Alex Pearce

[melonhead]

He's come through our ranks, we all know he is worth a place in our team at the moment and we are, currently, a Premiership team. GIVE HIM A DECENT CONTRACT!

decent contract-reflecting his improvement and potential, within our wage structure<<<<<<<<a better wage, and playing for one of the giants of the game

[melonhead]

I am dead late on catching up with this story but, Pearce has a contract which is running down, Liverpool apparently want him and we are not prepared to offer him a decent contract?

This is bizarre, I thought we were a Premiership team with investment? Offer him a good contract - he is worth it. Put in a clause that means he is able to talk to the top six clubs if they come knocking and everyone is happy! If Liverpool want our man they can then pay the price for a new Carragher, if not, we retain a potential Liverpool player! Simples!

Why cannot RFC see this?

contract offered, improved terms, not wanted because he knows hes off to liverpool, anmd every penny off the transfer fee, goes into his wages?

[muddyfeet]

Hes participating in movember - shows good team spirit

Def staying

[Vision]

Hes participating in movember - shows good team spirit

Def staying

If he couples it with a curly hairstyle though then he's definitely off to Liverpool.

[Hoop Blah]

Will Pearce actually be a free in the summer though, or will he still be subject to a tribunal for his development here?

[Wimb]

Given some more thoughts on the Pearce situation on the Tilehurst End.

http://www.thetilehurstend.com/2012/11/ ... reading-fc

[winnersh_royal]

Will Pearce actually be a free in the summer though, or will he still be subject to a tribunal for his development here?

He will be 24 by May next year so unfortunately he will walk for free.

[andrew1957]

Given some more thoughts on the Pearce situation on the Tilehurst End.

http://www.thetilehurstend.com/2012/11/ ... reading-fc

Very good article WIMB.

No one seems to be coming out of this well. Like you I think that there is likely to be too much bad feeling now and I will be surprised if Pearce does not leave in January - probably Church as well.

As I said earlier in the thread this is the main problem with the PL for me. As soon as all that money is talked about and as soon as the club signs some new players on high wages then the existing players (understandably in some ways) want parity. BUT if the club pays everyone top dollar then the debts rise and relegation becomes a catastrophe.

So overall I will back the club's approach here. If not the whole future of the club is at risk and I think the likes of Church and Pearce really should be prepared to accept lower wages until they have proved their usefulness in this division. At the end of the day if Pearce signed a new 3 year deal on say £15K a week and plays well, then RFC would offer him a new 3 year deal at the end of the season at a higher rate (like they did in the past with Doyle etc). I feel that players that don’t see the longer term picture must actually doubt their own long term value or ability - so perhaps we are best shot of Pearce in January if that is the case.

[cmonurz]

So overall I will back the club's approach here. If not the whole future of the club is at risk...

If paying Premier League wages to a squad risks the financial future of the club, then we may as well just give up on the PL, accept relegation, and not bother trying to get promoted at all.

[andrew1957]

So overall I will back the club's approach here. If not the whole future of the club is at risk...

If paying Premier League wages to a squad risks the financial future of the club, then we may as well just give up on the PL, accept relegation, and not bother trying to get promoted at all.

Have you seen the debt levels being carried by most PL clubs for exactly this reason? If Bolton did not have a rich benefactor prepared to lose 120M (the last time it was published) they would already have followed Pompey this season.

The only way of competing at PL level longer term is to build up massive un-repayable debts. Therefore we cannot compete unless Anton is prepared to throw ridiculous amounts of money at it with no hope of return. Sooner or later one or other large club WILL implode and then we will have our chance when realism starts to return, but until then enjoy the ride before the inevitable relegation in 1, 2 or 3 seasons time.

[Hoop Blah]

So when they said the TSI investment will mean we 'dont have to lose our better players' it was all a big lie?

If Pearce doesn't want to be here then we're better off without him but replacing him with quality that will improve our side (the manager obviously felt he was one of our best central defenders previously so I tend to believe he thinks we're playing a weakened side - on ability - by leaving Pearce out) not weaken it.

[melonhead]

Given some more thoughts on the Pearce situation on the Tilehurst End.

http://www.thetilehurstend.com/2012/11/ ... reading-fc

good article, and review of the issue on both sides


tbf to brian, i dont think it is a non footballing reason if he thinks its looking like the player wont be here in january
and we certainly cant afford to let him go for free

[melonhead]

So overall I will back the club's approach here. If not the whole future of the club is at risk...

If paying Premier League wages to a squad risks the financial future of the club, then we may as well just give up on the PL, accept relegation, and not bother trying to get promoted at all.

winning POS does not make you the best player at the club- he was one of the best in the championship, and tbf has yet to prove he is in th eprem
pog gets more wages cos he was a free transfer, and is a bigger, higher profile INTL player
and pearce is still developing from academy to first team prem player, so his wages need to reflect that.

[melonhead]

So when they said the TSI investment will mean we 'dont have to lose our better players' it was all a big lie?
If Pearce doesn't want to be here then we're better off without him but replacing him with quality that will improve our side (the manager obviously felt he was one of our best central defenders previously so I tend to believe he thinks we're playing a weakened side - on ability - by leaving Pearce out) not weaken it.

in so much as its impossible to stop a player going if theyre good enough to merit a more lucrative deal from a much bigger club
what i think was implied though is that we no longer have to sell cos we need the money, which is different, and possibly irrelevant in this case if he goes for free

[maffff]

This is brilliant (typical bloody daib0)

long ass spiel here about Rodgers wanting him at Liverpool and McDermott wanting him to sign a new contract at Reading

No offense but i've never heard of him?

http://forums.liverpoolfc.com/threads/3 ... -Liverpool

[cmonurz]

This is brilliant (typical bloody daib0)

long ass spiel here about Rodgers wanting him at Liverpool and McDermott wanting him to sign a new contract at Reading

No offense but i've never heard of him?

http://forums.liverpoolfc.com/threads/3 ... -Liverpool

Tbf I couldn't tell you who, say, the Burnley centre-backs are. Or Wigan, for that matter.

[Hoop Blah]

So when they said the TSI investment will mean we 'dont have to lose our better players' it was all a big lie?
If Pearce doesn't want to be here then we're better off without him but replacing him with quality that will improve our side (the manager obviously felt he was one of our best central defenders previously so I tend to believe he thinks we're playing a weakened side - on ability - by leaving Pearce out) not weaken it.

in so much as its impossible to stop a player going if theyre good enough to merit a more lucrative deal from a much bigger club
what i think was implied though is that we no longer have to sell cos we need the money, which is different, and possibly irrelevant in this case if he goes for free

I was stretching the context a bit admittedly, in response to the point made by andrew, but essentially it seems we're losing Pearce because we're not offering him enough money to stay (obviously there might be an element of thinking he's an opportunity to move to a bigger and better club as well). If our budget isn't enough to compete with the majority of Premier League clubs (which is what andrew was suggesting) then we do have to sell in order to survive.

[RoyalBlue]

So overall I will back the club's approach here. If not the whole future of the club is at risk...

If paying Premier League wages to a squad risks the financial future of the club, then we may as well just give up on the PL, accept relegation, and not bother trying to get promoted at all.

Have you seen the debt levels being carried by most PL clubs for exactly this reason? If Bolton did not have a rich benefactor prepared to lose 120M (the last time it was published) they would already have followed Pompey this season.

The only way of competing at PL level longer term is to build up massive un-repayable debts. Therefore we cannot compete unless Anton is prepared to throw ridiculous amounts of money at it with no hope of return. Sooner or later one or other large club WILL implode

For how many years have people been saying this?

Definitely not a case of sooner, and the later seems to be getting later and later!

One day life on earth will come to an end! (Cue Attenborough comments).

[melonhead]

So when they said the TSI investment will mean we 'dont have to lose our better players' it was all a big lie?
If Pearce doesn't want to be here then we're better off without him but replacing him with quality that will improve our side (the manager obviously felt he was one of our best central defenders previously so I tend to believe he thinks we're playing a weakened side - on ability - by leaving Pearce out) not weaken it.

in so much as its impossible to stop a player going if theyre good enough to merit a more lucrative deal from a much bigger club
what i think was implied though is that we no longer have to sell cos we need the money, which is different, and possibly irrelevant in this case if he goes for free

I was stretching the context a bit admittedly, in response to the point made by andrew, but essentially it seems we're losing Pearce because we're not offering him enough money to stay (obviously there might be an element of thinking he's an opportunity to move to a bigger and better club as well). If our budget isn't enough to compete with the majority of Premier League clubs (which is what andrew was suggesting) then we do have to sell in order to survive.

dont HAVE to sell
he is out of contract and refusing to sign new one, so....
agree though, in your context.
i think we have a wage structure in place that is pretty fair, and within the constraints of what we can afford.
if we cant offer him what he can get elsewhere, then he will go. but only because we cant stop him, and wont give him what we dont think he is worth.
its oxf*rd annoying either way, especially as rodgers may not be there in a year.

[moonwalklikebas]

I fully expect BR to be there in a year. The liverpool fans have changed their tune and can see the good work he is doing with limited budget. Give it 3 years, I think they will be challenging for europe with Pearcey as main role!