Unlucky Brooker

[CusworthRovers]

This is just an update for the exiles, and it's intention is not to stir up an anti Brooker vibe.

Today's Free Press:

Further Exploratory OP needed on his ankle so that the problem can be cured once and for all.

He has split sheaths, hence the surgery. Either out for the season or back in training in a few weeks. He was very close to a full return when this happened.

Further.....Shack out for around 1 month and Woods might be back for selection for the Forest game.

[BillyStubbsTears]

CusworthRovers wrote:

He has split sheaths, hence the surgery.

Christ up above.

What surgery do you need to stop yourself splitting sheaths? My heart goes out to the poor bloke.

Wouldn't it be easier just to use Extra Safe?

[5minstogo]

If Brooker was an animal he would have been put out of his misery by now.

I just hope he continues his prolific scoring rate, if he ever plays again.

[Filo]

I`ve said it before and I`ll say it again, we signed a crock, I doubt we`ll see Brooker in a Rovers shirt again, Christ the lad gets injuries when he`s injured!

[5minstogo]

Filo wrote:

I`ve said it before and I`ll say it again, we signed a crock, I doubt we`ll see Brooker in a Rovers shirt again, Christ the lad gets injuries when he`s injured!

Magic  

[BRMC_rover]

We should just swap his legs with Guy's.

[steve@dcfd]

I feel this may be the time to get in a tall striker/forward on loan. I feel for Brooker but we have waited long enough we need a young footballing loanee to allow them to gain experience and have the option of a big man to assist Billy and also link up with midfield. I hope we can attract such a player and have the funds to achieve that.

[danrover82]

I cant for life of me understand why Rovers signed an injured player. I think they should cancel contract and tell him to come back if and when he gets fully fit. The wages could have easily gone towards someone like Billy Sharp.

I feel for the guy buy its not our problem and its costing a fortune to sort. Good luck to the lad but time to wake up and take account of the situation.

[en aitch]

We would never have got a fully fit Steve Brooker for the money we paid.

Someone decided that it was worth the risk.

I've no idea how long is left on his contract, but you can't just \"cancel his contract\". You can pay up his contract or you can agree by mutual consent.

[River Don]

Precisely it was a gamble, we knew about the injuries and we got him on the cheap. Anyway I would expect there will be some clauses in his contract covering the injury problem, I wouldn't think they are paying that much out to keep him on.

[CusworthRovers]

I think Rovers have to take a few gambles whilst in this League, as we do not have the clout to compete.

Signing so called cheap lesser lights is probably not going to take us forward anymore at this moment in time. Many have said we need proven quality now to move us on.

Martis is that said quality to move us on. (and he has cost)
Billy ditto. That could be argued as a gamble as nobody wanted to touch him by all accounts languishing in the reserves and unwanted.
Shack is also costing
Stock and co will be costing
Brooker is again that said quality. The gamble is to get him to match fitness on the cheap. If it pays off it will be worth it IMO. I'm not sure he's on a ton of money to be honest, however he will be on something and then there's the medical fees. Certainly for this season it can be argued we don't need him yet.

We cannot afford to keep paying for quality all over the pitch at this moment in time. Sometimes we have to take a gamble and hope it pays off.

[danrover82]

en aitch wrote:

I've no idea how long is left on his contract, but you can't just \"cancel his contract\". You can pay up his contract or you can agree by mutual consent.

well cancel by mutual consent, the fact remains that what ever we are paying him as a club is wasted money.

[bobjimwilly]

danrover82 wrote:

well cancel by mutual consent, the fact remains that what ever we are paying him as a club is wasted money.

Mutual consent is mutual - it means Brooker would have to agree, which he won't as long as he wants to be earning money  

[Snods Shinpad 2]

When is Fairhurst due to be fit again?

[en aitch]

Thanks bobjimwilly ....

I didn't bother explaining the expression mutual consent, because I thought it was understood that it had to be agreed by both parties - reciprocal.

As in: DRFC: \"Do you fancy me cancelling your contract, Steve?\"
      Steve: \"f**k Off\"

No Mutual Consent
______________________________________________________________-

DRFC: \"How do you feel about me cancelling your contract Steve?\"
Steve: \"Oh Yes Please, I want to earn nothing whilst I'm injured\"

Mutual Consent

I'm aware that there can be negotiations and settlements but if I were Steve Brooker and in my heart I wanted to play football, I'd stay - DRFC have done alright by him.

[danrover82]

You mean mutual isn't one way, damn! must get back to school after 12 years.

All them managers that leave by mutual consent are really thick if they could have been sacked and paid out. I think its more of the club saying  we're going to have to seriously think this out as it aint working to the player/manager and the player agreeing.  Every business can get rid of someone, players are no different. Even he couldn't argue the toss at why they would want to terminate a contract.  It would probably have been cheaper to pay his contract out at first rather than all the medical costs, and if he didnt agree to this 'mutual consent' then do you really want a player like that at the club?

Its got the makings of a McIntyre all over again. Only difference was Macca played and scored more for Donny! Like I say I feel for the lad and shame I aint seen him playing more but the situation taking money from the club for nil return and that upsets more people than Guy playing.

[bedale rover]

doesnt upset me

i thought/think it was/is a gamble worth taking

[River Don]

danrover82 wrote:

You mean mutual isn't one way, fcuk! must get back to school. All them managers that leave by mutual consent are really thick if they could have been sacked and paid out. I think its more of the club saying  we're going to have to seriously think this out as it aint working to the player/manager and the player agreeing.  Every business can get rid of someone, players are no different. Even he couldn't argue the toss at why they would want to terminate a contract.  It would probably have been cheaper to pay his contract out at first rather than all the medical costs, and if he didnt agree to this 'mutual consent' then do you really want a player like that at the club?

Its got the makings of a McIntyre all over again. Only difference was Macca played and scored more for Donny! Like I say I feel for the lad and shame I aint seen him playing more but the situation taking money from the club for nil return and that upsets more people than Guy playing.

Mutual consent or sacked the club will end up paying up his contract and then we've lost the player, sods law suggests he'd probably go off, get fit and start knocking goals in like no tomorrow.

As it is he remains a DRFC player and it's not going to cost us very much more for us to keep it that way. IF by some miracle he does get fit, we have a player who may prove to have the quality we're looking for and he will be in some debt to Rovers for sticking with him, you'd expect he might have some loyalty to the club. Unlike McIntyre.

If we got rid now we'd definitely lose the player only to save a minimal amount, it makes no sense.

[Mr Croft]

Are we positive he is still Injured, the club could be lying to us once again and he is locked up for a few years    

[danrover82]

River Don wrote:

danrover82 wrote:

You mean mutual isn't one way, fcuk! must get back to school. All them managers that leave by mutual consent are really thick if they could have been sacked and paid out. I think its more of the club saying  we're going to have to seriously think this out as it aint working to the player/manager and the player agreeing.  Every business can get rid of someone, players are no different. Even he couldn't argue the toss at why they would want to terminate a contract.  It would probably have been cheaper to pay his contract out at first rather than all the medical costs, and if he didnt agree to this 'mutual consent' then do you really want a player like that at the club?

Its got the makings of a McIntyre all over again. Only difference was Macca played and scored more for Donny! Like I say I feel for the lad and shame I aint seen him playing more but the situation taking money from the club for nil return and that upsets more people than Guy playing.

Mutual consent or sacked the club will end up paying up his contract and then we've lost the player, sods law suggests he'd probably go off, get fit and start knocking goals in like no tomorrow.

As it is he remains a DRFC player and it's not going to cost us very much more for us to keep it that way. IF by some miracle he does get fit, we have a player who may prove to have the quality we're looking for and he will be in some debt to Rovers for sticking with him, you'd expect he might have some loyalty to the club. Unlike McIntyre.

If we got rid now we'd definitely lose the player only to save a minimal amount, it makes no sense.

or we could spend months waiting and seeing and praying for fitness and he does leave on a free not thinking about the debt to Rovers :S

I wanna see in play I wanna see him paired with Billy like I wanted to see him paired with Heffernan, will I see it? I doubt it but miracles do happen.

[Redandwhitewhizards]

I think people should lay off McIntyre a bit - It was personal circumstances that meant he left us for Chester, not because he was greedy, not because he really wanted out. The abuse that Rovers fans directed at him when he returned went totally beyond banter and was uncalled for. He didn't know what was going to happen in his personal life when he got injured.

[River Don]

If he does remain injured and sees out the term of his contract, then it doesn't really make that much difference to the club. We'd gambled and lost but they went into the agreement with their eyes wide open. At that point as a free agent he could leave and try and find another club or more likely retire.

Or if he was still determined to make a comeback we could offer him a pay as you play deal with decent bonuses.

[BRMC_rover]

I need to find myself a good agent who can tout me as a currently injured, lightning quick winger, with a delivery better than UPS and free kicks that make Beckham look sh1te.

In all seriousness though, Brooker will play by the end of the season. He'l have lost what little pace he had but he'l play. Good luck to him.

[i_ateallthepies]

River Don wrote:

If he does remain injured and sees out the term of his contract, then it doesn't really make that much difference to the club. We'd gambled and lost but they went into the agreement with their eyes wide open. At that point as a free agent he could leave and try and find another club or more likely retire.

Or if he was still determined to make a comeback we could offer him a pay as you play deal with decent bonuses.

In an interview shortly after Brooker was signed, Sean said that the contract was structured around appearances.  So it's already sorted just as you suggest.

If we think back a year, it was clear there was NO WAY we were ever going to compete in the market for the quality we wanted.

It was a gamble worth taking and makes no sense to walk away from it now.

[River Don]

Yep. There is very little to be gained from sacking Brooker on the other hand it would be a real unexpected bonus if he does manage to make his comeback.

Fingers crossed.

[wing commander]

I appreciate that with our budget one or two risks have to be taken,however this was always a risk to far.The fans didnt know it at the time but Rovers would have, that hes permantely lost a large % of his reflection in his knee.That came out when he sued Bristols physio.He had previousley spent a year out prior to signing for us.All these add up to a leave it scenario.
   It was suggested his deal was structured to lean towards playing however he has taken up many man hours by our medical team and his medical bills will be enormous.
   Personally i dont think we will ever see him in a rovers shirt,i have been told on a number of occasions this season that he is finished,i hoped they were wrong but i think his career is sadly hanging by a thread..

[i_ateallthepies]

wing commander wrote:

I appreciate that with our budget one or two risks have to be taken,however this was always a risk to far.The fans didnt know it at the time but Rovers would have, that hes permantely lost a large % of his reflection in his knee.That came out when he sued Bristols physio.He had previousley spent a year out prior to signing for us.All these add up to a leave it scenario.
   It was suggested his deal was structured to lean towards playing however he has taken up many man hours by our medical team and his medical bills will be enormous.
   Personally i dont think we will ever see him in a rovers shirt,i have been told on a number of occasions this season that he is finished,i hoped they were wrong but i think his career is sadly hanging by a thread..

Wow commander, you know a great deal about this.  Pity the Rovers' didn't consult you before they made that monumental cock-up!

[bigal]

This discussion about brookers fitness or lack of it really
pees me off.In  sod we trust how many times has this been written on here about time we practised what we preach there
must be a chance brooker will get fit or sod would get rid

[DonnyBazR0ver]

I really do hope it's not as bad as feared and can resume training because he is a quality player.

It may not look as good a gamble now, but it was definitely worth the risk as a fully fit player like Brooker (Brains as well as muscle) would be wortyh a few bob and, probably out of our range.

[JamieM]

'Reflection' in the knee? what does that even mean? Do you not mean rotation? Who's authority is this even on? If it's as bad as you make out (being in the know and all that) then why has SO'D not got rid?