Hooiveld saga

[Salopian]

We are told that discussions are taking place between City, Southampton and Millwall, with a view to transferring his loan period to Millwall.

It could be difficult to resolve. Millwall have little money, and would want us to continue to fund his salary or most of it. So the question is, and assuming that the player is willing to go, has he so little prospect of another game with us that we would be pleased to pay for him to leave? This would at least enable us to find a better performer to replace him without a squad that is too large.

 

[CanaryNath]

If Millwall are unable to pay a decent % of his wage, could we not just drop him from the registered first team squad and replace with a new purchase?

Not sure if we could do that or not.

 

[The Great Mass Debater]

We should not be paying him to play for another club. End of

 

[Fenway Frank]

Millwall should pay what they can and Saints make up the rest

 

[Din]

Very strange. But if it's a choice of keep him or pay for him to play for someone else then I'd rather he stayed. The fact is though we already have Turner, Cuellar, Martin, Bennett, and Miquel who play there, possibly Bassong as well. So I won't complain at all if he leaves. Had a couple of decent games but overall has looked quite poor.

 

[SussexYellow]

If Millwall are unable to pay a decent % of his wage, could we not just drop him from the registered first team squad and replace with a new purchase?

Not sure if we could do that or not.

 I may be wrong but I do not think there is a limit to the squad size in the Championship. 

Financial fair play may be an issue but then it makes no sense for us to continue to pay his wages.

 

[TA Canary]

You're not wrong regarding squad size.

There's no way we should be paying anything for a Southampton player to play for Millwall, that's crazy.

 

[dj161]

I don't know what his contract is but for arguments sake lets say he's on £10k p/w, If millwall can only afford to pay £6k p/w, then surely if he isn't part of our plans we should take that, as if he doesnt leave we would be stuck paying 100% of his wages for the remainder of the season for a player that isnt going to feature

 

[Beauseant]

Not sure where this story of us funding Hooiveld to play for Millwall originated but I don't think there's any truth in it. The normal format for a season long loan is that the club who loans the player agrees a deal with the parent club (for example City paid 50% of Elmander's wages last season). However, if the loan is cancelled by mutual agreement, which is what I understand to be the case here, then any new agreement is between the parent club and the club now taking on the loan, so if Millwall can't afford him it's their tough luck and not City's problem.

 

[Canaryboy]

Not sure where this story of us funding Hooiveld to play for Millwall originated but I don't think there's any truth in it. The normal format for a season long loan is that the club who loans the player agrees a deal with the parent club (for example City paid 50% of Elmander's wages last season). However, if the loan is cancelled by mutual agreement, which is what I understand to be the case here, then any new agreement is between the parent club and the club now taking on the loan, so if Millwall can't afford him it's their tough luck and not City's problem.

I suspect the problem would be that we have a contract with Southampton to pay a % of Hooiveld's wages for the duration of this season. We are liable to pay Southampton that money, even if we and Hooiveld agreed to part ways.

If we terminated his loan Southampton would be within their rights to loan him out again, even if we owed them money under terms of the initial deal. So it would be in our interests to agree a deal with Millwall and Southampton whereby whatever Millwall are able to pay is deducted from what we are liable to pay Southampton?

If Hooiveld and Norwich mutually agreed to terminate his season long loan, that doesn't mean that Southampton are going to let us off paying whatever it is that we agreed to pay for him. So as an example:

- On £15k a week at Southampton

- Goes to Norwich on loan, we agree to pay £8k a week to take him on loan for the season.

- Hooiveld and Norwich agree to part ways, but Southampton still want their £8k a week for the duration of the season.

So we can.....

1. Send him back but continue to pay that £8k a week, Southampton can then loan him out again if they wish.

2. Allow him to go to Millwall who are willing to pay Southampton £4k a week, on condition that Southampton reduce the amount we owe to them by £4k a week.

It makes sense that we'd be involved in negotiations here. Southampton don't have to do us any favours.

 

[Beauseant]

I think you've slightly misunderstood me. When I was talking about a mutual agreement I meant between us and Southampton, not us and Hooiveld (who doesn't really have a say). If that's the case then our obligation to Saints ceases and its then up to them to agree a deal with Millwall.

 

[Canaryboy]

I think you've slightly misunderstood me. When I was talking about a mutual agreement I meant between us and Southampton, not us and Hooiveld (who doesn't really have a say). If that's the case then our obligation to Saints ceases and its then up to them to agree a deal with Millwall.

That's my point though beauseant. Southampton do not have to agree to allow us to mutually terminate his loan, they could hold us liable for whatever it is that we've promised to pay them. If, for example, we have agreed to pay £8k a week and we'd like to send him back, Southampton have no reason to let us off any of that money. It isn't in their interests to do so because he's not going to be of use to them, and it isn't in our interests to send him back and continue to pay that £8k a week.

But if we can find a club willing to pay some of his wages, and we wish to dispose of him, it would perhaps be in our interests to come to an arrangement where we pay less than £8k a week by finding another team who are willing to pay £4k (as an example) with Southampton agreeing that we are then only liable to pay them £4k per week to terminate the deal.

If we don't want him then it is in our interests to save money, it is in Hooiveld's interests to get first team football, but Southampton are only going to care that they get the money they were promised when they agreed to loan him to us.

Why would Southampton agree to terminate the loan deal if it means losing money and then sending him to another club who are paying a lower proportion of his wages?They wouldn't, so it makes sense that all three parties sit around the table and work out a deal which benefits all three parties (Southampton not losing money, us saving some money, and Millwall getting their player).

 

[The Great Mass Debater]

Surely we can terminate the deal, or is it a case of 'you agreed to pay him and take him off our wahge bill for a year - not our problem'

I imagine we made Rotherham continue to pay Becchio's wages when he got injured

 

[Beauseant]

For some reason my pooter won't let me quote, but this is in response to Canary Boy!

I thought Saints had agreed. If not then you are absolutely correct!

 

[Canaryboy]

I can just imagine Alex Neil walking into Colney and saying "who the hell is this donkey"  :lol:

The worrying thing is that if we think Hooiveld is bad, then how bad must Miguel be to have been below him in the pecking order? We paid £1.5m for him! 

I'm hoping that Hooiveld leaving means that either Alex Neil rates Miquel or we have another centre back arriving. Then again, we've got Ryan Bennett back now anyway.... 

As for the quote function, a few things playing up lately, can't wait to upgrade to the next version of the software tbh. 

 

[Yellow Fever]

IMO, this has come about because Neil has now accepted Bassong back into the squad. Hooiveld is no donkey and it's a bit of a mystery why he has fallen so far from favour, but providing his attitude is right, Bassong would be my pick between the two. 

 

[Canaryboy]

 Hooiveld is no donkey and it's a bit of a mystery why he has fallen so far from favour

Just looked at his record here, and astonishingly we've not lost a game that he has started. Four wins and two draws. 

He had a nightmare in his final game though, the 3-3 at home to Brighton, didn't he have a very bad game and conceded the penalty which put Brighton 3-2 up? Hooper then came off the bench to score the equaliser. 

That was the last we saw of him. Then Cuellar came into the team, and I thought we looked much more composed at the back with Cuellar.

 

[Gaffer]

If we don't want him then it is in our interests to save money, it is in Hooiveld's interests to get first team football, but Southampton are only going to care that they get the money they were promised when they agreed to loan him to us.

Why would Southampton agree to terminate the loan deal if it means losing money and then sending him to another club who are paying a lower proportion of his wages?They wouldn't, so it makes sense that all three parties sit around the table and work out a deal which benefits all three parties (Southampton not losing money, us saving some money, and Millwall getting their player).

Southampton want their player to get match time to keep him in the shop window and keep his value up. It's not in their interests at all to let him stagnate at a club who don't want him. I don't think we'll end up paying anything come the end of the window.

 

[crabbycanary]

What about the glaring point that Millwall may play their puppy dog eyes and say they can only afford tuppence ha'penny a week? Who can prove how much Millwall can 'afford' to pay?

Does anyone think the Millwall CEO is going to go up to McNally and stand their holding out his (empty) trouser pockets, claiming poverty, whilst McNally has a thawing of his financial heart and pay the lot, or a vast proportion?  McNally will know that Millwall desperately need this player , and will play his CE role to the maximum, and to Norwich's benefit.

It will be in Southampton's interests to play a part in this as they could be told that they will have a player, on loan here, who has zero chance of playing again this season, thereby diminishing the potential value of him, come the end of season.

The way contracts are done these days (including loan ones) there may well be some minutae clauses, to accommodate  such situations.

 

[The Great Mass Debater]

I simply remember Leeds needing to offload Robbie Fowler when the bubble burst. They paid 11m for him but let him go for 3.5m I think (might have been 7m with something weird attached to 3.5m of it), but Man City (before they were sheik-tastic) saw Leeds coming a mile off and said, oh we can only afford to pay a little bit of his wages, knowing Leeds were desperate - so Leeds agreed to pay Fowler 30k a week to play for Man City.

Leeds bent over at every opportunity and it was galling. Id hate to see us be such chumps. I have faith in McNally not to be like this, but its always concerning you might get sucked into such ludicrousness...