Coughlin gone

Status
Not open for further replies.
This one is more frustrating than Borthwick or Stoneman as he has done fuck all.

However those preaching loyalty etc need to recognise that cricketers get paid a pittance in sporting terms, for maybe a decade. Most of us would leave our current employment for a 20% pay rise for example.

I'm not saying I'm not frustrated, but it's life
 


viccarlton said:
Not in this day and age there isn't.
Click to expand...

Ask Scott Borthwick.

chunkylover53 said:
This one is more frustrating than Borthwick or Stoneman as he has done fuck all.

However those preaching loyalty etc need to recognise that cricketers get paid a pittance in sporting terms, for maybe a decade. Most of us would leave our current employment for a 20% pay rise for example.

I'm not saying I'm not frustrated, but it's life
Click to expand...

It's a completely irrelevant comparison, one which is made regularly, but annoying - because it just isn't that cut and dried.

I think with Coughlin, more than anyone else, we're entitled to preach loyalty. He's pretty much missed two full seasons of his development due to his 'Mr Glass' nature. All of that time we showed patience, loyalty if you will, in paying him to lie on his back in a physio room. So I make no apology in thinking DCCC are owed atleast a little bit of gratitude.

Cricketers being paid a pittance is also another over used saying which I don't think is really that relevant. Because in the cricket community it is all relative isn't it? There's no point in a cricketer getting worked up that he's not on the money that a footballer is, because aside from Ian Botham, nobody at our club could play professional football. As far as the money is concerned, it is a much easier and fruitful existence than cutting grass for a living generally is - but then that is as pointless a comparison as the one I've just talked about.

Is Coughlin getting that much more money? Will it make up for him having to up sticks and start a now life? Probably, but then all that does is confirm what many people probably know anyway - he's another who isn't motivated by any possibility of improving himself or of winning things - all he's bothered about is lining his pockets as much as he can until his balsa like body gives in for good.
 
Last edited:
brandon said:
Ask Scott Borthwick.



It's a completely irrelevant comparison, one which is made regularly, but annoying - because it just isn't that cut and dried.

I think with Coughlin, more than anyone else, we're entitled to preach loyalty. He's pretty much missed two full seasons of his development due to his 'Mr Glass' nature. All of that time we showed patience, loyalty if you will, in paying him to lie on his back in a physio room. So I make no apology in thinking DCCC are owed atleast a little bit of gratitude.

Cricketers being paid a pittance is also another over used saying which I don't think is really that relevant. Because in the cricket community it is all relative isn't it? There's no point in a cricketer getting worked up that he's not on the money that a footballer is, because aside from Ian Botham, nobody at our club could play professional football. As far as the money is concerned, it is a much easier and fruitful existence than cutting grass for a living generally is - but then that is as pointless a comparison as the one I've just talked about.

Is Coughlin getting that much more money? Will it make up for him having to up sticks and start a now life? Probably, but then all that does is confirm what many people probably know anyway - he's another who isn't motivated by any possibility of improving himself or of winning things - all he's bothered about is lining his pockets as much as he can until his balsa like body gives in for good.
Click to expand...
I disagree fully. It's a job. We get misty eyed over sport, it's easy to be loyal on 100k a week, it's patronising on 100k a year
 
chunkylover53 said:
I disagree fully. It's a job. We get misty eyed over sport, it's easy to be loyal on 100k a week, it's patronising on 100k a year
Click to expand...
Obviously I, and I would suggest everyone else understands the lure of money regardless of whether you're a sportsman or a bin man (no offence to bin men) but as has been suggested by many others the way that the likes of Coughlin are nurtured by clubs (for mutual benefit) paid for their services whether they play or not and then they up sticks and disappear into the cricketing wasteland ( usually with some guff regarding improving their chances in whatever cause they choose) is a thumb in the eye for DCCC.
I don't like the way it's happened but would have more respect for Coughlin if he had the balls to come out and say "I'm moving for a bigger contract" , but he won't so we can forget that and prepare ourselves for some prepared statement from his agent/management team or whatever other leeches he has working for him in the background.
 
chunkylover53 said:
I disagree fully. It's a job. We get misty eyed over sport, it's easy to be loyal on 100k a week, it's patronising on 100k a year
Click to expand...

I wasn't the one being misty eyed.

I played Northern League football with lads who would leave a club for £5 a game more, so I've seen the lower end of the spectrum.

My main point though, which I'm not going to waver from - is that you can argue loyalty doesn't come into it in the majority of cases, but with regards to Coughlin and what we've done for him, despite barely ever having him stay fit, loyalty is definitely a factor here.

You can say he doesn't have to show us any, perhaps that's true, but everybody is more than entitled to call him out for it.
 
brandon said:
I wasn't the one being misty eyed.

I played Northern League football with lads who would leave a club for £5 a game more, so I've seen the lower end of the spectrum.

My main point though, which I'm not going to waver from - is that you can argue loyalty doesn't come into it in the majority of cases, but with regards to Coughlin and what we've done for him, despite barely ever having him stay fit, is definitely a factor here.

You can say he doesn't have to show us any, perhaps that's true, but everybody is more than entitled to call him out for it.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with you there
 
If Durham had have released Coggers over the past few seasons I tell you where he would have been at another county. The club where quite happy to tell everyone a couple of seasons ago when he signed a contract at Durham for less money than he could have got at at least two other counties.
He may well have spent a fair bit of time on the other counties treatment table but he would still be in the county game.
 
It looks like Beefy's broadside has been picked up by the national press .... they didn't add anything to it simply reporting what he'd said.

One bit I saw though was that Notts. will have to compensate Durham for Coggers outstanding contract ... peanuts.

And Surrey have made a suggestion the if players move counties under the age of 25 and their original country have made them a contract offer then compensation would be paid, decided by an arbitration panel.

willo said:
According to Jon Lewis (via Marty) Jennings also has a get out clause in his contract but he hopes he stays.

We follow two absolute clusterfuck, terribly managed sports club :lol::lol::lol:
Click to expand...
But why is that mis-management? Keaton negotiated that clause. If Durham hadn't agreed Keaton could well have moved elsewhere which he had the option to do. It might be a PITA but thee was possibly no choice over it.
 
Last edited:
mackemmover94 said:
Quite right there is more to moving away than a wage increase. Ask Mark Stoneman.
Click to expand...

Change of scenery I suppose? But the only thing Stoneman could get at Surrey that he couldn't get here is the wage increase funnily enough.

Don't drink the England cool aid, Jennings was selected before him on the back of a fantastic season at which club?
 
viccarlton said:
Obviously I, and I would suggest everyone else understands the lure of money regardless of whether you're a sportsman or a bin man (no offence to bin men) but as has been suggested by many others the way that the likes of Coughlin are nurtured by clubs (for mutual benefit) paid for their services whether they play or not and then they up sticks and disappear into the cricketing wasteland ( usually with some guff regarding improving their chances in whatever cause they choose) is a thumb in the eye for DCCC.
I don't like the way it's happened but would have more respect for Coughlin if he had the balls to come out and say "I'm moving for a bigger contract" , but he won't so we can forget that and prepare ourselves for some prepared statement from his agent/management team or whatever other leeches he has working for him in the background.
Click to expand...

i think it is a moot point comparing cricketers to footballers - a top class footballer brings in a lot of cash to a club, shirt sales and all that shite, and cash flows into a footbal club [admittedly they piss it out at the same time] but cricket doesn't have bags of cash coming into it. they are paid very well for what they do, no point complaining they don't get the same pay, other than top international players nobody in the world gives a fuck who they are.

i'm a postman, does that give me a right to whinge on i don't get paid as much as a popstar? of course it doesn't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top