice by him at the end of the podcast to be fair.
On a technical note, you might find that your web browser won't allow you to get to the West12media website because of one of those dodgy certicifcate notices (hence why I haven't posted the link here), so you might have to manually override that. |  | | |  |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 21:08 - Sep 11 with 2314 views | daveB |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 18:52 - Sep 11 by DejR_vu |
On LF, he questions why, when we are supposed to be a development club, we sign players like Johansson, why under his watch we appointed different types of managers, why, unlike Brentford, for example, we don’t have an identity etc. He questioned how the likes of Brentford and Luton can succeed where we can’t.
On Fernandes, he spoke about judging him on what he said when he arrived and what he actually delivered.
He said he liked Amit personally but has no experience of him professionally which is pretty damning for the longest serving Board member / Chairman.
Re his last contract, he said one year from the end of the first contract he re-signed on 1/3 of the salary over three years, so swapped one year’s salary for three years stability. That contract included an extension trigger which was triggered but the club said they couldn’t afford it. They then offered him less, on something similar to his first contract at City when he was 18, plus appearance bonuses. He accepted it was a lot compared to a normal job but a significant pay cut. He felt the appearance bonus was too risky because the club could just not play him and he’d just be a ‘training player’. At 28, looking at his last contract, having played over 200 games for the club and always having been healthy and available, he thought they offered him a contract that he could never accept just to get rid of him. He accepted the club was cost-cutting but then said they signed other players on better contracts so what they were offering him wasn’t a new ceiling.
The way he and Ale left was mentioned.
To me, he basically confirmed it’s the shambles it obviously is.
All in all pretty shoddy, but nothing surprising. As I say, it felt like there was more to be said with an interviewer capable and prepared to ask the questions. |
He was 31 when he got that last contract offer, not sure that was shoddy at all, they couldn't afford to match his large basic salary anymore. Judging by the figures he mentioned he'd have been on around 20k a week if he played every game, no way could we get away with paying that kind of salary at that time especially for a defender who was good but replaceable. |  | | |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 21:23 - Sep 11 with 2279 views | JamesB1979 |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 21:08 - Sep 11 by daveB |
He was 31 when he got that last contract offer, not sure that was shoddy at all, they couldn't afford to match his large basic salary anymore. Judging by the figures he mentioned he'd have been on around 20k a week if he played every game, no way could we get away with paying that kind of salary at that time especially for a defender who was good but replaceable. |
I think main issues with the contract offered was 1) Pay increase dependent on appearances which made it difficult for any player to accept 2) they should have warned him well in advance of summer break so that fans and him could say goodbye. For me, he wasn’t treated with the respect that he deserved after 200 odd appearances for the club. If we couldn’t afford him, which we couldn’t, just tell him straight but do it early. Don’t do it late and give some nonsense pay as you play deal to your captain who had made loads of appearances in last 3 years. | | | |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 21:30 - Sep 11 with 2265 views | Antti_Heinola |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 20:32 - Sep 11 by BrianMcCarthy |
All very fair, Superhoops2808 and let's face it we know enough about Redknapp to know that everything Onuoha says is possible.
But I suppose that I just don't like the process of interviews like these as a rule. In decent debate we expect point and counterpoint, the right to reply in real time. In podcasts like Under the Cosh and even in our own versions you sometimes get one person telling supposedly confidential stories and expressing opinions and views, unchecked and unbalanced.
I'm wary of that.
I listened to half this episode earlier while driving and I paused it. I'll get back to it, but I felt like I should pause it. I counted at least five times where either Paul or Onuoha pre-qualified remarks about other people or events with phrases like "I don't know, but...", "I'm open to correction, but...", "Maybe I'm wildly wide of the mark but..." and then continued anyway with unsubtsantiated opinions, conjecture or suppositions.
That's not informative, it's not fact and it's not fair. |
Not really. Everyone entitled to an opinion, as we all are on here, and the fact that they qualified it as such is a plus in my view.
Anyone who listens to such interviews and takes it all as gospel is a bit silly: but it will be Nedum's 'truth', and that has value. I don't think there's any doubt he was treated poorly by the club when he left. Dave B can protest, but the club went back on a deal and it made little sense considering that we then very likely played Leistner more money soon afterwards and it has taken us ages to find a CB to match Ned - maybe we still haven't.
Thought Finney was wrong about not saying goodbye though: after his last game, the crowd gave him a rousing send off with much singing of his name and chanting of CHIEEEF as he waved goodbye. |  |
| |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 22:06 - Sep 11 with 2209 views | charmr |
My underpinning and somewhat confirmed realization is they really didn’t have a clue.
Somewhat more optimistic with certain decision makers not around [Post edited 11 Sep 2023 22:07]
| | | |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 23:17 - Sep 11 with 2129 views | DejR_vu |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 21:08 - Sep 11 by daveB |
He was 31 when he got that last contract offer, not sure that was shoddy at all, they couldn't afford to match his large basic salary anymore. Judging by the figures he mentioned he'd have been on around 20k a week if he played every game, no way could we get away with paying that kind of salary at that time especially for a defender who was good but replaceable. |
Well, if he had a contract extension trigger that was triggered, and the club reneged saying they couldn’t afford it, low-balled him then gave better contracts to subsequent signings, I’d say that was pretty shoddy, particularly when it’s the club captain who had played 200+ games.
From a playing point of view, it might have been the right thing, but the way the club went about it was poor. | |
| |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 23:24 - Sep 11 with 2129 views | Northernr |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 15:02 - Sep 10 by DejR_vu |
Very interesting from the context of a fans forum where topics are debated based upon different interpretations of what has been read and heard. When someone with first hand insight, who is eloquent, balanced and widely respected, shares information it should put a lot of the debate to bed.
It sounded to me that he had a lot more to say, he did well to keep it on track. He would be a great interviewee for anyone really looking to get to the heart of what has happened at the club over the last few years. |
Shameless plug. There's three hours of me with Nedum from a couple of years back on the LFW Patreon  |  | | |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 00:00 - Sep 12 with 2074 views | PunteR |
Listened to it and spent the last half hour writing a post out but then accidentally deleted.. ffs.
To summarise it, the club is a shambles. But we all knew that anyway.
Shit Dof, shit chairman's, tight arsed CEO. Knob heads running the stadium CClub thing.
Chief was treated appallingly. |  |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 00:10 - Sep 12 with 2061 views | daveB |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 21:23 - Sep 11 by JamesB1979 |
I think main issues with the contract offered was 1) Pay increase dependent on appearances which made it difficult for any player to accept 2) they should have warned him well in advance of summer break so that fans and him could say goodbye. For me, he wasn’t treated with the respect that he deserved after 200 odd appearances for the club. If we couldn’t afford him, which we couldn’t, just tell him straight but do it early. Don’t do it late and give some nonsense pay as you play deal to your captain who had made loads of appearances in last 3 years. |
Fans did say goodbye to him, that last game against Birmingham we all knew him and Mackie were going, they got very good send offs | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 00:13 - Sep 12 with 2057 views | daveB |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 23:17 - Sep 11 by DejR_vu |
Well, if he had a contract extension trigger that was triggered, and the club reneged saying they couldn’t afford it, low-balled him then gave better contracts to subsequent signings, I’d say that was pretty shoddy, particularly when it’s the club captain who had played 200+ games.
From a playing point of view, it might have been the right thing, but the way the club went about it was poor. |
doesn't matter if he is captain or not, club couldn't afford to give him that contract, it may not sit right with the player but the club had to do what was best for them at the time. I'm not sure signings that summer got better deals, maybe a few years later they did but we didn't spend much that summer | | | |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 00:17 - Sep 12 with 2053 views | PunteR |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 00:10 - Sep 12 by daveB |
Fans did say goodbye to him, that last game against Birmingham we all knew him and Mackie were going, they got very good send offs |
He didnt bring up about the send off,saying goodbye to fans. Finny brought it up. I seem to remember him having an interview on the pitch where he said improvements need to be made off the pitch.
He's obviously hurt by the way he was treated at the club and I wasn't convinced he'd even except the forever Rs thing while the current owners are in place. | |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 00:19 - Sep 12 with 2052 views | PunteR |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 00:13 - Sep 12 by daveB |
doesn't matter if he is captain or not, club couldn't afford to give him that contract, it may not sit right with the player but the club had to do what was best for them at the time. I'm not sure signings that summer got better deals, maybe a few years later they did but we didn't spend much that summer |
Well just be upfront with him , not give him a contract ridiculous to sign.
I did think though that Hoos had come in later so wasn't responsible for those 100 grand a week contracts Nedum compared it too. [Post edited 12 Sep 2023 0:21]
| |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 01:36 - Sep 12 with 2027 views | charmr |
I think it’s worth noting that as soon as we got into the Premier league the culture changed somewhat. From the players players too the staff, especially the non Rangers supporting fraternity. [Post edited 12 Sep 2023 1:47]
| | | |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 08:30 - Sep 12 with 1874 views | DejR_vu |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 00:13 - Sep 12 by daveB |
doesn't matter if he is captain or not, club couldn't afford to give him that contract, it may not sit right with the player but the club had to do what was best for them at the time. I'm not sure signings that summer got better deals, maybe a few years later they did but we didn't spend much that summer |
Okay Dave. If you think reneging on a contract is a reasonable way to behave, fair enough. We’ll agree to differ.
Putting the objective stuff to one side, I do think the subjective stuff matters. Ned, at that time, in the context of the squads he played with, deserved to be treated better than 80% of the others imo.
If the club appeared to be an efficient, effective, well run organisation I’d be thinking ‘this sounds odd’, but it’s clearly not and this sort of thing coming from someone like Ned seems to be consistent with what we’ve seen and experienced. [Post edited 12 Sep 2023 8:48]
| |
| |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 09:06 - Sep 12 with 1820 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 00:13 - Sep 12 by daveB |
doesn't matter if he is captain or not, club couldn't afford to give him that contract, it may not sit right with the player but the club had to do what was best for them at the time. I'm not sure signings that summer got better deals, maybe a few years later they did but we didn't spend much that summer |
Listened to a bit more of it in the car this morning, and the additional year in his contract doesn't make sense.
He signed a 3-yr contract which he says had an additional year if he hit an appearances target. He says that he hit that. So why did he negotiate for a new contract? If he had it hit the target the extra year would've kicked in and there would have been no debate. Worst case, the PFA would've sorted it with ease.
Again, I'm sure there's another side to this. |  |
| |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 09:32 - Sep 12 with 1766 views | Esox_Lucius |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 00:00 - Sep 12 by PunteR |
Listened to it and spent the last half hour writing a post out but then accidentally deleted.. ffs.
To summarise it, the club is a shambles. But we all knew that anyway.
Shit Dof, shit chairman's, tight arsed CEO. Knob heads running the stadium CClub thing.
Chief was treated appallingly. |
Just a little tip, if you are intending a long drawn out post it is worth creating it in something like Notepad, Word etc. with a 5 min autosave, and when completed, copy & paste into the forum. It saves a lot of frustration. |  |
| The grass is always greener. |
| |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 10:59 - Sep 12 with 1640 views | Snipper |
Is there any chance of somebody posting the link to the interview on here please?
I can’t be the only technophobe on here can I? 😇😇 |  | | |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 11:29 - Sep 12 with 1557 views | daveB |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 08:30 - Sep 12 by DejR_vu |
Okay Dave. If you think reneging on a contract is a reasonable way to behave, fair enough. We’ll agree to differ.
Putting the objective stuff to one side, I do think the subjective stuff matters. Ned, at that time, in the context of the squads he played with, deserved to be treated better than 80% of the others imo.
If the club appeared to be an efficient, effective, well run organisation I’d be thinking ‘this sounds odd’, but it’s clearly not and this sort of thing coming from someone like Ned seems to be consistent with what we’ve seen and experienced. [Post edited 12 Sep 2023 8:48]
|
I'm not for a second suggesting the club is perfect and haven't made mistakes but if he had a cast iron guarantee of a contract extension why did he negotiate a new one? When he signed the 3 year deal the club was in a different financial positon to the one they were in when it came to an end. Nedum isn't an idiot, he could surely see which way it was going but seems to compare it to when players got 100k a week so expected to get a decent deal, just wasn't possible anymore.
I think there is another side to this and ultimately they just couldn't afford to give him a new deal. When that is the conclusion it doesn't matter how you do it the player is going to be pissed off. [Post edited 12 Sep 2023 11:31]
| | | |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 12:23 - Sep 12 with 1490 views | DejR_vu |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 11:29 - Sep 12 by daveB |
I'm not for a second suggesting the club is perfect and haven't made mistakes but if he had a cast iron guarantee of a contract extension why did he negotiate a new one? When he signed the 3 year deal the club was in a different financial positon to the one they were in when it came to an end. Nedum isn't an idiot, he could surely see which way it was going but seems to compare it to when players got 100k a week so expected to get a decent deal, just wasn't possible anymore.
I think there is another side to this and ultimately they just couldn't afford to give him a new deal. When that is the conclusion it doesn't matter how you do it the player is going to be pissed off. [Post edited 12 Sep 2023 11:31]
|
On the contract issue, it's objective isn't it? Either he had the clause, or he didn't. Either it was triggered or it wasn't. There's no grey area there. I would be staggered if he went on a podcast and said something objectively untrue.
In terms of why he re-negotiated, he didn't say and, so, then we do get into the realms of conjecture. What I would say is that, if I was advising someone else in that situation, I would be saying, what are the options here?:
- Option 1 - it sounds like there's a good case for breach of contract, but what will proceedings do to your career and what toll will it take on you personally?
- Option 2 - look at the other options. If the Salt Lake offer, in the round, was the same or better, why not take it to avoid option 1?
As I said, if this was an outlier it might suggest a disgruntled ex-pro sounding off but, given the individual concerned, given the people at the club and how it's been run, it seems pretty obvious to me. | |
| |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 12:59 - Sep 12 with 1442 views | daveB |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 12:23 - Sep 12 by DejR_vu |
On the contract issue, it's objective isn't it? Either he had the clause, or he didn't. Either it was triggered or it wasn't. There's no grey area there. I would be staggered if he went on a podcast and said something objectively untrue.
In terms of why he re-negotiated, he didn't say and, so, then we do get into the realms of conjecture. What I would say is that, if I was advising someone else in that situation, I would be saying, what are the options here?:
- Option 1 - it sounds like there's a good case for breach of contract, but what will proceedings do to your career and what toll will it take on you personally?
- Option 2 - look at the other options. If the Salt Lake offer, in the round, was the same or better, why not take it to avoid option 1?
As I said, if this was an outlier it might suggest a disgruntled ex-pro sounding off but, given the individual concerned, given the people at the club and how it's been run, it seems pretty obvious to me. |
I'm not suggesting he said something untrue I just found it odd that if he had that option why he agreed to re negotiate it because the second he did that not a chance he was going to get a contract anywhere near as good as the other one | | | |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 13:01 - Sep 12 with 1430 views | Antti_Heinola |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 11:29 - Sep 12 by daveB |
I'm not for a second suggesting the club is perfect and haven't made mistakes but if he had a cast iron guarantee of a contract extension why did he negotiate a new one? When he signed the 3 year deal the club was in a different financial positon to the one they were in when it came to an end. Nedum isn't an idiot, he could surely see which way it was going but seems to compare it to when players got 100k a week so expected to get a decent deal, just wasn't possible anymore.
I think there is another side to this and ultimately they just couldn't afford to give him a new deal. When that is the conclusion it doesn't matter how you do it the player is going to be pissed off. [Post edited 12 Sep 2023 11:31]
|
I think the fact we signed Leistner on very hefty terms blows that summer blows this out the water, Dave, sorry. Fine if they wanted Leistner to replace him, but you can't say they couldn't afford it when they made that signing first. That's a decision they made.
I suspect the club went to him saying they couldn't afford it, hoping he'd take a free transfer, but he said he'd negotiate, and so they had to offer something silly instead. | |
| |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 13:10 - Sep 12 with 1407 views | DejR_vu |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 12:59 - Sep 12 by daveB |
I'm not suggesting he said something untrue I just found it odd that if he had that option why he agreed to re negotiate it because the second he did that not a chance he was going to get a contract anywhere near as good as the other one |
Well, logically, he didn’t choose to, he was forced to because the club took the option off the table (ie. Said they couldn’t afford it) and he was then faced with (1) pursue the club or (2) renegotiate or look elsewhere. | |
| |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 13:15 - Sep 12 with 1375 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 13:10 - Sep 12 by DejR_vu |
Well, logically, he didn’t choose to, he was forced to because the club took the option off the table (ie. Said they couldn’t afford it) and he was then faced with (1) pursue the club or (2) renegotiate or look elsewhere. |
It's a contract, it would be legally binding. The club couldn't take it off the table.
That's the part of his story that makes no sense to me. | |
| |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 15:15 - Sep 12 with 1240 views | DejR_vu |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 13:15 - Sep 12 by BrianMcCarthy |
It's a contract, it would be legally binding. The club couldn't take it off the table.
That's the part of his story that makes no sense to me. |
Brian, people / organisations are in breach of contract all the time. It may be legally enforceable but that doesn’t stop one party refusing to honour the contract, leaving the other to take legal action. As I said previously, if I was advising someone in that situation that advice wouldn’t necessarily be pursue them because of the wider implications in doing so. If it transpires there’s an acceptable external offer on the table, why lock horns on something not worth fighting for? | |
| |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 15:28 - Sep 12 with 1205 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 15:15 - Sep 12 by DejR_vu |
Brian, people / organisations are in breach of contract all the time. It may be legally enforceable but that doesn’t stop one party refusing to honour the contract, leaving the other to take legal action. As I said previously, if I was advising someone in that situation that advice wouldn’t necessarily be pursue them because of the wider implications in doing so. If it transpires there’s an acceptable external offer on the table, why lock horns on something not worth fighting for? |
I don't see it, Deja. I just don't. He was the captain, an intelligent man. He had a contract with now one more year on it. I think the club would've been in Derby-like grief if they refused to pay their captain as per his contract, and I think the PFA would've sorted the issue immediately.
I just don't see it, and the story sounds muddled to me.
Anyway, it's all just specualtion and rumour, so there's no point me adding to it other than that I think there's another side to this. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
