ellis9 wrote:Sure, he probably wants to be paid more than he's been offered (everyone does - negotiation is always about finding a compromise that keeps both happy), but on the back of the last two seasons you'd have to accept that whatever he wants is better value (and a surer bet) than simply trying to replace him with someone who may or may not be a success.
"Whatever he wants". However good he, or any other player is, the club should not and by the looks of it, will not be held to ransom because players 'want' more money.
I really want Salvi to stay and agree he will be a massive loss if he goes but I have to say well done to Tigers for not giving in to his demands if this is what has happened. The offer has been made to him, allegedly and he hasn't accepted it, fair enough and good luck to him wherever he goes.
No one is bigger or better than Leicester Tigers or any other team for that matter. The offer is on the table, take it or leave it. If you want to play for Leicester Tigers then take it, if you don't, then leave it.
Good of you to take such a stand when you don't know what has been offered, what was on offer elsewhere, whether he rejected the offer outright or not, whether he rejected it at all or how much we are paying other players relative to Salvi.
Given the rather dubious track record when it comes to integrating signings, it would make sense to consider that retaining a proven player is better than signing a cheaper player. Now I don't know either what the situation is in the negotiations, but I do know the value of Salvi to the club and I know that we are losing a lot of players in the pack whose salaries are not insignificant. I also know that we have signed players to replace them who would be coming pretty cheap (including at least one signing that looks fairly unnecessary given the depth in his position already).
Sure, Tigers like to sign depth more than they like to sign quality - that's a consequence of the pay structure and the need to compete on multiple fronts - but there really needs to be a better plan in place to retain the players who are proven performers and who prefer to stay. Loyalty goes both ways; the club should be willing to spend more on players who have done the job for them, rather than being immoveable in negotiations and spending money on importing unknown quantities instead.
The line about no player being bigger than the club is a red herring. It's an easy one to trot out to justify never having to concede an inch in contract negotiations. It's one of those truisms that sound good because no one can disagree with it. It will come up every time from the club and from fans when a player leaves because his pay demands aren't met. The assumption is always that the player is being unreasonable and that Tigers can't give in to him because... you guessed it... no player is bigger than the club.
How about you consider it from a different angle. The club is making demands of the players - the club demands total physical and mental commitment, but when the time comes that the player makes any demands back then he can be rejected and that same line trotted out. It's almost as if the line is used to justify a one-way loyalty.
Really, when it comes to a player who has been a virtual ever-present and has put his body on the line time and time again, and who has proven his ability and his commitment and who has demonstrated hius desire to stay.... would giving him a pay rise make him 'bigger than the club'? Even if it meant that we couldn't sign some mid-level import like Opeti Fonua?
