What's new

Player Watch : Vincent Janssen

mike_l

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2005
5,171
3,676
And we're hoping to recoup some of the what was paid for him with such a ringing endorsement? :LOL:
Don't know how we're hoping for anyone to cough up any money for him when we're giving out messages like this. Seems a ridiculous way to treat an asset.
 

LexingtonSpurs

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2013
13,456
39,042
My assumption - there was something that went down when Janssen turned down the loan to Brighton - and whatever that was, crossed a line that Poch will not allow to be crossed.
 

eddiev14

SC Supporter
Jan 18, 2005
7,174
19,688
Was listening to a podcast by Flav at the FC today and he’d invited on a lawyer who drafts contracts for player transfers.

Much of the stuff discussed has been discussed on this forum but I was surprised to hear that basically all transfers are paid in instalments, with some deals structured pretty heavily towards playing time.

I wonder if, while we expected him out the door a long time ago and the manager isn’t interested in him, the club also don’t want him to play in order to trigger the next instalment based on appearances.

Certainly seems a weird and fairly unique situation.
 

mike_l

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2005
5,171
3,676
How many of those were 2 or 3 minutes at the end of games though?? He's 100 per cent done sadly.
He is, but the big fear isbthat no one will cough up the fee we want for a player we openly say has no chance of ever playing for us and we end up just paying his wages until his contract expires, with maybe the odd loan thrown in. Just like Bentley all over again, but we weren't quite so brutal with him.
 

eddiev14

SC Supporter
Jan 18, 2005
7,174
19,688
He is, but the big fear isbthat no one will cough up the fee we want for a player we openly say has no chance of ever playing for us and we end up just paying his wages until his contract expires, with maybe the odd loan thrown in. Just like Bentley all over again, but we weren't quite so brutal with him.

I guess if we’ve only paid, for example, £8m to date we feel like we can recoup that.

If we play him, we’ll have to pay the next instalment(s) of the £17m fee and it then becomes harder to recoup what we spent.

The manager doesn’t want him anyway so it’s a moot point in any case.

I also found it interesting that, in Arlo White’s YouTube interview with Poch, he states that integrating a new player (he was talking about youth players, but I guess applies to all players) takes time as he wants to feel that the player has earned the trust of the first team, before he plays them in a match.

Maybe the key players in our squad voiced to Poch that they didn’t think he was making the right runs, on their wavelength and basically wasn’t good enough.
 

Paolo10

Well-Known Member
Apr 6, 2004
6,179
7,621
How many of those were 2 or 3 minutes at the end of games though?? He's 100 per cent done sadly.

An appearance is an appearance, what I'm saying is that the 40 appearance mark may make a difference to a bonus in his contract that the club obviously wouldn't want to pay him. It's quite clear he's not in the club's plans.

Also read something interesting:
Appearance bonuses might also apply to matches in which the player appears as substitute, often with a different amount payable for appearances before or after a specified time in the match (a common cut off is the 70th or 75th minute).

Few rumours that he wasn't the best trainer, but tbh I just think he got found out as not good enough. The likes of Willem II and a load of the other teams he scored goals against would possibly never be good enough to get promoted from the Championship.
 

WalkerboyUK

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2009
21,658
23,476
If it really is about number of appearances/payments, then it's a joke of a situation to put ourselves into.
There's the possibility, slim as it may be, that he could actually deliver goals over the next few weeks, that would bring more value to our season than an outlay of a couple of million to his previous club.
 

allatsea

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
8,958
16,217
If it really is about number of appearances/payments, then it's a joke of a situation to put ourselves into.
There's the possibility, slim as it may be, that he could actually deliver goals over the next few weeks, that would bring more value to our season than an outlay of a couple of million to his previous club.
He wasn’t scoring when he was playing so why would anyone expect that to change ? All very well criticising the club on speculation that such a clause may exist but why pay up (if it does exist which I doubt) on just a hope that suddenly he starts scoring in the PL ?
 

Primativ

Well-Known Member
Aug 9, 2017
3,229
12,486
I think there is definitely something in it about apps payment. Most likely to his former club, rather than the player. Players would normally have an appearance bonus or goal scored bonus, the selling club would more likely be due a fee if he makes say 40 apps for the new club.

He obviously got found out that he is nowhere near the level we require. Let's be honest, his finishing was absolutely woeful for us when he played. A case of a very average player getting a bit lucky, hitting a purple patch of form in a weak league, bigger club takes a punt on him and gets it horribly wrong.
 

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2005
46,686
104,965
I can’t believe he’s still here. We simply must be asking too much money for him.

He was Holland’s starting number 9 two years ago ffs
 
Top