Pope talking about a 40-50% pay cut!

[valiant_593]

Not by the sounds of Toms comments seems it will be a take it or leave it situation.

 

It could be tactics from popey and his agent to make sure he gets the very best deal

[valiant_593]

If we had to replace Tom, I'm not sure that an experienced, good League One standard centre forward would come that much cheaper.

 

For the saving that Norman will be looking to make, we may end up having to take a gamble on a younger, inexperienced player who isn't tested at this level.

 

So many teams do that and have success, I'm sure there is plenty of premiership youngsters that could do the job, look at afobe and bamford. I would prefer us to keep pope than sign young loan players but there are other options. A lot may depend on how many nguessan can score before the end of the season and how campion/nimely do. Looking at nimely and listening to reports about him, he should be exactly what we need. We also have Williamson, not a great player but has scored as many as pope this year.

[Aussie Rules]

It could be tactics from popey and his agent to make sure he gets the very best deal

 

That's my take on it too - derived from this Sentinel comment:

 

If the club can’t budge, and nothing happens regarding the club’s situation between now and the end of the season, then I think I will have a difficult decision on my hands.

[Yukon]

If the player in question was not Tom Pope; if the top goalscorer was not a local lad that supported the club, but a fictitious player was just another footballing mercenary, do you really think that they would even consider such a huge pay cut? No! They'd be on the 1st bus to the next town, greedily thinking about theirself and where the next cheque was coming from.

 

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, you are abusing your position. You are trying to deflect the blame away from yourself and place it on a scapegoat/s. The said scapegoat/s being Tom Pope and of course the people you take for mugs: the paying public.

 

It's a very old trick, but some of us can see clearly through it. After all, some of us were around when the 'master' of said tactic, Bill Bell was around to employ it.

 

If fans ain't putting their bums on seats, then the responsibility lies firmly on your shoulders Mr. Smurthwaite. You've continually wasted money on deadwood players and loanee's that don't make the grade. It certainly is not Pope's fault. What a short memory you seem to have about a player that has contributed massively to the clubs' relative success.

 

You have failed to capitalize on a firm foundation and now you're involved in the blame game. ("it's everybody else but me") Sounds more like Bill Pratt.

 

The test of a Chairman is when things are not going smoothly, not when you purchase a club sitting at the top of the league.

 

Words fail me....

[hamilboy]

If the player in question was not Tom Pope; if the top goalscorer was not a local lad that supported the club, but a fictitious player was just another footballing mercenary, do you really think that they would even consider such a huge pay cut? No! They'd be on the 1st bus to the next town, greedily thinking about theirself and where the next cheque was coming from.

 

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, you are abusing your position. You are trying to deflect the blame away from yourself and place it on a scapegoat/s. The said scapegoat/s being Tom Pope and of course the people you take for mugs: the paying public.

 

It's a very old trick, but some of us can see clearly through it. After all, some of us were around when the 'master' of said tactic, Bill Bell was around to employ it.

 

If fans ain't putting their bums on seats, then the responsibility lies firmly on your shoulders Mr. Smurthwaite. You've continually wasted money on deadwood players and loanee's that don't make the grade. It certainly is not Pope's fault. What a short memory you seem to have about a player that has contributed massively to the clubs' relative success.

 

You have failed to capitalize on a firm foundation and now you're involved in the blame game. ("it's everybody else but me") Sounds more like Bill Pratt.

 

The test of a Chairman is when things are not going smoothly, not when you purchase a club sitting at the top of the league.

 

Wot a load of rot blaming smurf he is putting his own money into our club have some respect for the man who in my mind is doing a good job for my club.Only the future will determine if it works i really hope it does just so that all true vale fans can ram your words down your throat.Now getting on to Tom Pope yes he has done well for us yes he is a vale fan and yes by the way he must be on to much money for us at the moment but i will tell you now we play better football without him in the team because we have stopped lumping the ball up from the back all the time.The last point i would like to make is to compare roy sproson with tom pope roy could have gone anywhere on more money but stopped with us a true ledgend tom has a long way to go before he comes anywhere near him.

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

In my opinion Tom Pope is in the same mould as the man who's statue stands outside the main entrance.

 

The two are lightyears apart for me.

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, you are abusing your position. You are trying to deflect the blame away from yourself and place it on a scapegoat/s. The said scapegoat/s being Tom Pope and of course the people you take for mugs: the paying public.

 

Sorry that for me is utter rubbish and really quite offensive to the man that's put more money into the club than anyone in its history.

[valiant_593]

Sorry that for me is utter rubbish and really quite offensive to the man that's put more money into the club than anyone in its history.

 

I agree complete rubbish.

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

It could be tactics from popey and his agent to make sure he gets the very best deal

 

That's exactly what seems to be happening. Really players and management and chairmen should do this talking in private but it's all posturing and sadly I doubt it will ever happen in this day of 24 hour news.

[stupers]

Let's be sensible about this. If he doesn't want to take a pay drop to fit in with the wage structure of the club then that's fair enough, he heads off with my good wishes doing the right thing for his family. A footballer's career is short. He needs to earn money whilst he's still at the top of his game. This time will be his last big contract. He should grab as much money or he can, or take the offer he'll be given by Vale, which will be sensible and within the parameters of what we can afford, whilst allowing us to spend money on wages for other players.

 

He's mentioning a 50% drop. Even if he's on £3k a week now then he's dropping to £1,500 a week which would not even make him the highest paid player at the club compared with recent signings. I'm on the understanding that he's on quite a bit more than £3k a week currently. I can't imagine that our offer to him won't still have him as the lone or equal best-paid player at the club. If he doesn't want to do that, then he is entitled to go elsewhere.

 

I can't believe there's some people knocking Smurf for his stance on this. I'm very pleased to hear that someone at the club has decided that we won't just pay any figure to keep a player, even someone who has the record and reputation of Pope. We need sensible business planning here, not just making it up as we go along like has happened in recent years. Sensible planning, Sustainable future.

[mattyboolay]

Myopic on your part.

 

And as you and a few others on here can't answer a point with a well balanced response on a debating forum, I'm afraid it says more about you than you'd ever care to admit.

[Ben]

It could be tactics from popey and his agent to make sure he gets the very best deal

 

Lets hope it is and a deal can be struck.

[PV1993]

If the player in question was not Tom Pope; if the top goalscorer was not a local lad that supported the club, but a fictitious player was just another footballing mercenary, do you really think that they would even consider such a huge pay cut? No! They'd be on the 1st bus to the next town, greedily thinking about theirself and where the next cheque was coming from.

 

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, you are abusing your position. You are trying to deflect the blame away from yourself and place it on a scapegoat/s. The said scapegoat/s being Tom Pope and of course the people you take for mugs: the paying public.

 

It's a very old trick, but some of us can see clearly through it. After all, some of us were around when the 'master' of said tactic, Bill Bell was around to employ it.

 

If fans ain't putting their bums on seats, then the responsibility lies firmly on your shoulders Mr. Smurthwaite. You've continually wasted money on deadwood players and loanee's that don't make the grade. It certainly is not Pope's fault. What a short memory you seem to have about a player that has contributed massively to the clubs' relative success.

 

You have failed to capitalize on a firm foundation and now you're involved in the blame game. ("it's everybody else but me") Sounds more like Bill Pratt.

 

The test of a Chairman is when things are not going smoothly, not when you purchase a club sitting at the top of the league.

 

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think Norm is intentionally 'abusing' these circumstances - he is doing what he believes is best for the club and I admire that and thank him for it.

 

HOWEVER, I do feel that Pope is in his prime and is worth the equivalent of two players - so why not?

 

If you could have a Tom Pope OR two Ben Williamson's, who would you go for?

[valeparklife]

Smurf will be clever and offer an attractive incentive based salary dependant on goals scored, appearances and win bonuses etc.

 

Dunna worry. We've replaced players before remember! :)

[robf]

In a radical departure from some posters on this thread, can I suggest that it isn't anyone's fault!

 

* I don't think it's Tom Pope's fault that his good form earned a new contract and although he'd like to stay with the club he supports, he wants to secure a financial future for his family.

* I don't think it's the owner's fault that after throwing in an awful lot of money, he's cautious about the club being able to afford a big wage earner.

* I don't think it's the fans' fault that in such a deprived area, it's difficult to get the bigger crowds we would need to sustain Tom's wages.

 

I think the problem is clearly that in an ideal world, we'd love to have Tom Pope upfront but this isn't an ideal world and it does look like we won't be able to afford him.

 

But I would repeat - I don't think this is the time nor place to start abusing people (either the player or the chairman) for the situation. I would just hope that when (as I presume it's more a case of "when" than "if") Pope leaves, we remember what he's done for the club and thank him, rather than be bitter about him leaving...

 

p.s. While it's right that no player is irreplacable, some players are more difficult to replace than others. When we sold Beckford and Earle in 1990, we got relegated the next season. When we sold Gareth Ainsworth in 1998, we were relegated in 1999. Conversely, we sold Andy Jones in 1987 and bought wisely (Ron Futcher, Simon Mills, Gary Ford etc) and were promoted in 1989. My point is - if it was as simple as replacing one successful player with another, we'd all be football managers - it doesn't always work like that. Sometimes you can replace them - sometimes it's a lot harder than it appears...