@ReturnToSenda said:
Speedy recovery to Nick, who, if that's true, I suspect we've seen the last of in a Wycombe shirt. Rough.
I think Ainsworth has a lot more about him than that. Freeman will get a new deal if being out for the season is true.
Hats off to you @Right_in_the_Middle. Not too sure that many fans were as perceptive. Great news.
I think more were thinking the same as me than the other more dismissive view I was responding too. Ainsworth is a class act who shows loyalty to those who deserve it. A contract now stops all the worry Freeman and his family would have as he recovers from injury. A classy act from a classy man but the bottom line is Nick Freeman deserved it. It's not a freebie.
@ReturnToSenda said:
Speedy recovery to Nick, who, if that's true, I suspect we've seen the last of in a Wycombe shirt. Rough.
I think Ainsworth has a lot more about him than that. Freeman will get a new deal if being out for the season is true.
Hats off to you @Right_in_the_Middle. Not too sure that many fans were as perceptive. Great news.
I think more were thinking the same as me than the other more dismissive view I was responding too. Ainsworth is a class act who shows loyalty to those who deserve it. A contract now stops all the worry Freeman and his family would have as he recovers from injury. A classy act from a classy man but the bottom line is Nick Freeman deserved it. It's not a freebie.
I think it needs to be remembered that Gareth could not have done this without Rob's support.
@ReturnToSenda said:
Speedy recovery to Nick, who, if that's true, I suspect we've seen the last of in a Wycombe shirt. Rough.
I think Ainsworth has a lot more about him than that. Freeman will get a new deal if being out for the season is true.
Hats off to you @Right_in_the_Middle. Not too sure that many fans were as perceptive. Great news.
I think more were thinking the same as me than the other more dismissive view I was responding too. Ainsworth is a class act who shows loyalty to those who deserve it. A contract now stops all the worry Freeman and his family would have as he recovers from injury. A classy act from a classy man but the bottom line is Nick Freeman deserved it. It's not a freebie.
I think it needs to be remembered that Gareth could not have done this without Rob's support.
Definately and it is a big help. An owner who supports the manager rather than tells him what to do is a really good thing.
As I mention on the alternative Nick F thread this is a no brainier for club and player. If his former contract ran down the club would have a write off as an asset. This extra year gives Nick peace of mind to concentrate on recovery. And if we get promoted an asset to sell and if we don’t a useful squad player for another season in League One.
It is touching all this ‘what a club’ sentiment I’m reading but Rob C et al will always take a hard nosed view of their investment, he isn’t in it for charitable kudos.
@perfidious_albion said:
As I mention on the alternative Nick F thread this is a no brainier for club and player. If his former contract ran down the club would have a write off as an asset. This extra year gives Nick peace of mind to concentrate on recovery. And if we get promoted an asset to sell and if we don’t a useful squad player for another season in League One.
It is touching all this ‘what a club’ sentiment I’m reading but Rob C et al will always take a hard nosed view of their investment, he isn’t in it for charitable kudos.
I see where you're coming from, but I'd be amazed if anyone paid a fee for him. I wouldn't expect him to play in the Championship, but we've been pleasantly surprised before...
I am actually but not when it comes to ‘money ball’. Professional football is a brutal business, if anyone thinks there is room for sentiment when it comes t laying assets they don’t understand the game.
I am actually but not when it comes to ‘money ball’. Professional football is a brutal business, if anyone thinks there is room for sentiment when it comes t laying assets they don’t understand the game.
I am actually but not when it comes to ‘money ball’. Professional football is a brutal business, if anyone thinks there is room for sentiment when it comes t laying assets they don’t understand the game.
*comes to playing assets….
There's very little 'asset value' in injured players on the fringe of a large squad with only a short time left on their contact. The club could easily have let the contract run down then been seen to be big hearted just to allow him to train with us as his rehab finishs and then make a judgement, someone else might have stepped in and offered him a contract but then plenty of other players will also be out of contract elsewhere at the end of the season, if indeed we need a replacement.
This is different and commendable. The club and it's backers have said if you try your hardest and you're a good guy and you buy into our ethic then we'll have your back, he won't play for a while but while he gets himself back he won't have to worry immediately about finances and where he's living and where he might be next. He'll still have to get fit and then afterwards challenge for a place but that's not for now.
What the club have bought in this investment is another thought in people's minds when they are looking wether to sign for us that this team, club and manager will reward hard work and do right by people, and that might pay for itself one day.
I am actually but not when it comes to ‘money ball’. Professional football is a brutal business, if anyone thinks there is room for sentiment when it comes t laying assets they don’t understand the game.
There is no one more cynical than me when it comes to the morals and ethics in the football industry, but I honestly think you’re wrong on this one. The club did not need to offer Nick a new contract when he clearly won’t be available to play for some time, the fact that they did speaks volumes about our owners.
True, but he's a quality player so it makes sense that having spent time and money getting him back to fitness that we would then want to reap the benefits of that when he is available to play again next season.
It's one of those rare situations where the outcome suits everyone, and of course sends out the message to other players we may want to sign further down the line that we are a decent club, full of decent people who treat players well.
Looking forward to seeing him back where he belongs, on the pitch
As good as we know Nick can be, his transfer value after shortly coming back from a bad knee injury to be a squad player for us will be near on zero.
The "business" value it does add is in growing the good feeling at the club within the squad, and also for any prospective players who we might want to sign.
Jesus Mary (& the wee donkey), every decision at the professional elite level we play at is a financial decision: from not paying the last minute extra £25k demanded for the Shrimps central defender through to withdrawing musical instruments from the terrace. Every decision is financial.
@perfidious_albion said:
Jesus Mary (& the wee donkey), every decision at the professional elite level we play at is a financial decision: from not paying the last minute extra £25k demanded for the Shrimps central defender through to withdrawing musical instruments from the terrace. Every decision is financial.
I disagree. Every decision has a financial implication, it doesn't mean every decision is financial. Shall I buy new socks, my old ones have holes in them? Clearly the answer has financial implications but it's not a financial decision.
I could agree that every decision has a financial consequence and with respect to contractual decisions on the playing staff those considerations are primary, but the withdrawal of the drum and the consequent removal of the noise was primarily done for the general good of the attendees (minus one).
@perfidious_albion said:
Jesus Mary (& the wee donkey), every decision at the professional elite level we play at is a financial decision: from not paying the last minute extra £25k demanded for the Shrimps central defender through to withdrawing musical instruments from the terrace. Every decision is financial.
I disagree. Every decision has a financial implication, it doesn't mean every decision is financial. Shall I buy new socks, my old ones have holes in them? Clearly the answer has financial implications but it's not a financial decision.
If I buy new socks will it enhance my appearance? is buying new socks an astute move to improve my appearance given demands on my monthly expenditure? are those socks good value? do I need to wear socks at all given current fashion trends? etc etc…..Is this a tortuous analogy?
Would the club be able to function at any profession level without astute financial management? Are the current owners good at this, driven by this? Yes
@Ed_ said:
I could agree that every decision has a financial consequence and with respect to contractual decisions on the playing staff those considerations are primary, but the withdrawal of the drum and the consequent removal of the noise was primarily done for the general good of the attendees (minus one).
But any decision relating to attendance is primarily a financial decision, is it not?
@perfidious_albion - It does not make financial sense for a club at our level with limited finances to grant another 12 months contract to a player who has suffered a potential career ending injury (obviously we all hope he makes a full recovery). If he was a potential future star such as Mehetmi then it could be argued it was worth the investment, but Freeman will be 26 next month and unlikely to be a huge asset in terms of a substantial transfer fee.
I assume your comment regarding the banning of musical instruments being a financial decision was a joke.
@perfidious_albion said:
Jesus Mary (& the wee donkey), every decision at the professional elite level we play at is a financial decision: from not paying the last minute extra £25k demanded for the Shrimps central defender through to withdrawing musical instruments from the terrace. Every decision is financial.
How much do we think we could possibly sell Nick Freeman for next season, assuming he makes the best come back possible from injury and gets back into first team contention by the start of next season so we sell him at Xmas? He'll be 26/27 with 6 months on his extension left at that point.
Financially, based solely on Nick Freeman it is a huge long shot that this won't make a loss, but as I said earlier, it helps build the club ethos which could benefit us financially down the line if it helps attract players to us for a lower wage as they know we look after our squad.
There is a history of clubs abandoning players with serious injuries if they believe them to be of limited financial value. The answer to this debate is contained in Nick’s interview on the club website, worth a listen before you decide if the decision to extend his contract was based on purely economic considerations.
@perfidious_albion said:
Jesus Mary (& the wee donkey), every decision at the professional elite level we play at is a financial decision: from not paying the last minute extra £25k demanded for the Shrimps central defender through to withdrawing musical instruments from the terrace. Every decision is financial.
How much do we think we could possibly sell Nick Freeman for next season, assuming he makes the best come back possible from injury and gets back into first team contention by the start of next season so we sell him at Xmas? He'll be 26/27 with 6 months on his extension left at that point.
Financially, based solely on Nick Freeman it is a huge long shot that this won't make a loss, but as I said earlier, it helps build the club ethos which could benefit us financially down the line if it helps attract players to us for a lower wage as they know we look after our squad.
You simply can’t put a simple value on what we have done with Nick Freeman. Let’s say that Sam Vokes has a great season and come the summer he has an offer from another Championship club. The wages are better, probably more, but he looks in around our little club and knows this is a place that looks after it’s own and that’s important to him. He signs. He has another great season and when he’s interviewed on the pitch at Wembley after scoring the winning goal in the play off final to take Wycombe to the premier league he says ‘I know what Wycombe are and I just wanted to stay’.
I totally agree with @TheAndyGrahamFanClub and @Username point here. This is clearly to me a case of doing the morally right thing rather than financially expedient thing with potential long term intangible benefits. @glasshalffull I did wonder whether this action is unusual or whether most clubs would do the same.
Apart from the Derby/Keown incident (in slightly different circumstances) are there examples of clubs abandoning seriously injured players?
Well, personally, I am happy that that particular 'financial decision' was made. See also giving Darius another shot after an injury ravaged first season and giving Bayo another year. Obviously, there is no place in football for compassion or loyalty, which would ruin the game.
It can be both! If we're in league 1 next season I'm sure a fully fit Nick Freeman will get plenty of playing time. He's clearly a great guy around the training ground as well
@Ed_ said:
I could agree that every decision has a financial consequence and with respect to contractual decisions on the playing staff those considerations are primary, but the withdrawal of the drum and the consequent removal of the noise was primarily done for the general good of the attendees (minus one).
But any decision relating to attendance is primarily a financial decision, is it not?
I can think of a load of decisions which affect attendance which are made for reasons of health and safety or law and order. Ultimately those decisions will all have some impact on the balance sheet because everything does, but does it mean that those decisions were made with the purposes of improving the balance sheet?
Comments
I think more were thinking the same as me than the other more dismissive view I was responding too. Ainsworth is a class act who shows loyalty to those who deserve it. A contract now stops all the worry Freeman and his family would have as he recovers from injury. A classy act from a classy man but the bottom line is Nick Freeman deserved it. It's not a freebie.
I think it needs to be remembered that Gareth could not have done this without Rob's support.
Definately and it is a big help. An owner who supports the manager rather than tells him what to do is a really good thing.
As I mention on the alternative Nick F thread this is a no brainier for club and player. If his former contract ran down the club would have a write off as an asset. This extra year gives Nick peace of mind to concentrate on recovery. And if we get promoted an asset to sell and if we don’t a useful squad player for another season in League One.
It is touching all this ‘what a club’ sentiment I’m reading but Rob C et al will always take a hard nosed view of their investment, he isn’t in it for charitable kudos.
That is a very strange take on the situation in my view @perfidious_albion.
I see where you're coming from, but I'd be amazed if anyone paid a fee for him. I wouldn't expect him to play in the Championship, but we've been pleasantly surprised before...
Big-hearted @perfidious_albion ?
Pure, pure class from the Club!
I am actually but not when it comes to ‘money ball’. Professional football is a brutal business, if anyone thinks there is room for sentiment when it comes t laying assets they don’t understand the game.
*comes to playing assets….
There's very little 'asset value' in injured players on the fringe of a large squad with only a short time left on their contact. The club could easily have let the contract run down then been seen to be big hearted just to allow him to train with us as his rehab finishs and then make a judgement, someone else might have stepped in and offered him a contract but then plenty of other players will also be out of contract elsewhere at the end of the season, if indeed we need a replacement.
This is different and commendable. The club and it's backers have said if you try your hardest and you're a good guy and you buy into our ethic then we'll have your back, he won't play for a while but while he gets himself back he won't have to worry immediately about finances and where he's living and where he might be next. He'll still have to get fit and then afterwards challenge for a place but that's not for now.
What the club have bought in this investment is another thought in people's minds when they are looking wether to sign for us that this team, club and manager will reward hard work and do right by people, and that might pay for itself one day.
Great post @StrongestTeam. And Nick seems to agree it was classy!
https://www.wycombewanderers.co.uk/news/2021/october/nick-im-so-grateful-for-what-the-club-has-done/
What a club! I echo your thoughts…and thanks to Rob and Pete for making this happen.
There is no one more cynical than me when it comes to the morals and ethics in the football industry, but I honestly think you’re wrong on this one. The club did not need to offer Nick a new contract when he clearly won’t be available to play for some time, the fact that they did speaks volumes about our owners.
True, but he's a quality player so it makes sense that having spent time and money getting him back to fitness that we would then want to reap the benefits of that when he is available to play again next season.
It's one of those rare situations where the outcome suits everyone, and of course sends out the message to other players we may want to sign further down the line that we are a decent club, full of decent people who treat players well.
Looking forward to seeing him back where he belongs, on the pitch
No way this was a financial decision.
As good as we know Nick can be, his transfer value after shortly coming back from a bad knee injury to be a squad player for us will be near on zero.
The "business" value it does add is in growing the good feeling at the club within the squad, and also for any prospective players who we might want to sign.
Jesus Mary (& the wee donkey), every decision at the professional elite level we play at is a financial decision: from not paying the last minute extra £25k demanded for the Shrimps central defender through to withdrawing musical instruments from the terrace. Every decision is financial.
I disagree. Every decision has a financial implication, it doesn't mean every decision is financial. Shall I buy new socks, my old ones have holes in them? Clearly the answer has financial implications but it's not a financial decision.
I could agree that every decision has a financial consequence and with respect to contractual decisions on the playing staff those considerations are primary, but the withdrawal of the drum and the consequent removal of the noise was primarily done for the general good of the attendees (minus one).
If I buy new socks will it enhance my appearance? is buying new socks an astute move to improve my appearance given demands on my monthly expenditure? are those socks good value? do I need to wear socks at all given current fashion trends? etc etc…..Is this a tortuous analogy?
Would the club be able to function at any profession level without astute financial management? Are the current owners good at this, driven by this? Yes
But any decision relating to attendance is primarily a financial decision, is it not?
@perfidious_albion - It does not make financial sense for a club at our level with limited finances to grant another 12 months contract to a player who has suffered a potential career ending injury (obviously we all hope he makes a full recovery). If he was a potential future star such as Mehetmi then it could be argued it was worth the investment, but Freeman will be 26 next month and unlikely to be a huge asset in terms of a substantial transfer fee.
I assume your comment regarding the banning of musical instruments being a financial decision was a joke.
How much do we think we could possibly sell Nick Freeman for next season, assuming he makes the best come back possible from injury and gets back into first team contention by the start of next season so we sell him at Xmas? He'll be 26/27 with 6 months on his extension left at that point.
Financially, based solely on Nick Freeman it is a huge long shot that this won't make a loss, but as I said earlier, it helps build the club ethos which could benefit us financially down the line if it helps attract players to us for a lower wage as they know we look after our squad.
There is a history of clubs abandoning players with serious injuries if they believe them to be of limited financial value. The answer to this debate is contained in Nick’s interview on the club website, worth a listen before you decide if the decision to extend his contract was based on purely economic considerations.
You simply can’t put a simple value on what we have done with Nick Freeman. Let’s say that Sam Vokes has a great season and come the summer he has an offer from another Championship club. The wages are better, probably more, but he looks in around our little club and knows this is a place that looks after it’s own and that’s important to him. He signs. He has another great season and when he’s interviewed on the pitch at Wembley after scoring the winning goal in the play off final to take Wycombe to the premier league he says ‘I know what Wycombe are and I just wanted to stay’.
I totally agree with @TheAndyGrahamFanClub and @Username point here. This is clearly to me a case of doing the morally right thing rather than financially expedient thing with potential long term intangible benefits.
@glasshalffull I did wonder whether this action is unusual or whether most clubs would do the same.
Apart from the Derby/Keown incident (in slightly different circumstances) are there examples of clubs abandoning seriously injured players?
Well, personally, I am happy that that particular 'financial decision' was made. See also giving Darius another shot after an injury ravaged first season and giving Bayo another year. Obviously, there is no place in football for compassion or loyalty, which would ruin the game.
It can be both! If we're in league 1 next season I'm sure a fully fit Nick Freeman will get plenty of playing time. He's clearly a great guy around the training ground as well
I can think of a load of decisions which affect attendance which are made for reasons of health and safety or law and order. Ultimately those decisions will all have some impact on the balance sheet because everything does, but does it mean that those decisions were made with the purposes of improving the balance sheet?