Matt Doherty

[AdamB]

Think we've moved on from Doherty. We now have 3 RBs at the club, the oldest of which is 24. Wouldnt be any reason to sign a non-first choice player in that position who is over 30

 

[glasgowspur]

Haven't read through the full thread so I may be posting something that's already been posted/disproven but...

If the story that we terminated his contract because we didn't realise the rules on maximum loans is true, and the BBC reported it as fact on Tuesday night, that's beyond unprofessional and is unforgivable. Someone should get a very serious arse kicking for that.

Wish Doherty all the best. On the whole, he's been pretty mediocre for us. Not great, not terrible. Wish him all the best - what an opportunity for him.

Is it not just because we expected to purchase porro not loan him, sporting forced us into a loan so we had to clear someone out.
Don’t think we can lay too much blame on the club for a sudden and unexpected change from the seller.

 

[Finney Is Back]

its also a high risk game for boehly. while its possible to mitigate the risk of long contracts by tying players to on pitch success, i believe it will be unlawful to tie it to injuries and we all know what's it like being tied down to a highly paid sicknote. boehly is probably coming off the profitable business model that the chelsea academy has had by hoovering up the best young talents and this is the senior squad version of it.

it also sorts of compete's with Levy's strategy - do you put your available resources behind cinemas and events or the best young talents? for me i have always believed success by nicheing and finding ancillary businesses within an industry is overall a less risky and more efficient strategy than diversifying into new industries.

Well over the past 20 years transfer fee inflation seems to have been far higher than inflation in profit from cinemas and events. If we used recent history as an indication of the future then Boehly's strategy would seem better. However, I think the new FFP rules are likely to see transfer fee inflation drop quite considerably so maybe things will now swing to Levy's way of thinking.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Ohhh i have a sneaky idea.

We terminated dohertys contract, he signs 5 month deal with atletico. We sign him on a pre contract to get him back in the summer. Doherty might do it as if he gets injured he's fudged.

If that is the case it's a genius way to get around the fudge up.

Not particularly sneaky or clever to pay up a decent portion of a players contract and then give them another contract thus paying them twice for the same period.

 

[milo]

Is it not just because we expected to purchase porro not loan him, sporting forced us into a loan so we had to clear someone out.
Don’t think we can lay too much blame on the club for a sudden and unexpected change from the seller.

It's outgoing loans to European clubs that we were scuppered on. The incoming loan of Porro had no bearing on it. Loaning Spence to Rennes and Gil to Sevilla did.

It's the club secretary who is responsible for player registration but you would expect everyone dealing with transfers to be on top of it and for them to be updated on the position through the window

 

[DTA]

It's outgoing loans to European clubs that we were scuppered on. The incoming loan of Porro had no bearing on it. Loaning Spence to Rennes and Gil to Sevilla did.

It's the club secretary who is responsible for player registration but you would expect everyone dealing with transfers to be on top of it and for them to be updated on the position through the window

we also didn’t have to “get rid” of Doherty at all maybe we decided to do the right thing by him as he was keen on a move to Athletico.

maybe he was so keen we reached a mutual agreement to cancel his contract without any pay out?

im sure some will spin that in some way to bash Levy as well.

 

[DTA]

Not particularly sneaky or clever to pay up a decent portion of a players contract and then give them another contract thus paying them twice for the same period.

did we pay out any of his contract?

 

[DeanoAustin]

Is it not just because we expected to purchase porro not loan him, sporting forced us into a loan so we had to clear someone out.
Don’t think we can lay too much blame on the club for a sudden and unexpected change from the seller.

Think the issue, and I'm open to correction, is the number of loans out. Loans in have nothing to do with it.

Apparently the rules were changed a couple of months ago which may have caused confusion but when you're dealing with "assets" worth millions of pounds, it is not credible to get this wrong even if the rules are complicated and changed. If my understanding is correct, what happened was absolutely unprofessional and unforgivable. And I'm not an ENIC-Out person by any stretch of the imagination. It's just rank amateurism.

 

[Lilbaz]

Not particularly sneaky or clever to pay up a decent portion of a players contract and then give them another contract thus paying them twice for the same period.

Why would we pay up anything? It's mutually agreed termination. He then signs for atletico who cover the wages till the summer and we sign a precontract meaning he rejoins in the summer. He doesn't lose anything, we effectively loan him out, atletico get their player. Everyone happy. Even give him a year extension for the hassle.

 

[Finney Is Back]

we also didn’t have to “get rid” of Doherty at all maybe we decided to do the right thing by him as he was keen on a move to Athletico.

maybe he was so keen we reached a mutual agreement to cancel his contract without any pay out?

im sure some will spin that in some way to bash Levy as well.

Possible but I very much doubt it, especially knowing how agents work.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Why would we pay up anything? It's mutually agreed termination. He then signs for atletico who cover the wages till the summer and we sign a precontract meaning he rejoins in the summer. He doesn't lose anything, we effectively loan him out, atletico get their player. Everyone happy. Even give him a year extension for the hassle.

Yes, mutually agreed. That simply means that Spurs haven't unilaterally agreed it and paid out the entire contract for the full 18 months including bonuses (as they would have to do if Doherty wasn't agreeing to his contract being cancelled).

Of course it is possible that Doherty didn't get paid anything, it is just very, very unlikely in my opinion. In the position that Doherty was in he had 18 months left of being paid £70k a week. So about £5.5m.

If we assume that Atletico Madrid match his Spurs wage, he will earn around £1.8m from Madrid and then has no idea of what is going to happen beyond that (he could get a career ending injury for example). He therefore has the risk that he loses about £3.6m of earnings. If I was Doherty's agent in the position where Spurs have suddenly realised there is a problem with UEFA rules I would probably have been looking to get my client half of the difference as a pay off. There is then some insurance for the player and if they can get a contract for the following year at more than £35k a week then they're in the money.

It is now possible that Spurs can now agree a pre-contract deal to bring Doherty back in the summer. However if we did this then we wouldn't be able to loan him out to another team in England, so I don't think we'd do this (especially when the club has another three senior RWBs on its books)

 

[Lilbaz]

Yes, mutually agreed. That simply means that Spurs haven't unilaterally agreed it and paid out the entire contract for the full 18 months including bonuses (as they would have to do if Doherty wasn't agreeing to his contract being cancelled).

Of course it is possible that Doherty didn't get paid anything, it is just very, very unlikely in my opinion. In the position that Doherty was in he had 18 months left of being paid £70k a week. So about £5.5m.

If we assume that Atletico Madrid match his Spurs wage, he will earn around £1.8m from Madrid and then has no idea of what is going to happen beyond that (he could get a career ending injury for example). He therefore has the risk that he loses about £3.6m of earnings. If I was Doherty's agent in the position where Spurs have suddenly realised there is a problem with UEFA rules I would probably have been looking to get my client half of the difference as a pay off. There is then some insurance for the player and if they can get a contract for the following year at more than £35k a week then they're in the money.

It is now possible that Spurs can now agree a pre-contract deal to bring Doherty back in the summer. However if we did this then we wouldn't be able to loan him out to another team in England, so I don't think we'd do this (especially when the club has another three senior RWBs on its books)

The plan was to get rid of emerson according to ally gold but he didn't want a loan in jan and nobody would buy him.

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

The plan was to get rid of emerson according to ally gold but he didn't want a loan in jan and nobody would buy him.

Which seems odd, because most clubs play with a sensible formation where full backs behave like full backs, and Royal is a good full back who should be worth much more to other clubs than us.

 

[Lilbaz]

Which seems odd, because most clubs play with a sensible formation where full backs behave like full backs, and Royal is a good full back who should be worth much more to other clubs than us.

There was only 1 club in europe that spent over €10m in jan outside the prem.

 

[glasgowspur]

It's outgoing loans to European clubs that we were scuppered on. The incoming loan of Porro had no bearing on it. Loaning Spence to Rennes and Gil to Sevilla did.

It's the club secretary who is responsible for player registration but you would expect everyone dealing with transfers to be on top of it and for them to be updated on the position through the window

Think the issue, and I'm open to correction, is the number of loans out. Loans in have nothing to do with it.

Apparently the rules were changed a couple of months ago which may have caused confusion but when you're dealing with "assets" worth millions of pounds, it is not credible to get this wrong even if the rules are complicated and changed. If my understanding is correct, what happened was absolutely unprofessional and unforgivable. And I'm not an ENIC-Out person by any stretch of the imagination. It's just rank amateurism.

Thanks for the clarification guys, only been keeping half an eye on it so obviously missed the intricacies.

 

[Bishop]

Ohhh i have a sneaky idea.

We terminated dohertys contract, he signs 5 month deal with atletico. We sign him on a pre contract to get him back in the summer. Doherty might do it as if he gets injured he's fudged.

If that is the case it's a genius way to get around the fudge up.

I can't see us having any interest In signing Doherty up again. He's not actually that good and the coach clearly didn't rate him as first choice. Add to that if Conte leaves and we get a back 4 coach again...well Doherty is dreadful FB. Just can't see it.

Sent from my XQ-BC72 using Fapatalk

 

[Lilbaz]

I can't see us having any interest In signing Doherty up again. He's not actually that good and the coach clearly didn't rate him as first choice. Add to that if Conte leaves and we get a back 4 coach again...well Doherty is dreadful FB. Just can't see it.

Sent from my XQ-BC72 using Fapatalk

Doesn't make sense him only signing a 5 month contract with atletico though.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Doesn't make sense him only signing a 5 month contract with atletico though.

Maybe Athletico didn't want to risk a longer contract without seeing how a high wage 31 YO, who spent most of his career in lower league, adjusted to that league.

 

[DTA]

There was only 1 club in europe that spent over €10m in jan outside the prem.

is that true?
If so Wow!

 

[Bishop]

Doesn't make sense him only signing a 5 month contract with atletico though.

It kind of does if as has been speculated we've paid or will pay a decent amount of wages that were contractually owed to him. At the same time he may well have seen the writing on the wall. He couldn't really get in the side despite the competition being Spence who never got games or Emerson who is clearly unsuited to a WB role. Add a new 42m attacking WB, the Conte's choice...is there any point in him staying at that point?

5 month contract plus whatever he got from Spurs and he'll see what his situation in the summer is.

Sent from my XQ-BC72 using Fapatalk