Quote:Just as Budge will feel that none of this is the fault of the club, the above scenario she paints is not of the players' making either. If they were signed rashly and subsequently deemed to be not good enough or what a manager required of them, is that their fault? Similarly if they benefited from payment during injury – let's face it, not exactly what defines munificence in 21st century football – again, are they to blame?
And, really, the nub of the issue is this: More often than not, poor performance on the pitch is simply a manifestation of poor governance off it. If players select certain clubs over others because the payment terms are preferential whether through an enhanced salary or better guarantees, there is a reason for it. That's how it has always worked; and, in turn, the teams offering the better terms tend to get those better players because they are attempting to challenge for Europe or go the distance in a cup.
It is the very definition of what a contract provides – a mutual understanding, enshrined in law, of what each party brings to the table. It cannot be thrust under noses at a later date as a stick to beat people with. Budge may well force through clause 12, which states that contracts may be suspended if players refuse to accept a pay cut of between 10 and 30 per cent without cause for recompense, but she can have no complaints if Hearts players pursue the means to force through free transfers as a result.
Fucking spot on. And one in the eye for the folk yesterday who want to cry about our players.
From the very outset she should've negotiated a cut with the players based on their individual circumstances, an opportunity to build bridges with the players. Instead she's used the hammer approach just like she did with the young team and it's blown back up in her face, as - just like the young team - the players have decided Budge is now their enemy.