Rage Online

&quotHog&quot wrote:Another interesting thing about this situation is comparison with the furore caused by Kassam when he apparently exploited* a condition in Joey Beauchamp's contract for an extra season because he didn't want to pay him yet another years salary for sitting in the treatment room complaining about his little toe! I seem to remember most (all?) people being on Joey's side over that one although although perhaps he could have &quotdone the decent thing&quot and resigned?

* I appreciate exploited might not do it justice!!!!

Is anyone saying Gilly doesn't have a right to have his contract fulfilled?

Certainly seems to be implied by several posters including yourself GY. Perhaps people would like to clarify what they mean?

&quotHog&quot wrote:Certainly seems to be implied by several posters including yourself GY. Perhaps people would like to clarify what they mean?

When I wrote:

&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:&quotIt would be helpful if ageing, regularly injured players stepped down of their own accord at what looks to be a natural retirement point, but I suppose at this level they have mortgages to pay like the rest of us and will want to protect their own interests first.

I thought that made my position clear.

Obviously not, so to clarify:

Yes I would like him to step down because it would free up valuable wages and he's past it and will probably give relatively little back on the field this season.

And yes he has a right to remain as he has a contract and probably a mortage to repay.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

A sideways move out of the playing staff might help.

The announcement about Quinny becoming captain and Gilly being club captain, confirms what's happening.

Gilly won't be playing much but will see out his contract.

club captain's do what exactly?

&quotHoarse&quot wrote:club captain's do what exactly?

Play a lot of golf.

&quotAncient Colin&quot wrote:Presumably the argument for Gilchrist is that he brings his experience and leadership - but I never saw any great evidence that he actually did much to organise, marshall and lead the defence (or the team as a whole) - unlike, say, Andy Crosby. As with Crosby, I think the back line tends to be much too deep when Gilchrist is playing. What's the word on Wilmott? I'd a thousand times rather have him (if fit) at the back than Gilly.

I don't know - at the start of last season he did a great job of organising the defence, which is why we conceded a tiny number of goals and went unbeateen for as long as we did. He also kept Turley in line on a couple of occasions when it was required - notably at Exeter in the play-offs.

Having said that, the decision to give him 2 years obviously looks like a mistake now, but hindsight's a wonderful thing. I seem to remember when we signed him that most people were very positive about his ability to do a job at this level.

&quotKernow Yellow&quot wrote:

&quotAncient Colin&quot wrote:Presumably the argument for Gilchrist is that he brings his experience and leadership - but I never saw any great evidence that he actually did much to organise, marshall and lead the defence (or the team as a whole) - unlike, say, Andy Crosby. As with Crosby, I think the back line tends to be much too deep when Gilchrist is playing. What's the word on Wilmott? I'd a thousand times rather have him (if fit) at the back than Gilly.

I don't know - at the start of last season he did a great job of organising the defence, which is why we conceded a tiny number of goals and went unbeateen for as long as we did. He also kept Turley in line on a couple of occasions when it was required - notably at Exeter in the play-offs.

Having said that, the decision to give him 2 years obviously looks like a mistake now, but hindsight's a wonderful thing. I seem to remember when we signed him that most people were very positive about his ability to do a job at this level.

I've got a vague recollection that the Coca Cola new player money was only available for a player given a 2 year contract.