Church

[Big Foot]

From the News at Den website....

MILLWALL will widen their search for a new forward this week after approaches for Aaron Mclean, Simon Church and Steven Davies came to nothing.

The Lions have offered £250,000 for Church but do not believe the Reading striker will compromise sufficiently on his personal terms and have cooled their interest in him.

The Wales international's wages at the Madejski Stadium doubled last summer due to a promotion clause in his contract and he may wait until he becomes a free agent in June to move to a new club.

If his wages really did double in the summer, then more fool us. It's unlikely we'll get a fee for him now.

Unless we were contractually obliged to double his wages due to winning promotion.

[Esteban]

If his wages really did double in the summer, then more fool us. It's unlikely we'll get a fee for him now.

That's the way promotion clauses in contracts work. Don't have that and no-one will sign a contract - and you can't offer that to all players except one....

Fair enough and I don't have a problem with him getting a wage increase due to promotion. It's the 100% wage increase that shocked me.

[PieEater]

He could still go on loan as it's pretty unlikely he'll get games here

[Alexander Litvinenko]

He could still go on loan as it's pretty unlikely he'll get games here

Or we could pay some of the wage on behalf of the club he's loaned to.

[MassSarrslibrarian]

I must admit that I am not a Simon Churc h fan, and i've never seen anything to alter that opinion TBH...

Sincerely, im sure he is destuned for a fantastic career where he will score goals and play an important part in a winning side....I just want that to be somewhere else!!

[SPARTA]

From the News at Den website....

MILLWALL will widen their search for a new forward this week after approaches for Aaron Mclean, Simon Church and Steven Davies came to nothing.

The Lions have offered £250,000 for Church but do not believe the Reading striker will compromise sufficiently on his personal terms and have cooled their interest in him.

The Wales international's wages at the Madejski Stadium doubled last summer due to a promotion clause in his contract and he may wait until he becomes a free agent in June to move to a new club.

If his wages really did double in the summer, then more fool us. It's unlikely we'll get a fee for him now.

Unless we were contractually obliged to double his wages due to winning promotion.

That's exactly what happened. £7,500 to £15,000. He'll be lucky to get £10k anywhere in the Championship, and when they realise how bad he is, they'll bomb him out asap.

[tee peg]

[If his wages really did double in the summer, then more fool us. It's unlikely we'll get a fee for him now.[/quote]

£15K a week apparently

[melonhead]

7.5 was about right in the champ for him


15 is a pittance in prem league terms.


fair enough to have that clause imo

[tee peg]

yes, if we are dopey enough to pay that sort of money for an indifferent player like him.

[melonhead]

think it would put him almost exactly where he deserves to be on a ranked list of premiere league players and what they are payed

[winchester_royal]

7.5 was about right in the champ for him


15 is a pittance in prem league terms.


fair enough to have that clause imo

Not when you consider how prudent we are being w.r.t. Pearce's contract.

15k for Church is more scandalous than the 80k Liverpool paid (still pay) Joe Cole IMO

[melonhead]

we have an evaluation on what pearce is worth

imo its about right

he and his agent are also right to try and push for as much as they want, and we are again correct in not giving in to their every demand.

we come up with a value, they come up with a value, after much tooing and froing, we either agree on a value somewhere in the middle, or he goes and gets what he can elsewhere. i believe thats how it works.

lol at just giving in and giving a passionate, solid but pretty average player everything he demands at first go.

we had an evaluation of churches worth

7.5 k is about right
there was a claus stating it should double on promotion.
as soon as promoted weve not played him and looked to shift him on
not sure that really impacts what we would give pearce either way

[winchester_royal]

Not saying we should give in and give Pearce 30k. The club are taking (what I consider to be) the right stance on his particular situation.

However 'giving in' and letting Church have a 100% promotion increase clause was financially irresponsible IMHO. No chance was he ever going to be worth 15k a week, and similarly we were never going to be able to flog him when on that sort of money. It's clear the club don't consider him a Prem player, so why give him a clause that puts him on 15k a week if we do get promoted?

The two approaches just seem to contradict each other.

[tee peg]

cut the asking price and move him on.At some stage Church will have to come down to earth as far as wages are concerned.

[The Beardy Man]

I must admit that I am not a Simon Churc h fan, and i've never seen anything to alter that opinion TBH...

Sincerely, im sure he is destuned for a fantastic career where he will score goals and play an important part in a winning side....I just want that to be somewhere else!!

Little confused by this one to be honest.

To clarify. You would rather a homegrown player, who has never to anyone's knowledge caused disruption in the dressing room, and who works hard on the pitch (and presumably in training).....didn't score goals as part of a winning side for us?

Seems bizarre to me to hope ones own players fail....

[melonhead]

Not saying we should give in and give Pearce 30k. The club are taking (what I consider to be) the right stance on his particular situation.

However 'giving in' and letting Church have a 100% promotion increase clause was financially irresponsible IMHO. No chance was he ever going to be worth 15k a week, and similarly we were never going to be able to flog him when on that sort of money. It's clear the club don't consider him a Prem player, so why give him a clause that puts him on 15k a week if we do get promoted?

The two approaches just seem to contradict each other.

id imagine that pearce had the same clause
and 15 k a weeks is surely about as low as it gets in terms of prem wages
and maybe if we hadnt given him that contract he would have left, and he wouldnt have been around to score the few important goals he did score for us, which helped get us promoted

[melonhead]

cut the asking price and move him on.At some stage Church will have to come down to earth as far as wages are concerned.

he will, when hes taken the money hes getting from us until the summer

and fair play

[Ian Royal]

Not saying we should give in and give Pearce 30k. The club are taking (what I consider to be) the right stance on his particular situation.

However 'giving in' and letting Church have a 100% promotion increase clause was financially irresponsible IMHO. No chance was he ever going to be worth 15k a week, and similarly we were never going to be able to flog him when on that sort of money. It's clear the club don't consider him a Prem player, so why give him a clause that puts him on 15k a week if we do get promoted?

The two approaches just seem to contradict each other.

Don't agree in the slightest. When did Church sign the contract, probably before last year? So at the time he was probably considered full of potential and one of our first choice strikers. Why wouldn't he get a 100% increase on promotion clause? You can't just tell him, screw you, you only scored 4 goals (or whatever) we're welching on the contract see you in Court. The judge will side with us because you obviously aren't worth it.

[LightwaterRoyal]

Atleast whenever he plays he doesnt just go out there to earn his money, he really tries to live up to what hes earning and I can only applaud him for that

[SCIAG]

I must admit that I am not a Simon Churc h fan, and i've never seen anything to alter that opinion TBH...

Sincerely, im sure he is destuned for a fantastic career where he will score goals and play an important part in a winning side....I just want that to be somewhere else!!

Little confused by this one to be honest.

To clarify. You would rather a homegrown player, who has never to anyone's knowledge caused disruption in the dressing room, and who works hard on the pitch (and presumably in training).....didn't score goals as part of a winning side for us?

Seems bizarre to me to hope ones own players fail....

I thought he must have been saying Church could only be successful in League 1 or something, so if Church played an important role for us then we would be playing in League 1, or something equally witty.