drnobby Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Clough doesn't strike me as the sort of person who would do anything out of sentiment. If Riggott does sign i'm sure it will be because he has proved his fitness to the clubs medical and coaching staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeds Ram Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 for me we shouldn't sign him based on his injury record, maybe as a pay as you play but that would be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffsRam Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 If he can prove his fitness then a rolling 12 month contract would do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramjam Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Cant put too much emphasis on his previous injury record. Obviously its relevant and needs to be considered by maybe offering him a pay as you play or similar contract heavily linked to appearances. However, if he is deemed fit enough by all the staff, sign him up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeds Ram Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 If he can prove his fitness then a rolling 12 month contract would do. with all his previous injuries i don't think a year contract would be worth it in all honesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotherhamRam Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 with all his previous injuries i don't think a year contract would be worth it in all honesty. This is someone who does not know injuries. He has suffered hamstring injuries. I would hazard 95% of hamstring injuries are caused by back injuries and often not diagnosed. He has had the operation and as the club have stated if he can prove his fitness and that he is over his back injury then why not sign him. If this had been spotted earlier and treated and it looks like the medical team at Boro let him down then he should have been a top half champ/prem team player. He is not signing for first choice and he is derby through and through and never wanted to be sold when he was. I am happy about this as common sense is involved and lets be honest with the injury players we have had like Commons and Co one thing you can not say about Riggott is that he doesn't care about Derby. HE IS A DERBY FAN THROUGH AND THROUGH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 This is someone who does not know injuries. He has suffered hamstring injuries. I would hazard 95% of hamstring injuries are caused by back injuries and often not diagnosed. He has had the operation and as the club have stated if he can prove his fitness and that he is over his back injury then why not sign him. If this had been spotted earlier and treated and it looks like the medical team at Boro let him down then he should have been a top half champ/prem team player. He is not signing for first choice and he is derby through and through and never wanted to be sold when he was. I am happy about this as common sense is involved and lets be honest with the injury players we have had like Commons and Co one thing you can not say about Riggott is that he doesn't care about Derby. HE IS A DERBY FAN THROUGH AND THROUGH Yeah Riggs could provide useful cover when fit. He can play left back or centre back and we need cover in both positions I think. First he needs to prove his fitness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynny Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 with all his previous injuries i don't think a year contract would be worth it in all honesty. How long a contract should he get, if he was to prove hie fitness? 6 months wouldn't be long enough because he could play a dozen games and be superb and sign for someone else straight away? Could be a very good signing, could be a bad signing, but that's the same with every signing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I think he will be either good or bad, imho, tbf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynny Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I think he will be either good or bad, imho, tbf. :eek:taking the pee, Boycie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeds Ram Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 How long a contract should he get, if he was to prove hie fitness? 6 months wouldn't be long enough because he could play a dozen games and be superb and sign for someone else straight away? Could be a very good signing, could be a bad signing, but that's the same with every signing. I would give him a pay as you play contract simple as for a year, because that way we are covered if he doesn't play and if he does it is all great. In response to rotheram, i haven't pretended to know a jot about injuries, what i do know is he has had a lot, many players have had operations on these injuries, claimed to be ok and then consistently break down. It doesn't matter if someone is derby through and through if they are injured all the time does it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B4ev6is Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 hey me guys just under new usher name as i could not get to log in, but i think ig chris riggort can stay fit he could be anwser at the back for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynny Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I would give him a pay as you play contract simple as for a year, because that way we are covered if he doesn't play and if he does it is all great. So that would be a 1 year contract, none-the-less. I think we all agree that it should be pay-as-you-play deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeds Ram Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 well yes, it is just when someone says a 1 year deal i think of a weekly salary for a year lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynny Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 well yes, it is just when someone says a 1 year deal i think of a weekly salary for a year lol. Hahaha, there will still be a weekly wage, but it will be low, with a substantial amount if he plays (i would have thought) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeds Ram Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 i wouldn't pay him a penny unless he paid in all honesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynny Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 i wouldn't pay him a penny unless he paid in all honesty. Think that might be against the law:o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeds Ram Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 well then depending on the wage it would be tricky, anything over 1,000 a week and i wouldn't bother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynny Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 well then depending on the wage it would be tricky, anything over 1,000 a week and i wouldn't bother. I would think that would be the limit for not playing with a £2000-£3000 'bonus' for being in the squad/playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Think that might be against the law:o Boulding signed on a non-contract basis, he wouldn't have got paid a penny. Maybe anything is possible in the world of football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.