Curious contracts Mr Moxey

[those were the days]

I really hope the Wolves board take third-party advice when it comes to structuring contracts in the future.

Jez Moxey has shot the club in the foot by negotiating conditional clauses in players' contracts that reportedly see wages drop by up to 50% on relegation. If you look at most other industries, there's no way contracts would be structured like that. It would be insane, amateurish and tantamount to setting a timebomb in your business.

What sounds like prudent financial management on paper, means that, entirely predictably, all your good players will jump ship faster than they can shout 'show me the money' to their agents and you'll be left with a bunch of disillusioned and dispirited players that no one is interested in and who also know that they can't cut it at a higher level. In other words, as a club, you change down gears far too quickly and you don't give yourselves any chance of bouncing back up for the next few seasons. You also do the opposite of what you need to do - keep your better players and turnover the dead wood.

At the moment, we're in a situation not much better than Birmingham last year. If we show we're prepared to negotiate on valuations, we'll effectively be in the same position.

What makes me worry is that we're making the same mistakes over and over again on contracts (paying too low below market value for better players, not being flexible and open enough, coming to the negotiating table too late, etc). Just look at Mark Davies, Dave Jones, Michael Kightly, Vadim Demidov to name but a few. We've also got two talented youngsters yet to make a first team appearance whose contracts expire next year which worries me...

Moxey gets paid an awful lot of money for a business generating Wolves' amount of revenue. If Wolves blend into mid-table mediocrity or worse this season, I'll hold him personally responsible and certainly not Stale Solbakken. I'd expect Steve Morgan to do likewise. Cut the cloth by all means but be pragmatic and creative over contracts if you want to actually try and fill a stadium!

 

[RichDavi]

You're totally right, we should continue paying Dave Edwards, Stephen Hunt and the like Premier League wages just to stay ahead. And while we're spendng all this monopoly money on wages lets buy 5 new players and give them Premier League wages too!

 

[those were the days]

No, you're putting words in my mouth. I'm saying be practical and pragmatic on contracts to try and keep your better players. Enter into negotiations earlier - don't leave it until all your players report back from with a third of the squad not having a clue whether they're going to be offered an extension or not.

The players Rich mentions were v likely on too much in the Prem and their wages need to be brought down in a graduated way. Have no arguments with this.

I'm not arguing to do a West Ham and stay in fourth gear in the Championship. That would be irresponsible and would be gambling the financial health of the club on promotion. I'm just saying the club shouldn't slam on the brakes and there's a middle ground that could have been achieved.

 

[RJs Tankard]

Even if the players hadn't taken a pay cut, I suspect the likes of Kightly, Fletch and Jarvis would leave anyway - even if other clubs matched their Wolves wages.

They've been offered Premiership football - and they want Premiership football. We can't offer them that. End of story. Thats how it is - regardless of wages.

Berra wants to move on because he wants regular football - and Guedioura is probably on the same money, if not less, at Forest because he also wants first team football because he wasn't treated particularly well.

I don't know why people think we have a massive crisis on our hands and the club needs an overhaul just because a few players are leaving. Its inevitable with relegation and happens to most clubs. We don't need a post mortem. Its part of football.

 

[BlahBlah]

I really hope the Wolves board take third-party advice when it comes to structuring contracts in the future.

Jez Moxey has shot the club in the foot by negotiating conditional clauses in players' contracts that reportedly see wages drop by up to 50% on relegation. If you look at most other industries, there's no way contracts would be structured like that. It would be insane, amateurish and tantamount to setting a timebomb in your business.

What sounds like prudent financial management on paper, means that, entirely predictably, all your good players will jump ship faster than they can shout 'show me the money' to their agents and you'll be left with a bunch of disillusioned and dispirited players that no one is interested in and who also know that they can't cut it at a higher level. In other words, as a club, you change down gears far too quickly and you don't give yourselves any chance of bouncing back up for the next few seasons. You also do the opposite of what you need to do - keep your better players and turnover the dead wood.

At the moment, we're in a situation not much better than Birmingham last year. If we show we're prepared to negotiate on valuations, we'll effectively be in the same position.

What makes me worry is that we're making the same mistakes over and over again on contracts (paying too low below market value for better players, not being flexible and open enough, coming to the negotiating table too late, etc). Just look at Mark Davies, Dave Jones, Michael Kightly, Vadim Demidov to name but a few. We've also got two talented youngsters yet to make a first team appearance whose contracts expire next year which worries me...

Moxey gets paid an awful lot of money for a business generating Wolves' amount of revenue. If Wolves blend into mid-table mediocrity or worse this season, I'll hold him personally responsible and certainly not Stale Solbakken. I'd expect Steve Morgan to do likewise. Cut the cloth by all means but be pragmatic and creative over contracts if you want to actually try and fill a stadium!

It seems like Moxey has put Wolves financial stability first, with the acceptance that top players will want to leave the club because we're going to cut their pay, so we must have been expecting the current situation.
What's interesting to me is that although we've "reclassified" these players as Championship players and put them on Championship wages, Moxey still seems as if he's managed to extract Premier League transfer fees.
That's got to be a good thing, because if I was Jarvis or Fletcher's agent I'd be saying "if you cut his pay by half, he's worth half as much so sort the deal out".

 

[Japan Wulf]

There is very little wrong with the dual contract strategy. It's understandably easy to criticize it when you think about Jarvis and Fletcher but in their case it is frankly irrelevant. If it chose to, the club could perhaps agree to re-negotiate, but I don't see what difference it would make. MJ and SF appear to want PL football and I can't really blame them. Where the dual contract strategy really comes into it's own is with the players who won't attract offers from the PL. And there are a lot of them. Without that strategy we'd be stuck with all them on high wages. I'll be gutted if and when Jarvis and Fletch leave but on balance I'll take things the way they are.

 

[reanswolf]

I think the OP is excellent and bang on, if this 50% reduction is true. A wage reduction is /was inevitable after relegation, but such a drastic drop is bound to be damaging on morale. It is not as if we were paying over inflated premiership wage levels anyway, certainly nothing like West Ham.

I think this epitomises just how Wolves are so poor strategically - Moxey and his admirers only gauge the success of the CE in £ signs. I think that not only this drastic wage reduction, but also the decision to appoint short term when MM was sacked is coming home to roost. Poor Stale has a virtually impossible job at this point in time. Admittedly he wasn't available at the time, but a manager appointed long term at that point would have enabled him to assess all strengths and weaknesses thoroughly (not just thru DVD's), and identify targets. We have a short time for Stale to rectify and replace. Effectively, by appointing short term after MM was sacked, the club have put us back a season. I said as much at the time. How can Stale redress lost talent like Fletcher and Jarvis in a week?

People are going to have to be very very patient, it may well get worse before it gets better.

 

[Japan Wulf]

I think the OP is excellent and bang on, if this 50% reduction is true.

I would be really interested to know where this figure came from. There are plenty of threads that say,"It's reported that...", or "I've heard that..", but personally I've never seen any quote that can be directly attributed to the club or any specific player. I'm not saying that it's not true but I've never seen any direct evidence either, which leads me to believe that it's a made up figure that has taken a life of its own. I'd like to know the truth of it though doubt we ever will.

 

[QB Wolf]

What's interesting to me is that although we've "reclassified" these players as Championship players and put them on Championship wages, Moxey still seems as if he's managed to extract Premier League transfer fees.

Part of my issue is that kightly and to a degree Jarvis are Championship players and even with a 50% reduction they'll still earn good money.

 

[QB Wolf]

I really hope the Wolves board take third-party advice when it comes to structuring contracts in the future.

Jez Moxey has shot the club in the foot by negotiating conditional clauses in players' contracts that reportedly see wages drop by up to 50% on relegation. If you look at most other industries, there's no way contracts would be structured like that. It would be insane, amateurish and tantamount to setting a timebomb in your business.!

What other industries have relegation? However companies with a reduced income, often put staff on reduced time, instill pay rise freezes and in certain cases pay cuts and redundencies, all businesses have to balance what goes out against what's coming in, whilst trying to increase one and cut the other.

 

[captain chaos]

The players only have themselves to blame they are the ones who accepted the terms of the contract. At the negotiation stage I'm sure Moxey didn't start at a 75% reduction on relegation so why didn't negotiate down to 25%?

 

[Brizzlewolf]

So when Fletcher, Jarvis, Kightley and co signed these contracts......presumably someone was standing next to them with a gun pointed at their heads.....

Let's be honest if there is a 50% reduction clause (and I dont believe there is) it would have been pretty $$$$ poor advice if their agents said "don't worry about that Wolves are never going to go down".

 

[kaohsiungwolf]

I'm saying be practical and pragmatic on contracts to try and keep your better players. Enter into negotiations earlier - don't leave it until all your players report back from with a third of the squad not having a clue whether they're going to be offered an extension or not.

As fans we know zero about what's in their contracts, or when negotiations begun, so I can't help but feel like you're maybe taking a very simplistic view of the process.

The three that have left or are destined to leave would have been leaving regardless of the terms of their contract - perhaps even regardless of whether we were even in the PL or not.

 

[Brizzlewolf]

As fans we know zero about what's in their contracts, or when negotiations begun, so I can't help but feel like you're maybe taking a very simplistic view of the process.

The three that have left or are destined to leave would have been leaving regardless of the terms of their contract - perhaps even regardless of whether we were even in the PL or not.

Simplistic, as in expecting someone who has willlingly signed a contract having had all the small print, clauses and caveats gone over by their agents, advisors, lawyers, to be bound by the terms of that contact? Surely not!

Of course this is a parallel universe in which normal rules don't apply.

 

[QB Wolf]

perhaps even regardless of whether we were even in the PL or not.

Not sure about that, they're going to Stoke, West Ham and Sunderland, not Man U or Arsenal.

 

[GAWAZZ]

I think the OP is excellent and bang on, if this 50% reduction is true. A wage reduction is /was inevitable after relegation, but such a drastic drop is bound to be damaging on morale. It is not as if we were paying over inflated premiership wage levels anyway, certainly nothing like West Ham.

QUOTE]

Or could the argument be that if you (players) want the wages then you have to stay in the premiership, get relegated and you lose half the wages!

Problem with that is there are always teams taht are willing to pay the players the premiership wages and players know that!

What other industries have relegation? However companies with a reduced income, often put staff on reduced time, instill pay rise freezes and in certain cases pay cuts and redundencies, all businesses have to balance what goes out against what's coming in, whilst trying to increase one and cut the other.

Happened in my company mate, reducing costs (wages) is the fastest and easiest way to do it!

 

[WonderWolf]

It is the harsh reality of the GL that wanted players will show disloyalty on relegation.

The wages reduction issue is also a logical reaction to falling out of it, something the players had agreed to and should stand by.

Moxey's operating policy is based on business sense and reducing risk as much as possible for the benefit of the club......he should be commended for his stance, not least because he does not entertain any bull$$$$ triggering clauses that allow players to exit the club cheaply doing it out of good money like some other clubs do.

 

[morosewolf]

I support the strategy although I would like to have seen dialogue with key players happen sooner (although there's nothing to say it didn't.) I think we would have kept all 3 if we'd stayed up and Kightly wouldn't have become "stale". When comparing us to West Ham and Newcastle people need to remember that some of the player's they kept like the 2 Argentineans at Newcastle and Cole, Noble etc at West Ham would have struggled to get the same wages in the Prem as their current contracts paid in the Champ. This isn't the case at Wolves and by and large I think that's the right thing. As stated above I don't think the money element is the driving factor in the desire of those that want to or have left.

 

[reanswolf]

Again, all this is relative to what other clubs do upon relegation. Its all well and good to compare it to our own principles, and to our own places of work, but football is football whether we like it or not. We don't pay comparatively high wage levels. If a 50% drop increases the liklihood of our better players leaving (as opposed to a 25% drop for example), then we are going to have an unhappy ship.

I can't imagine WBA operating such a policy, and hey look they kept all their good players.

 

[Hoganstolemywife]

I support the strategy although I would like to have seen dialogue with key players happen sooner (although there's nothing to say it didn't.) I think we would have kept all 3 if we'd stayed up and Kightly wouldn't have become "stale". When comparing us to West Ham and Newcastle people need to remember that some of the player's they kept like the 2 Argentineans at Newcastle and Cole, Noble etc at West Ham would have struggled to get the same wages in the Prem as their current contracts paid in the Champ. This isn't the case at Wolves and by and large I think that's the right thing. As stated above I don't think the money element is the driving factor in the desire of those that want to or have left.

I bet it is! Jarvis has probably gone down to about 14/15k p/w now and he knows he could pick up three times that at West Ham plus a big fat signing on bonus (and of course the chance to play in the Premier League).

 

[Woburn Wolf]

So when Fletcher, Jarvis, Kightley and co signed these contracts......presumably someone was standing next to them with a gun pointed at their heads.....

Let's be honest if there is a 50% reduction clause (and I dont believe there is) it would have been pretty $$$$ poor advice if their agents said "don't worry about that Wolves are never going to go down".

The agents of our better players are more likely to be saying "don't worry about that, it is very common in contracts and in any event, if Wolves go down I will get you a move to another Prem club on comparable or better money"

 

[kaohsiungwolf]

Simplistic, as in expecting someone who has willlingly signed a contract having had all the small print, clauses and caveats gone over by their agents, advisors, lawyers, to be bound by the terms of that contact? Surely not!

Of course this is a parallel universe in which normal rules don't apply.

Agreed, but I meant it in terms of how the club manage the contracts, from the OP's opinion it sounds like the club were caught napping, as though they pull out their contracts from a dusty filing cabinet once a year, like FC is sat in his office writing them himself.

IMO the 50% drop - if indeed that's what it is and if indeed it covers all the players, is a fairly obvious step to take and the club would have accepted as is the custom and the case in 99% of relegated teams that the best players will leave regardless - why have them hanging around eating up the wage bill on Premier League salaries to play Championship football.

 

[morosewolf]

(To Hogan)

All true, but its my view that if he was still on £30k (made up number) he'd want to leave for the Premier football. It's the driving factor in the decision

 

[Oldgold Wolfcub]

Lets remember one thing. At any time players and clubs can ask to renegociate a contract. Players know they will be on different wages depending on how much the club values them. That is a fact of football life.
So there is absolutely no reason even if their contact say 50% reduction that the club cannot turn round and say lets have a look at your contract and see what we can do. So lets face it the reason that these no good scallwags are going is not down to this drop in money.
As was pointed out if this clause was not in there they would all be sitting on prem wages. The present set up gives the club the power to be able to organise its finances in a fairer way. There is nothing to stop Edwards or Jonnson or any of them turning round and asking for a transfer.
Fletcher was signed by this club at a not insignificant fee for someone who had been successful in the prem for one year. He could have been a flop. Now he has done it over several years his value should be high.
This club have to do what is in the best interests of the club at the present time. It may be a pity that if they had spent 20 million more last season to save losing 40 mill or more didn't happen but it didn't.
Remember another thing whatever money we bring in on the transfers there will be high expenses to pay out so 15 mill for Fletcher aint going to be 15 for the club. Also the direct profits on these players may only offset losses on the others at the best.

 

[WonderWolf]

Again, all this is relative to what other clubs do upon relegation. Its all well and good to compare it to our own principles, and to our own places of work, but football is football whether we like it or not. We don't pay comparatively high wage levels. If a 50% drop increases the liklihood of our better players leaving (as opposed to a 25% drop for example), then we are going to have an unhappy ship.

I can't imagine WBA operating such a policy, and hey look they kept all their good players.

How many of their players were wanted by PL clubs?.....also they must have made some cuts.

Fletch and Jarvis are going because they are wanted.

 

[kaohsiungwolf]

I bet it is! Jarvis has probably gone down to about 14/15k p/w now and he knows he could pick up three times that at West Ham plus a big fat signing on bonus (and of course the chance to play in the Premier League).

It's clearly a case of both, would you want to be playing Tuesday nights at Millwall or Hull in the middle of winter when you're already recognised as a decent Premiership footballer?

 

[morosewolf]

I can't imagine WBA operating such a policy, and hey look they kept all their good players.[/QUOTE]

That says more about the grand $$$$ up at Wolves last season than it does about how Albion run their club. They didn't go down with the marquee type players we did. Player's like Brunt, Mulumbu and Olsen didn't have the reputations they now do. The 2 players seen as genuine Prem quality, Robinson and Greening left them

 

[cobweb]

Not all of the Wolves players had relegation clauses in their contracts. Why do people think O' Hara and Johnson aren't angling for a move?

That's a big part of the problem, players like Jarvis, Kightly and Henry are expected to take a big wage cut, where as others aren't. - No consistency.

 

[kaohsiungwolf]

Not all of the Wolves players had relegation clauses in their contracts. Why do people think O' Hara and Johnson aren't angling for a move?

How certain of this are you ICH? Is your opinion based on fact or speculation re. Ohara / Johnson?

 

[Wolf316]

Is Jez taking a 50% paycut?

 

[Oldgold Wolfcub]

Is Jez taking a 50% paycut?

Is a question I posed some time ago. There seems to be a large inconsistency also when your players are rumoured to be on the lowest in the premier league and your CEO one of the highest paid.

 

[Swinford Wolf]

Not all of the Wolves players had relegation clauses in their contracts. Why do people think O' Hara and Johnson aren't angling for a move?

How certain of this are you ICH? Is your opinion based on fact or speculation re. Ohara / Johnson?

That's a big part of the problem, players like Jarvis, Kightly and Henry are expected to take a big wage cut, where as others aren't. - No consistency.

I was told by a very reliable source that every player had a pay cut .

 

[WonderWolf]

Not all of the Wolves players had relegation clauses in their contracts. Why do people think O' Hara and Johnson aren't angling for a move?

That's a big part of the problem, players like Jarvis, Kightly and Henry are expected to take a big wage cut, where as others aren't. - No consistency.

Unwanted?.....unfit and $$$$ respectively.

 

[BlahBlah]

Again, all this is relative to what other clubs do upon relegation. Its all well and good to compare it to our own principles, and to our own places of work, but football is football whether we like it or not. We don't pay comparatively high wage levels. If a 50% drop increases the liklihood of our better players leaving (as opposed to a 25% drop for example), then we are going to have an unhappy ship.

I can't imagine WBA operating such a policy, and hey look they kept all their good players.

Reans, Albion had that policy way before we did.....that was one of the mainstays of their relegations, they had it all tied up so wages were controllable in the event they were relegated.
The one's who didn't like it left on good deals, like Kamara and Greening.

 

[reanswolf]

Reans, Albion had that policy way before we did.....that was one of the mainstays of their relegations, they had it all tied up so wages were controllable in the event they were relegated.
The one's who didn't like it left on good deals, like Kamara and Greening.

I just wonder if their's incorporated the "quoted" 50% cut, that's all.

 

[Kingswood Wolf]

Is Jez taking a 50% paycut?

I bloomin' well hope so! Failure should be punished.

 

[BlahBlah]

I just wonder if their's incorporated the "quoted" 50% cut, that's all.

No idea really, neither have I any idea about the specific details behind Wolves.
The point is, WBA had "relegation clauses" in their player contracts to protect them from the financial risk of relegation...which is exactly what Wolves seem to have copied.
When you do that, you're also realistically admitting to yourself that some of those players aren't going to accept relegation irrrespctive of what their contracts say, and the odds are that you'll have to sell some of them.
Whatever Wolves say about holding onto players, we were always going to sell because it's very good business anyway...over £20million quid for 2 players?
If we can't replace them with 2 players good enough to get us out of the Championship at half that money, then somebody needs shooting....but we've got 9 months to wait and see.

 

[Deleted member 3545]

The 50% paycut clause is standard for all premiership clubs even the likes of Man utd have this clause written into their players contracts.

Theres also paycut clauses for teams dropping from other divisions also its a standard policy

 

[reanswolf]

The 50% paycut clause is standard for all premiership clubs even the likes of Man utd have this clause written into their players contracts.

Theres also paycut clauses for teams dropping from other divisions also its a standard policy

Very surprised that this is standard.

I fully understand the need to reduce wages upon relegation, and understand that that should be written into a contract.

What surprises me is that it is as much as 50%, because that is bound to lead to unhappiness and dissent, whether its deserved or morally fair.

 

[spud3948]

Wolf316 you are quite right, Jez will have a pay cut this season.

Three examples of teams on the whole who do not have the same pay structure as us (i.e. pay cut on relegation), Portsmouth, Leeds & Birmingham City. Anyone fancy being in their financial situation?

Anyhow, Players don't move for money (tongue in cheek) its all about playing in the Premier League!