Happy to see Grant stay, but cannot help feeling that all the recent headlines have been generated by his agent. Fine, a player would feel unsettled when his manager accepts a bid from his promotion rivals. However, after turning down Brizzle, Grant did well and continued scoring.However, the transfer request came about because Grant was apparently unhappy at not being offered improved terms - well, call me Mr Cynical, but why should he be? Yes, he scored more goals than any other, but he negotiated a contract 18 months previously which still has two years to run; and let's not forget that Forest did not get promoted, so in my opinion, none of the players deserve any performance-related bonus.It just annoys me when footballers (or perhaps their agents) do not seem to respect contracts in the same way that the rest of us ordinary workers in other walks of life have to. I have consistently been told that I am doing brilliantly in my job, yet there is no hope of a pay rise because the organisation as a whole is not doing well enough - what is the difference?
I heard (on the interweb so it must be true) that he is on significantly less than agogo and tyson - and when he signed he was told that if he did "well" he would be put on the same wages as them.
I don't think that can be true.Neither Nathan nor Junior were Forest players yet when Grant signed (Tys was on loan but I don't think had signed a permanent deal yet).Also, if that arrangement was made with Megson, unless he had a signed agreement, he had no way of proving it.I don't want to sound like I am baiting Grant, in fact I quite like him (would much rather that he was in a red shirt than anyone else's), but from what I know, he has no grounds to renegotiate his deal...
well as i say it's off the interweb (can't remember where) and if it is true (even at the level of "if you score X goals then you get a pay rise") i assume it's a "gentleman's agreement" (a la van Hoijdonk) otherwise there would be grounds to go to court.
Post a Comment