stevefloyd
Well-Known Member
Its my lads now and hes 23...miserable c**t
Bapaga (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter Liquid Gold
- Start date
Frostie
Well-Known Member
Same with Dabo, he was only 1 year into a 3 year deal. It's not really spin though, it's common practice & shows commitment & reward from both player & club.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
It is spin. 'Three year contract' is factually correct. But no mention that it will only keep him here for one extra year over his current deal. Being economical with the facts and only mentioning the ones that look good.
hill83
Well-Known Member
ROBBINGS OUT
SlowerThanPlatt
Well-Known Member
It’s how a lot of contracts are reported isn’t it?
It does mention in the article it keeps him until 2023.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It is a 3 year contract, it replaces an existing 2 year contract. It isn't spin at all.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I'm not saying we're alone in doing it. It's a standard means of reporting and you can see why they do it that way - because it sounds better. Same with transfer fees when they say a player has been sold for £x but due to installements the club at that moment has only recieved a fraction of the fee. I got fed up in the past hearing De Gea signs new five year deal at Man U 6 months after he'd signed his last one. Had he signed that many actual new 5 year deals he'd be under contract until about 2134.
And even though the article mentions the contract ends in 2023, where does it mention he was already contracted to 2022? It doesn't. It's there to sell the news as positively as possible which has the consequence of fooling those less inquisitive into believing we've now got that player for an extra three years over what he was contracted for initially. We haven't. For example you could also have reported it as we're paying an under contract player more than we were initially going to have to for two years and added an extra year on top. That's just as factually correct as 'three year contract' but doesn't sound very impressive does it?
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
If it wasn't 'spin' it would state specifically that this deal will keep him at the club for one additional year over his existing deal. It doesn't.
This is exactly what spin is - reporting or announcing things in the most positive means.
When the govt says we're increasing spending by, say, £100bn but actually £80bn of that has already been pledged is that or is that not spin? it's the same tactic.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
As I say if the govt says they're increasing spending by £100bn in a new bill, yet £80bn of that funding increase was already in a previous bill that is being superceded by the new one is the increase in spending £100bn or £20bn? What they're announcing is technically correct - the new bill puts forward a spending increase of £100bn above what it is now. But it's also spin because they know £80bn of it was already there and just decide not to remind people of that.
Same with this contract. New contract is for three years but he was already contracted for two of them. So three year contract is correct, but they're not reminding people he was already contracted for two thirds of that. That's the spin on the situation right there.
Frostie
Well-Known Member
We've just tied down arguably our best player & hottest prospect for an additional year each plus a further year option for Dabo (which you seem to be ignoring, now who's spinning!?)
The players have no doubt been rewarded financially & publicly stated how happy they are to be staying & yet you still find something to complain about...
The players have no doubt been rewarded financially & publicly stated how happy they are to be staying & yet you still find something to complain about...
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I'm not. It's great news. I'm just pointing out the reality is it's keeping him hear for one year longer than he was already here for.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
We've just tied down arguably our best player & hottest prospect for an additional year each plus a further year option for Dabo (which you seem to be ignoring, now who's spinning!?)
The players have no doubt been rewarded financially & publicly stated how happy they are to be staying & yet you still find something to complain about...
I mentioned the same thing on the Dabo contract thread, so didn't ignore it at all.
Frostie
Well-Known Member
As pointed out it's impossible to offer him longer
steve cooper
Well-Known Member
So if you took out a 3 year loan for, say £10000 and after year 1 you took out another 3 year loan for £10000, and used part of the money to pay off the previous loan, would you say that was a new loan or an extension to your previous loan?
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
At what point am I saying we could have offered him a longer deal?
It's still a fact that he's now contracted for a year longer than he was before he signed the new deal.
No-one has yet argued against how govt report in very similar terms and is always described as spin.
Spin is not being factually inaccurate, It's reporting something in a way that's factually accurate but makes something sound better.
Nick
Administrator
You might have a point if it was just an extension of his old deal.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I'm not arguing it isn't a new contract. I'm pointing out the reality of what that new contract actually means.
How many years repayments would I have left? Three years, compared to two if I hadn't taken out the new loan. Still got a loan to pay back either way though.
If you remortgaged your house and paid off your previous mortgage it's a completely new mortgage, but you'd have still been paying off a mortgage if you hadn't done that. The repayment period/amount might have altered but the reality is either way you'd still have a mortgage to pay.
Last week Bapaga was contracted to us until 2022. Now he's contracted to us until 2023. That is the reality of what the contract means.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Assuming he would be here the entire length of the contracts and wasn't sold, how much longer will Bapaga be here now compared to last week?
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Except it's not an argument about whether it's a new contract or an extension. It's a new contract.
The point being made it the actual reality of it is that Bapaga is now contracted to CCFC until 2023 rather than 2022.
SlowerThanPlatt
Well-Known Member
better days
Well-Known Member
There can be a few other things with a completely new contract SBD like new signing on fees, significant increase in weekly wages and so on
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I know, but what overwhelmingly matters to us as fans is how long he'll be here for under those new terms. That has increased by one year compared to his old one.
skybluegod
Well-Known Member
Gone off the boil a bit recently and hasn't really been getting much game time for the last month since his sending off. Was on a hot streak before that.
Grimsby in a bit of a slump so i expect he may get his chance again in coming matches.
CovBrummie94
Well-Known Member
It's all part of the loan process, to be around a first team environment. A spell out of the team will show them what level they need to achieve to play week in week out. These periods of struggle will be better for their development than being in our U-23s.
SkyBlueMatt
Well-Known Member
F*ck me, we really will argue about anything.
