I’m not sure - if it was a 2 year deal with a termination clause after a year in the event of relegation, it could be classed as both a 2 year deal up front, and a one year deal post facto. I do find it weird though that the club didn’t communicate this on the released list, though. And have included King’s appearances for Norway on a recent international duty update. I definitely appreciate the accountability that French has brought about but our communication is still very odd to say the least. Not sure it proves Duxbury is lying as you suggest, but still just poor communication yet again.
Then why not call it a 1yr deal with option(s)? Of course it was a lie. They said he had a 2yr deal. Now it's a 1yr deal. As far as this club is concerned, being 'economical with the truth' is far too regular and deserves to be called out for what it is. If the club want to change their ways, be vocal about it, etc etc - fine, the proof will be in the pudding. Some people's patience has already run out, some still have some left. But either way, I find it bizarre that people still want to dream up scenarios for the obvious lies we have been told or give the club excuses for misleading them.
Respectfully disagree. If there was some kind of termination clause that’s different from an option. It requires the underlying event to take place to be active. It might have generated the same outcome in this case but that doesn’t mean it’s not different. As you know, I’m a lawyer, and when drafting contracts we would view these as different structures. I’d have preferred him to have been more explicit and explained that this was the structure (if it was indeed the case, but I believe it was considering that Leventhal and French appear to have said so) but this is hardly the most egregious thing he or the club have done, even during this clearing the air interview. For what it’s worth, I thought his comments (or lack thereof) on Bayat were incredibly evasive and very disappointing and they troubled me a lot more than this.
From The Athletic -“The 30-year-old’s contract has a relegation release clause built in, which ultimately frees both the player and the club from continuing his employment at Watford. As with some other players with similar clauses, this can involve the club agreeing not to exercise an option to extend the contract that they hold to speed up the process.” So it was nominally a 2-year contract but upon relegation effectively became a 1-year contract. Neither the original official statement nor Duxbury’s is wrong, but by omitting the details, appear contradictory. Seems a huge stretch to consider this outright mendacity, especially as there seems to be absolutely nothing to gain from it.
Yes Scott has been caught and proven to be the liar he clearly is. Stating that we signed King on a two year deal without mentioning that there was a mutually sensible release clause. Game set and match. We can’t tolerate a CEO who is prepared to mislead fans in this cynical way.
Maybe when you consistently accuse me of ‘looking for arguments’ you could look at the tone of this message and look in the mirror and realise you’re just as guilty of it - just as I suggested before.
...and some want to bend over backwards to find a reason to criticise the club and the Board. There are plenty of valid reasons to criticise. Implying Scott is a liar because he talked about a one year deal rather than 2 simply because he didn't mention that it is a 2 year deal with a break clause, isn't one of them.
In your opinion. I find it duplicitous behaviour. And that doesn’t take away from the point of my reply to you anyway. Have some self-awareness.
I really dislike Duxbury and barely believe a word he says but this King contract thing really is not that important
I agree. And maybe it was a stretch of a point on my behalf - but I was more pointing out that you don’t have to look far to find any kind of half-truths, concealing of info or contradictory statements from those running the place. When the point seemed to be being made that we should believe what we are being told unless we can absolutely show undeniable proof it’s a lie. That’s a slippery slope for fans to be on - yet some seem to want to die on that hill still.
I'm perfectly self-aware. You ? It's clear we have a difference of opinion on this point but for some reason you are happy to make your case but not allow others to make theirs without getting terribly upset about it ? I don't like Scott but this King contract matter is really a big nothing.
See above. And be honest, you made a post above that was clearly spoiling for a reply and argument. I pointed that out and you’ve purposely overlooked it because you don’t like the fact it shines a light on your behaviour simply because it mirrors behaviour you love to accuse others of. That why I mention your self-awareness or lack thereof. Hope you have a nice day in the long overdue sunshine.
I just posted a comment that disagreed with view. That was my only sin. I'm very happy to post my views and to have others disagree with my views. Yes good weather today but getting too bloody hot by Friday. Just my view of course .
As am I. I always have been - but for some reason when I do it, you accuse me of spoiling for a fight. I’m merely highlighting to you that you’re doing the same as I - but expecting it to be taken differently. Maybe when you read mine in future you can take it with the good grace you seem to want from your own efforts. Will leave it there but happy to politely discuss this privately elsewhere if needed rather than take further on the thread.
Makes you wonder if the initial club press release was worded incorrectly and that it meant to say '1 year deal with club option for 2nd year'. Either way, it just strengthens the impression of shambolic amateurishness.
Yeah, I'm bored with all the talk now, the club has screwed up over 3 years, but they're not going to come out publicly and whip themselves begging for mercy. They're making some of the right "noises" at last so let's see what they bring us by this time next year.? I feel more upbeat and I don't see the point of bemoaning what's gone before... (but that's just me..)
What I don’t understand is the culture was not so bad that it stopped us bouncing back at first attempt, but was the root cause of relegation. Perhaps our culture is too good for the Championship but not good enough for the Premier League. A sort of Adam Armstrong type of culture?
That’s not “bending over backwards”, it’s a reasonable take on the situation. I’d be more inclined to follow yours if you provided a solid reason why the club would deliberately seek to deceive the fan base on this specific issue.
So your position is that the club should make public every detail of its contractual dealings, and that not doing so is indicative of deliberately mendacious behaviour. Seems a very high bar, one I’m not sure any club - or indeed business - hurdles.
Well I haven’t suggested they lay bare ‘every detail’ of contractual dealings so your post is rather moot from the start of that’s the angle you’re coming from. I’ve suggested wording is quite important in these issues and Watford FC for a long time, at times, have been misleading when it’s not been necessary to be so. I see the Josh King scenario as a likely case in point - I accept others disagree. If you’re happy to follow the party line until you’re given definitive proof that you shouldn’t, that’s your call to make.
To use their preferred mortgage analogy, it is like when a bank uses a funny dog reading poetry to tell you it is by your side to sell you a mortgage, then takes your house when you lose your job.
And your dignity, sometimes marriage and largely any future you may hope for that doesn't involve paying for anything in full up front. Maybe they don't explain it very well but they certainly do remain right by your side.