Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="McHunt, post: 3454352, member: 9853"] You deserve major kudos for earmarking Patty well before the bandwagon. I was definitely one of the skeptics. I appreciated his early maturity and obvious leadership potential but I was dubious about his ball handling, and certainly didn't forsee what materialized this year. Good for you. An amazing call. As for the pay rise, that's a tough one. No question he's worth more than he's on. He's not only our best forward, and has been all season, but also our best player. But rewind a year or two and that was Payne. Not that I think they're remotely cut from the same cloth. This is why I've never celebrated snaring a player for less than his market value. It comes back to bite you on the arse sooner or later. Patty was signed for less than his market value, and that's gone up massively. The problem is - unlike the real world - this artificial salary cap restricted workplace confounds the usual process of a pay review, or performance bonuses. If it were the real world, they all should on less money as a base, and be subject to performance bonuses at the end of the season. So the likes of Oates, Mam, Carrigan, and Martin might expect an extra packet under the Christmas tree. The likes of Staggs, Riki, Reynolds, Flegler, Capewell, Farnworth and Haas probably not. All for different reasons, but also for all kinds of reasons that wouldn't work. The club is in a sticky situation. If they have room in the cap they should give Patty a pay rise. He's worth more than Flegler and Haas. But on the other hand, they have no obligation to, and I would say it sets a bad precedent. But we already know it's not a precedent: this is the slope Payne has been on for years and we all know how it worked out. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Active Now

No members online now.

Total: 273 (members: 0, guests: 273)

Reply to thread

Log in

Active Now