Jump to content

Shaun Barker


Cardifframs

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Leave poor Tom alone. He is just harking back to the glory days of having mercenaries and dreaming of an 11 point season!

And a player's playing ability does not reflect his coaching capacity. Although I'm sure Wenger and Mourinho are remembered as top stars only for their footballing past...

As for Barker, he seems a good guy and a positive influence on the dressing room... And as aria said, all players will be insured for such eventualities...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barker got a contract extension while injured. Maybe it isn't on the same terms as when he was playing, maybe it's costing less than the £10k a week that gets bandied around.

He is still doing a job for DCFC - the off field role of club captain. Leaving Keogh to focus on the on field role of captain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

some people on here like the power of running this club as a business,investment then profit .

but a football club is also about people fans players and the community,a balance is required

a respect shown to players in the job they do,loyalty when things are bad and the future looks grim.

these are what made this club special .  barker--obrien --coults--buxton was out along time with a back injury,

could this bond be the team spirit thats been created at our club took players forward as  team,

derby county where a player is rewarded for thier efforts treated fairly.

in a cut throat business this does not happen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

some people on here like the power of running this club as a business,investment then profit .

but a football club is also about people fans players and the community,a balance is required

a respect shown to players in the job they do,loyalty when things are bad and the future looks grim.

these are what made this club special . barker--obrien --coults--Buxton was out along time with a back injury,

could this bond be the team spirit thats been created at our club took players forward as team,

derby county where a player is rewarded for thier efforts treated fairly.

in a cut throat business this does not happen

Can't quite believe am agreeing with you trev. It's a first!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

first ever time I agree with trevor1946, sure Barker took a pay cut when he signed his new and sure he is greatful for the loyalty DCFC has shown, not many clubs would do the same.

 

Doubt he will ever be fully fit, but be great if he was and I wasn't his greatest fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok  it was a bit harsh to call him "a waste of space" but why keep him. derby county is a business keeping him on the books is just a waste of money and i can't agree more that "he" was a fantastic player but  Keogh has been a much better captain and a better player in my opinion who do you drop Buxton who has played his f**** heart out all season for barker who can't play the same level now and if he can't get fit to championship level at all and he call's it quits as derby fan i personally don't want him on the coaching team he was no better than Keogh  whats he gonna bring to coaching that we haven't got already i say release him from his contract give him a good retirement fund  

 

Boooooo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But all im saying is the group of men who own our football club are good business men the amount of respect they show us is none existence in football today they run this club like a business and a very good one it's not a playboys weekend glory hunt to them it's there job and without us there would be no club and they recognize that 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But all im saying is the group of men who own our football club are good business men the amount of respect they show us is none existence in football today they run this club like a business and a very good one it's not a playboys weekend glory hunt to them it's there job and without us there would be no club and they recognize that

Right, but you weren't saying that. You were saying that we're daft for keeping Barker on.

Are you trying to day that because we're a sensibly run club, the sensible thing would be to let him go?

The point is, if we were being run by some play bit, they would just let him go, without a second thought, cos they could just afford to get someone to take his place, and assume that you don't need team spirit when you've got oodles of money. They would have a team full of mercs, and there would be no loyalty in either direction.

I don't know who you've worked for in the past, but our owners are sensible enough to realise that being fair to your staff creates a harmonious workplace, and a cracking team spirit. And that team spirit has for us a long way. Letting Barker go now would be running a sword through the heart of the team. You may think there is no room for emotion or sentiment in cold hard business, but our owners are sensible enough to recognise where it's important to be hard (sacking Clough), an it's important to be soft (patching up Barker).

They're not backing Barker because they're in live with the guy, they're backing him because it's the right business decision. A happy club / office / anything is a far more productive place than an unhappy one.

And for that, they are brilliant, brilliant owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But all im saying is the group of men who own our football club are good business men the amount of respect they show us is none existence in football today they run this club like a business and a very good one it's not a playboys weekend glory hunt to them it's there job and without us there would be no club and they recognize that 

I've said it before and now I'll say it again to you. Without sentiment football is nothing, NOTHING.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd assume that when Barker signed his new contract it would have made sense at the time. What clubs tend to do is reduce pay to the bare minimum when a player is injured. This is done through a clause in their contract (I think it's about £500-ish per week at Championship level). His injury was thought to only keep him out for a year-ish. So what we probably did was inserted this clause in return for him gaining a year extension, so neither of us really would have lost out, but obviously his recovery has taken way longer than anybody could have expected.

 

You can actually argue from a business point of view why we haven't cut him off. He's on low wages while he recovers, so it's not that big a loss money wise, at it gives the club an opportunity a chance to sell itself to any potential transfer target; "look at us, no matter how badly you get injured, we'll look after you, come to us!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd assume that when Barker signed his new contract it would have made sense at the time. What clubs tend to do is reduce pay to the bare minimum when a player is injured. This is done through a clause in their contract (I think it's about £500-ish per week at Championship level). His injury was thought to only keep him out for a year-ish. So what we probably did was inserted this clause in return for him gaining a year extension, so neither of us really would have lost out, but obviously his recovery has taken way longer than anybody could have expected.

 

You can actually argue from a business point of view why we haven't cut him off. He's on low wages while he recovers, so it's not that big a loss money wise, at it gives the club an opportunity a chance to sell itself to any potential transfer target; "look at us, no matter how badly you get injured, we'll look after you, come to us!"

 

 

Also, from a business point of view, if we can nurse him back to some level of fitness, and he is fit enough to play, but no longer good enough for our team (which is possible, the team has moved on since we bought him), then nursing him back to health means he might at least be sellable (maybe if he's not back to his old self, he'd still be able to do a job at a lower champ club), and we'd more than likely make any money back that we've sent on wages in these passed to years.

 

Of course, I'd love him to have an entirely successful return, and if not, then a job behind the scenes, because I doubt he's anything but a good influence on the team. But , I'm being realistic, there is nothing specifically tying him to Derby, he's just as likely to go back to Blackpool, where he could possibly do a job. But, if that's the case, at least this way we can demand a fee, and part on good terms with no harm done to either reputation.

 

Patching up Barker is totally the right thing to do, in every sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Insurance only pays out when a player gives up the game due to injury, the payment is usually shared between the club and the player, split I assume based on the remaining length of the players contract.
 
There are some player who receive a payout then recover a few years later but can never play above non-league (or overseas) as they would have to repay the money if they were ever to play UK league football again.
 
Wages for players out injured are entirely the responsibility of the club and not covered by insurance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if, following a few frantic weeks of wheeling and dealing, McClaren has completed all his signings, loans, contract extensions , moving players on except for .......signing Thorne. WBA have finally agreed a fee and Derby have finally agreed terms with Thorne. Only problem is that this will exceed the overall budget just beyond the absolute point allowed. The ONLY option is to offload Barker to use the saving on his wages to enable Thorne to come in. Barker has still not recovered fully and extremely unlikely to find another professional club.

What would it be? Keep or off load Barker?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if, following a few frantic weeks of wheeling and dealing, McClaren has completed all his signings, loans, contract extensions , moving players on except for .......signing Thorne. WBA have finally agreed a fee and Derby have finally agreed terms with Thorne. Only problem is that this will exceed the overall budget just beyond the absolute point allowed. The ONLY option is to offload Barker to use the saving on his wages to enable Thorne to come in. Barker has still not recovered fully and extremely unlikely to find another professional club.

What would it be? Keep or off load Barker?

 

Have a whip round to afford them both!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there must be a choice made between the two, then Barker. His injury transcends football. The guy could legitimately have been wheelchair bound from it. We've stuck by him 95% of the way because he got his injury putting his body on the line as he always does. We owe him, simple as.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...