First to jump ship

[Iron414]

It’s all well and good making 3 offers but if those offers are all below 50% of his contract it would still be insulting? It was interesting that the club didn’t refute any part of the statement which has been widely seen and speculated about, so I’m taking that to mean the figures must be broadly accurate and hence the offence caused. But as Andy says… we move on!

[Siderite]

How do you know that the offers were insulting? Lack of refutation doesn’t mean confirmation that this was the truth.

[Iron414]

I’m basing it on the claim made by his wife, that at least one of the offers was only a touch above minimum wage. In light of the amount of attention this topic has received I’m sure Andy would have refuted this if it wasn’t true and I don’t see any reason that Butterfield (or his Mrs) would need to lie?

[Siderite]

She didn’t say “one of the offers” was a touch above minimum wage. It was not said at all that he received more than one. In fact everyone assumed it was one offer, and the implication was that it was a derisory one as a way of saying they tried to keep him. That he was offered 3 contradicts the “he wasn’t wanted” interpretation, since the club wouldn’t bother with renegotiation if this was the case. Which makes this statement by her lose some reliability, so I don’t know why we should treat it as beyond doubting.

I don’t see why Andy needs to go into the specifics of contract negotiations. Such dealings involve negotiations and the club showing hands on how they handled this would have other players, for transfers or contract negotiations trying to push for their benefit. Not because of anything sinister, but because it’s natural to try and push for financial advantages in contracts. Anything that loses the club leverage pushes it in the player’s favour.

2 users thanked author for this post.

lesgeo, Iron-awe

[Iron-awe]

Iron414 wrote:

I’m basing it on the claim made by his wife, that at least one of the offers was only a touch above minimum wage. In light of the amount of attention this topic has received I’m sure Andy would have refuted this if it wasn’t true and I don’t see any reason that Butterfield (or his Mrs) would need to lie?

“Hell hath no fury than a woman scorned”, no evidence based facts here and you well know it, you could just move on but something is obviously keeping you banging on about it, wonder what that could be!!!

[Iron414]

Not at all Iron-Awe, as I said in my previous post… we move on!

[Apollo11]

Bearing in mind Butler’s comments, I feel the Mrs B social media post may have been an attempt to get ahead of things and try to set the narrative rather than have to deal with people calling him out for rejecting three offers.

[Iron-awe]

Iron414 wrote:

Not at all Iron-Awe, as I said in my previous post… we move on!

That’s good so no more comments from you on this topic, thanks for clarifying.

[Siderite]

Apollo11 wrote:

Bearing in mind Butler’s comments, I feel the Mrs B social media post may have been an attempt to get ahead of things and try to set the narrative rather than have to deal with people calling him out for rejecting three offers.

Aye. Given there were three, I highly doubt that the best one was only just above minimum wage (were the other 2 lower than minimum wage and therefore illegal? I doubt it). If the money was the issue for the negotiations, I suspect the club would have made alterations in the renewed offers.

[Apollo11]

Siderite wrote:

Apollo11 wrote:

Bearing in mind Butler’s comments, I feel the Mrs B social media post may have been an attempt to get ahead of things and try to set the narrative rather than have to deal with people calling him out for rejecting three offers.

Aye. Given there were three, I highly doubt that the best one was only just above minimum wage (were the other 2 lower than minimum wage and therefore illegal? I doubt it). If the money was the issue for the negotiations, I suspect the club would have made alterations in the renewed offers.

The truth is the club now has a wage ceiling it will not break – not even to re-sign its best player. We should actually be thankful for this step in the right direction towards sustainability.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe, TheJuryeffsOut, Siderite, Ferrite

[Ferrite]

Iron414 wrote:

It’s all well and good making 3 offers but if those offers are all below 50% of his contract it would still be insulting?

No, it wouldn’t be. It would just reflect the sort of contracts previous owners had handed out. Happy to clear this up for you.

[Awaywego]

Nice to see a few not liking women getting involved in football matters.

[Ironfan]

Awaywego wrote:

Nice to see a few not liking women getting involved in football matters.

I doubt the club would still exist if women hadn’t got involved in “football matters”

8 users thanked author for this post.

lesgeo, Iron-awe, Noster, TheJuryeffsOut, Just Iron, Deereyme66, Apollo11, Siderite

[Deereyme66]

Not like you to make out a situation is something it’s not awaywego

[64]

Iron414 wrote:

It’s all well and good making 3 offers but if those offers are all below 50% of his contract it would still be insulting? It was interesting that the club didn’t refute any part of the statement which has been widely seen and speculated about, so I’m taking that to mean the figures must be broadly accurate and hence the offence caused. But as Andy says… we move on!

club not discussing contract details publicly? would you want them too?

[64]

Awaywego wrote:

Nice to see a few not liking women getting involved in football matters.

if you’re going to use bait,make it less obvious than BPG would

[Awaywego]

Course it would.

[Author]

Posts