a contract can only ever include what both parties agree to
I can't see why Lambert would ever have agreed to such a thing.
I presume we initially played it safe with a rolling contract in case it went sour and we needed to pay him off cheaply (that or Lambert has never wanted to commit to us) and since then Lambert has held all the cards in terms of any contract extension: we needed him more than he needed us.
Posted By: CWC on June 3rd 2012 at 11:02:51
Message Thread
- Swansea have shown us how it should be done. ?3m plus and don't sign their players. (NCFC) - songwriter, Jun 3, 10:28:30
- Does really doesn't it? Hindsight etc. but should have let him talk with blessing. (NCFC) - megson, Jun 3, 12:01:55
- Doesn't change anything. If anything shows they're willing to splash 7m on players. (NCFC) - songwriter, Jun 3, 10:33:49
- The difference is Rogers had just signed a new long term contract (NCFC) - Duck, Jun 3, 10:31:54
- Why not put something in contract? You can talk to prem but ?3m and no player transfer (n/m) (NCFC) - songwriter, Jun 3, 10:35:43
- a contract can only ever include what both parties agree to (NCFC) - CWC, Jun 3, 11:02:51
- Why not put something in contract? You can talk to prem but ?3m and no player transfer (n/m) (NCFC) - songwriter, Jun 3, 10:35:43
- But wait for the megablub when GIYLF signs for Lolerpool (n/m) (NCFC) - Waddockhunt, Jun 3, 10:30:54
Reply to Message
In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.
If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.