- Mar 12, 2020
The Hutchinson observation is interesting. These deals get structured that way because the buying club wants as much as possible a "free punt". Pay as little up front as possible and they only pay out properly on those that make it. I suspect we would have jumped at more upfront. And I get why the buying club do it. You get to spread your bets at lowest initial outlay and I don't think Derby will behave any differently once they sort out their financial mess.
As a player/agent I would be very much less liking contract that has an actual penalty/disincentive to play a player, unless its not overly significant and/or triggered at levels of say 50 appearances rather than 1.
Crystal balls and all that.
This demonstrates the point that he’d reached the point where getting out was getting out and we’ll worry about that later. Of course clubs limit their risk by performance based payments but in this instance it was made impossible to even see how that risk was developing due to financial restraints that were beyond the football people’s control. When administration staff come in they are there to limit expenditure and control existing debt not add to it unnecessarily.
As you say hindsight would’ve leaned much more heavily towards payments after set intervals…10 games, 20 games etc but at the time Ron was very adamant on what he wanted and of course he was very much under the cosh to release numbers squad wise to allow MM to find players who at the time were seen as much more suited to the rigours of a league 2 dog fight….