• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

The Bailey question

steveo

mine to stay the same please
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
7,545
Any discontent should be directed toward Mr Bailey IMO, not Tilly & Brush, as his jumping ship & not honouring his contract was the recent catalyst to compound our midfield problem.

The Club could have refused to sell him thereby making him honour his contract, however I dont think they could afford the extra payments that would have been due to Barnet.

We are short of an experienced midfielder and a good centre back. Is that Baileys fault as well?
 
The Club could have refused to sell him thereby making him honour his contract, however I dont think they could afford the extra payments that would have been due to Barnet.

We are short of an experienced midfielder and a good centre back. Is that Baileys fault as well?



And with your sugestion you must know that would have done wonders for team spirit and morale ?

Eastwood played within himself for six months whilst awaiting his money move and Bailey could not be allowed to be more of a disruptive influence than he already was - the footballing mercinary.
 
Last edited:
Bailey could not be allowed to be more of a disruptive influence than he already was - the footballing mercinary.

The bloke went to do the same job for more money. People who use the term Mercenary are being naive and should realise players are not at clubs for the love of it.

With regard to his disruptive influence - it didnt do us much harm in the Peterborough game - a lot of poeple on here had him down as mom.

My point was that the Club didnt need to sell him - he was under contract. Perhaps you could ask Ron to let you know why they let him go - and possibly get him to put it in writing so there could be no confusuon in the future.
 
Any discontent should be directed toward Mr Bailey IMO, not Tilly & Brush, as his jumping ship & not honouring his contract was the recent catalyst to compound our midfield problem.

This is a ridiculous statement. There is no question of him not honouring his contract. He was put on the transfer list by the club because he did not want to extend an already long contract at terms he considered were not favourable to himself.
 
This is a ridiculous statement. There is no question of him not honouring his contract. He was put on the transfer list by the club because he did not want to extend an already long contract at terms he considered were not favourable to himself.

He wanted to double his money and even if we had would have wanted to join Charlton.

Please dont make out we forced him out, he made ridiculous demands and wanted out.
 
He wanted to double his money and even if we had would have wanted to join Charlton.

Please dont make out we forced him out, he made ridiculous demands and wanted out.

No, he had a longish contract on agreed terms. His considerable extra demands were for signing an extra contract. There is no evidence to suggest he would not have played happily this year until the club forced the issue with a premature contract extension.
 
No, he had a longish contract on agreed terms. His considerable extra demands were for signing an extra contract. There is no evidence to suggest he would not have played happily this year until the club forced the issue with a premature contract extension.

Micks right. Ron didnt have to put him on the list and could have made him stay at lease one more season. Youve all sen Bailey play and you all know he is the sort of player who cannot play at less than 100%. I think most people missed or chose to ignore the real issue of how much extra we would have had to pay Barnett if he had achieved certain goals with us.
 
Have to say I agree with Mick - and I told Ron much the same when I emailed him a few weeks back.

Bailey was under contract with us for another 2 years - we offered him an extension, which he chose not to sign. That in itself is not a reason to then place him on the transfer list. I fully underatand the thinking behind it - that if we play hard ball with him, it will force him to sign, but for me it wasn't the right approach.

As soon as you put him on the transfer list, he is going to leave, because he is not going to come off the list unless he signs an extension to his contract, which he clearly didn't want to.

I don't think Bailey can come out of this with any praise whatsoever, he has acted completely dishonourably towards the club and the fans which put him in this position in the first place, but our decision to sell him BEFORE we had a replacement lined up was completely short sighred, and not at all in the best interests of the club.

He was OUR player, and as such, should have remained that way until a replacement had been brought in - if no such replacement could be found before the close of the transfer window, then tough, he would have to remain with us until at least January. It would not be in Bailey's best interests to not play well for us during the period of Semptember through to January because if he did, who would want him?

I COMPLETELY hold the club responsible for allowing us to be in this position, and the fact it still remains unresolved is, IMO, unacceptable.
 
No, he had a longish contract on agreed terms. His considerable extra demands were for signing an extra contract. There is no evidence to suggest he would not have played happily this year until the club forced the issue with a premature contract extension.

He would have wanted to move on anyway.

Jeez he didnt want to play against Peterbrough so hardly someone who would have played happily for us.

Ron Martin played hardball and I agree went over the top,but Bailey clearly wanted to move on and clearly was attracting CCC clubs. He would have left anyway.
 
I COMPLETELY hold the club responsible for allowing us to be in this position, and the fact it still remains unresolved is, IMO, unacceptable.

And I COMPLETELY disagree with you.

Lets review a few facts, shall we?

Firstly, how on earth can anyone say that a bid wouldn't have come in for Bailey if we hadn't put him on the transfer list? He was getting very good reviews throughout last season, and was being scouted. I think it almost inevitable that someone would have come in for him regardless. Ron asking him to extend his contract was no more and no less than seeing where his loyalties lay. Bailey made his ambition crystal clear, and placing him on the transfer list was simply acknowledging the obvious.

When we went in for Bailey at Barnet his tactics were almost identical to those he adopted here, and there is no reason to suppose that he would have behaved any differently even if he had signed a longer contract or not been put on the transfer list. To say:

He was OUR player, and as such, should have remained that way until a replacement had been brought in - if no such replacement could be found before the close of the transfer window, then tough, he would have to remain with us until at least January. It would not be in Bailey's best interests to not play well for us during the period of Semptember through to January because if he did, who would want him
is simplistic. With our limited finances, and need to foster a good team spirit, hanging on to a reluctant Bailey would have been in no ones best interest. We cashed in and shipped out, and quite right to. To summarise:

  • Bailey would have gone in this close season regardless.
  • I don't think the club did anything materially to accelerate that.
  • He has gone, get over it and let's move on.
 
And I COMPLETELY disagree with you.

Lets review a few facts, shall we?

Firstly, how on earth can anyone say that a bid wouldn't have come in for Bailey if we hadn't put him on the transfer list? He was getting very good reviews throughout last season, and was being scouted. I think it almost inevitable that someone would have come in for him regardless. Ron asking him to extend his contract was no more and no less than seeing where his loyalties lay. Bailey made his ambition crystal clear, and placing him on the transfer list was simply acknowledging the obvious.

When we went in for Bailey at Barnet his tactics were almost identical to those he adopted here, and there is no reason to suppose that he would have behaved any differently even if he had signed a longer contract or not been put on the transfer list. To say:


is simplistic. With our limited finances, and need to foster a good team spirit, hanging on to a reluctant Bailey would have been in no ones best interest. We cashed in and shipped out, and quite right to. To summarise:

  • Bailey would have gone in this close season regardless.
  • I don't think the club did anything materially to accelerate that.
  • He has gone, get over it and let's move on.

I don't recall saying that no other club would come in for him had he not of been on the transfer list? By putting him on the transfer list, all we di was put ourselves into a situation whereby we had no other option than to sell him.

On the face of it, we had a player who was happy at Roots Hall, playing the best football of his career, and although decided against signing a new long term contract, did not suggest at any stage that he had a burning desire to walk away from the club.

Of course he had ambitions, and I don't have a problem with that, but he was contracted to us, and whilst his leaving was inevitable once he was placed on the transfer list, the timing of that should have been at our discretion, and not becaue Bailey decided his dream move was to The Valley.

He 100% should absolutely not have been sold until we had a replacement, or at least one lined up - that is not at all in the best interests of the club.

You're quite right, his behavious at Barnet once our interest became apparent was identical, but I don't remember him refusing to play for them after a move to us in the January was blocked? Nor do I remember his performances taking a nose dive.

I think everyone who witnessed his MOTM performance against Peterborough would have come to the conclusion, despite how unhappy he may have been about still being a Southend player by that point, he wasn't letting it affect his game.

As for getting over it, well that's a rather silly thing to say considering we have lost our last 4 games, and that is in no small part down to the departure of our player of the season, and his replacement not yet being in place. Although early in the season, I wonder how many others will need to 'get over it' should our current run of form continue.
 
I agreed with the club for trying to tie Bailey down on a longer contract. He signed initially for 3 years but as we know contracts are meaning less and less. We wanted to reward Bailey for his fantastic form last season and he snubbed us.

With two years on his contract we could get a decent fee for him but imagine if he'd have gone in to the last year of his contract? Bailey (or his agent) would have held all the aces and he could have signed a pre-contract agreement elsewhere and we'd have got nothing at all money wise.

The club must have had players in mind but the timing of his departure possibly made it harder to get a replacement in, no one truly knows but that's my view on it.
 
Last edited:
I agreed with the club for trying to tie Bailey down on a longer contract. He signed initially for 3 years but as we know contracts are meaning less and less. We wanted to reward Bailey for his fantastic form last season and he snubbed us.

.

Hmmmm ... sounds a bit like the club rewarding supporters by allowing them to buy a "seat for life".

If that's all they wanted they could have given him an increase of terms on his current two year contract. No, we wanted to tie in our best player for as little as possible. It didn't work.
 
Hmmmm ... sounds a bit like the club rewarding supporters by allowing them to buy a "seat for life".

If that's all they wanted they could have given him an increase of terms on his current two year contract. No, we wanted to tie in our best player for as little as possible. It didn't work.

as little as possible? Do you know how much they offered then?
 
I don't recall saying that no other club would come in for him had he not of been on the transfer list? By putting him on the transfer list, all we di was put ourselves into a situation whereby we had no other option than to sell him.

The implication from several posters on here has been that if he hadn't been put on the list he wouldn't have gone. I say that's wishful thinking not borne out by the player's previous.

On the face of it, we had a player who was happy at Roots Hall, playing the best football of his career, and although decided against signing a new long term contract, did not suggest at any stage that he had a burning desire to walk away from the club.

I refer you to the above, and his reaction when a bid came in that was rejected. He said that a move to Charlton was his dream move. For that read "any move higher is my dream move". He was only happy as long as we were the best on offer. I just don't understand how, in the face of the available evidence, you can think otherwise.

Of course he had ambitions, and I don't have a problem with that, but he was contracted to us, and whilst his leaving was inevitable once he was placed on the transfer list, the timing of that should have been at our discretion, and not becaue Bailey decided his dream move was to The Valley.
Eh? He threw his toys out of the pram at Barnet (he himself admitted that he effectively went on stike until his move was granted) and as I have said, it was inevitable that a bid would come in for him, listed or not, and equally inevitable that he would then hold his breath and turn blue rather than honour the remainder of his contract.

He 100% should absolutely not have been sold until we had a replacement, or at least one lined up - that is not at all in the best interests of the club.

And we should then have held onto a reluctant player screwing up the dressing room? He and Foran would have made a lovely pair!

You're quite right, his behavious at Barnet once our interest became apparent was identical, but I don't remember him refusing to play for them after a move to us in the January was blocked? Nor do I remember his performances taking a nose dive.
Except that he actually admitted that that was what had happened, and my recollection of that has been confirmed by other posters on this.

I think everyone who witnessed his MOTM performance against Peterborough would have come to the conclusion, despite how unhappy he may have been about still being a Southend player by that point, he wasn't letting it affect his game.

He got a rocket up his arse from Ron (and probably a word to the wise from his agent) and put in one last "shop window" performance. The presence of representatives from Charleton may have had something to do with that.... The very next game he refused to play.

As for getting over it, well that's a rather silly thing to say considering we have lost our last 4 games, and that is in no small part down to the departure of our player of the season, and his replacement not yet being in place. Although early in the season, I wonder how many others will need to 'get over it' should our current run of form continue.
As, in my opinion, he was always going to go, I fail to see what more the club could have done and blaming them for Bailey's departure is ridiculous. They work their socks off every year to try and bring in good players to the club. It is very hard to replace (or hang onto) players of Baileys quality. To continue to bleat (if I'm silly you are bleating) about it is to ignore reality. I happen to think that once again Tilly has put together a very decent squad, and I honestly believe that we will start to see some better results.

What amazes me is that after four and a bit seasons of watching Tilly making silk purses out of sow's ears on a tiny budget, once again everyone is wailing and crying "doom, doom". We have had to replace a large chunk of the team and it was always going to take time to get them playing well together. Of course there are areas of concern and we could always do with better than we have. But all in all we have very little to moan about.
 
The "Bailey Question" was somewhat hi-jacking the "Tilson: We didn't deserve to lose" thread. Good debate though, so I've pulled it into a new thread.
 
No, he had a longish contract on agreed terms. His considerable extra demands were for signing an extra contract. There is no evidence to suggest he would not have played happily this year until the club forced the issue with a premature contract extension.

I was hearing that Bailey wanted more money before the club initiated contract talks. This suggests that it was actually Bailey's agent who initiated the contract talks, rather than the club.

The stories that he wanted more money were at the same time that his agent was telling him that a dozen clubs including Newcastle, Charlton and Palace were all chasing after him and offering him massive pay rises.

We no doubt could have held him to his contract and watched him sulk like Luke Guttridge. If the club are at fault at all with their contract negotiations over the last 6 months it is in not securing Gower earlier.
 
I was hearing that Bailey wanted more money before the club initiated contract talks. This suggests that it was actually Bailey's agent who initiated the contract talks, rather than the club.

The stories that he wanted more money were at the same time that his agent was telling him that a dozen clubs including Newcastle, Charlton and Palace were all chasing after him and offering him massive pay rises.

We no doubt could have held him to his contract and watched him sulk like Luke Guttridge. If the club are at fault at all with their contract negotiations over the last 6 months it is in not securing Gower earlier.

Speculation, with respect.

If it were true we should have told him he was under contract and maybe we could talk again in January. I think we are as much to blame as he is for the situation.
 
Back
Top