Paying Off the binned players

[frank black]

It’s been reported that Bruce has asked the board to payoff Ross McCormack and Richards.

How do we all stand on giving them their money up front, denting our FFP (assuming it does?) and allowing them to bog off to MLS or Australia.

I am not sure either way and I can see the benefits of not having them around, but the idea of them being able to double up on earnings does grate.

[Damo70]

I would guess we would try to do a deal and pay them a percentage of the rest of their contracts and allow them to be free to move elsewhere and get a signing on fee. The problem would be that they and their agents would know it is highly unlikely anyone else would pay them what we are currently paying them. Also the likes of Richards might struggle to find another club full stop.

[Gareth]

Can’t see point in paying off McCormack, make him available for loan & someone somewhere will take him if the deal is right, Melbourne must have paid a % of his salary so would imagine other A League sides would be interested - Richards is a different matter, there is no market anywhere I’d imagine.

[The Man With A Stick]

Oh I don't know, I heard a rumour Burger King are hiring.

[London Villan]

Why can't he pick them for the league cup, can you have an overaged player in the under 23s? Make their lives difficult, pick them but don't play them. Make them travel to every game, make them come to Villa Park for every game. Make it uncomfortable...

[CT]

Oh I don't know, I heard a rumour Burger King are hiring.

I think, even they have standards.

[KevinGage]

For players burning to resume their playing career striking some sort of deal would be an option.

For that pair, I'm sure they'd be quite happy to sit it out on big contracts.

McCormack even alluded to as much in an interview he gave when at Melbourne.

[jwarry]

https://www.footballtransfertavern.com/championship/aston-villa/steve-bruce-urges-aston-villa-to-release-mccormack-and-richards/

If true get rid now. Not more cancer on the club

[ChicagoLion]

I really do wish people would not use the c word In this context.

[dave.woodhall]

I really do wish people would not use the c word In this context.

I agree.

[jwarry]

I really do wish people would not use the c word In this context.

I agree.

Why ever not?!? It’s meaning is “a disease caused by an uncontrolled division of abnormal cells in a part of the body” is which is exactly what they are!

[cdbearsfan]

Because it can be upsetting for those affected by the disease, obviously. There are hundreds of perfectly good words you can use instead. Why use one which might upset someone? What's the point?

[dave.woodhall]

I really do wish people would not use the c word In this context.

I agree.

Why ever not?!? It’s meaning is “a disease caused by an uncontrolled division of abnormal cells in a part of the body” is which is exactly what they are!

They aren't, and as cd said, it's an emotive word that's used far too often in a trivial context.

[Rodders]

Conversely, there are those who have not only lost loved ones but are survivors ourselves and who think that this usage is highly apposite.

As a member of both shitty camps I'm perhaps somewhat desensitised, but I think that where Messrs McCormack and Richards are concerned it's fair game.

[Rodders]

But would agree that there is no point in upsetting people unnecessarily. For all the occasional disagreements on here, we are all brothers and sisters under the skin and Claret and Blue over it.

Peace.