Marvin Signs for Blackpool

[Smendrick Feaselberg]

About 10 seconds after he signed for Blackpool, he had changed his twitter bio, and removed all traces of anything Orient....bit like that other scroat Jamie Jones did, when he left.

You're way too sensitive over this. It makes sense for him to update his Twitter blog etc. He is excited about joining his new team and has moved on.

[POSHO]

He's only a player mate. Theres plenty of them around

[redintheface]

About 10 seconds after he signed for Blackpool, he had changed his twitter bio, and removed all traces of anything Orient....bit like that other scroat Jamie Jones did, when he left.

You're way too sensitive over this. It makes sense for him to update his Twitter blog etc. He is excited about joining his new team and has moved on.

Clearly didn’t buy in to “ the unique culture”

[BiggsyMalone]

About 10 seconds after he signed for Blackpool, he had changed his twitter bio, and removed all traces of anything Orient....bit like that other scroat Jamie Jones did, when he left.

What did you want him to do instead?

[DuvB]

Happy to see an O get on but more concerned who we are going to bring in especially in the defensive midfielder role. They have to be as good as Cisse.

[Millennial Snowflake]

About 10 seconds after he signed for Blackpool, he had changed his twitter bio, and removed all traces of anything Orient....bit like that other scroat Jamie Jones did, when he left.

Yeah because if you play for Blackpool it makes perfect sense to have “footballer for @leytonorientfc” in your bio

Just chill out bruh

[ComeOnYouOs]

The club website says they offered Ekpiteta " numerous terms across the season", but he turned them all down
This statement gives me the impression, the club knew his contract would expire this summer, & tried to get him to commit himself, from the off, but he wasnt going to.
If that was the case, why didnt the club put him on the transfer list, and sell him in January. what ever fee they got, was obviously going to be more than what they'd get for him, if he just ran down his contract & left for free in July
This strikes me as incompetence, from Ling ( as DOF).
When it became obvious, Ekpiteta wasnt interested in re signing for us....the club should have looked at what was best..FOR THE CLUB.....and that would have been to sell him in the January window.
Just to let a players contract run out so he goes for free, seems criminal

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

I don’t understand why more players don’t do this.

If I was Marv, I’d sure as hell make sure the £100k or so someone was willing to pay to clinch my services was coming to me and not to my previous employer.

[Ornchurch]

The club website says they offered Ekpiteta " numerous terms across the season", but he turned them all down
This statement gives me the impression, the club knew his contract would expire this summer, & tried to get him to commit himself, from the off, but he wasnt going to.
If that was the case, why didnt the club put him on the transfer list, and sell him in January. what ever fee they got, was obviously going to be more than what they'd get for him, if he just ran down his contract & left for free in July
This strikes me as incompetence, from Ling ( as DOF).
When it became obvious, Ekpiteta wasnt interested in re signing for us....the club should have looked at what was best..FOR THE CLUB.....and that would have been to sell him in the January window.
Just to let a players contract run out so he goes for free, seems criminal

How much would the club have got for him in January with just 6 months left on his contract?

Have you thought whether keeping him to improve the chances of staying up was worth more to the club than selling him and getting relegated?

[redintheface]

The club website says they offered Ekpiteta " numerous terms across the season", but he turned them all down
This statement gives me the impression, the club knew his contract would expire this summer, & tried to get him to commit himself, from the off, but he wasnt going to.
If that was the case, why didnt the club put him on the transfer list, and sell him in January. what ever fee they got, was obviously going to be more than what they'd get for him, if he just ran down his contract & left for free in July
This strikes me as incompetence, from Ling ( as DOF).
When it became obvious, Ekpiteta wasnt interested in re signing for us....the club should have looked at what was best..FOR THE CLUB.....and that would have been to sell him in the January window.
Just to let a players contract run out so he goes for free, seems criminal

A slight flaw in your argument is of course that other clubs may not have been sufficiently interested in paying a fee to get Ekpiteta during the January transfer window and instead preferred to sit things out and wait until his contract expired and then pay nothing. Just a thought.

[BiggsyMalone]

The club website says they offered Ekpiteta " numerous terms across the season", but he turned them all down
This statement gives me the impression, the club knew his contract would expire this summer, & tried to get him to commit himself, from the off, but he wasnt going to.
If that was the case, why didnt the club put him on the transfer list, and sell him in January. what ever fee they got, was obviously going to be more than what they'd get for him, if he just ran down his contract & left for free in July
This strikes me as incompetence, from Ling ( as DOF).
When it became obvious, Ekpiteta wasnt interested in re signing for us....the club should have looked at what was best..FOR THE CLUB.....and that would have been to sell him in the January window.
Just to let a players contract run out so he goes for free, seems criminal

Not only that, we need to be signing our talented young prospects to 3 or 4 year deals, not 1 or 2 years.

[Ornchurch]

The club website says they offered Ekpiteta " numerous terms across the season", but he turned them all down
This statement gives me the impression, the club knew his contract would expire this summer, & tried to get him to commit himself, from the off, but he wasnt going to.
If that was the case, why didnt the club put him on the transfer list, and sell him in January. what ever fee they got, was obviously going to be more than what they'd get for him, if he just ran down his contract & left for free in July
This strikes me as incompetence, from Ling ( as DOF).
When it became obvious, Ekpiteta wasnt interested in re signing for us....the club should have looked at what was best..FOR THE CLUB.....and that would have been to sell him in the January window.
Just to let a players contract run out so he goes for free, seems criminal

Not only that, we need to be signing our talented young prospects to 3 or 4 year deals, not 1 or 2 years.

In an ideal world Yes but:-

1. Would a talented youngster sign for 3 or 4 years if it meant that they couldn't move on after a good season or two?
2. Quite often it is not known how a prospect will develop. Could easily end up lumbered with a player for a couple of seasons who isn't going to feature.

If only running a club was as easy as everyone makes it out to be.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

The club website says they offered Ekpiteta " numerous terms across the season", but he turned them all down
This statement gives me the impression, the club knew his contract would expire this summer, & tried to get him to commit himself, from the off, but he wasnt going to.
If that was the case, why didnt the club put him on the transfer list, and sell him in January. what ever fee they got, was obviously going to be more than what they'd get for him, if he just ran down his contract & left for free in July
This strikes me as incompetence, from Ling ( as DOF).
When it became obvious, Ekpiteta wasnt interested in re signing for us....the club should have looked at what was best..FOR THE CLUB.....and that would have been to sell him in the January window.
Just to let a players contract run out so he goes for free, seems criminal

Not only that, we need to be signing our talented young prospects to 3 or 4 year deals, not 1 or 2 years.

In an ideal world Yes but:-

1. Would a talented youngster sign for 3 or 4 years if it meant that they couldn't move on after a good season or two?
2. Quite often it is not known how a prospect will develop. Could easily end up lumbered with a player for a couple of seasons who isn't going to feature.

If only running a club was as easy as everyone makes it out to be.

This - Marv was a massive gamble, it wasn't in our interest to put him on a 3 or 4 year deal at that time. I'm sure he would have jumped at it given the chance. (Didn't he have to give up his day job as a pe teacher?)

[BiggsyMalone]

The club website says they offered Ekpiteta " numerous terms across the season", but he turned them all down
This statement gives me the impression, the club knew his contract would expire this summer, & tried to get him to commit himself, from the off, but he wasnt going to.
If that was the case, why didnt the club put him on the transfer list, and sell him in January. what ever fee they got, was obviously going to be more than what they'd get for him, if he just ran down his contract & left for free in July
This strikes me as incompetence, from Ling ( as DOF).
When it became obvious, Ekpiteta wasnt interested in re signing for us....the club should have looked at what was best..FOR THE CLUB.....and that would have been to sell him in the January window.
Just to let a players contract run out so he goes for free, seems criminal

Not only that, we need to be signing our talented young prospects to 3 or 4 year deals, not 1 or 2 years.

In an ideal world Yes but:-

1. Would a talented youngster sign for 3 or 4 years if it meant that they couldn't move on after a good season or two?
2. Quite often it is not known how a prospect will develop. Could easily end up lumbered with a player for a couple of seasons who isn't going to feature.

If only running a club was as easy as everyone makes it out to be.

Give them a good wage and guarantee them first team football, they will sign the deal. Especially if they came through the academy. The club will have an idea of a player’s ceiling.

No one has said it’s easy but Orient need to protect their assets better, which means getting a fair transfer fee for players.

[BiggsyMalone]

Not only that, we need to be signing our talented young prospects to 3 or 4 year deals, not 1 or 2 years.

In an ideal world Yes but:-

1. Would a talented youngster sign for 3 or 4 years if it meant that they couldn't move on after a good season or two?
2. Quite often it is not known how a prospect will develop. Could easily end up lumbered with a player for a couple of seasons who isn't going to feature.

If only running a club was as easy as everyone makes it out to be.

This - Marv was a massive gamble, it wasn't in our interest to put him on a 3 or 4 year deal at that time. I'm sure he would have jumped at it given the chance. (Didn't he have to give up his day job as a pe teacher?)

Such a huge gamble that they gave him a 2 and a half year contract. You do know you can offer extensions and new contracts at any point.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

In an ideal world Yes but:-

1. Would a talented youngster sign for 3 or 4 years if it meant that they couldn't move on after a good season or two?
2. Quite often it is not known how a prospect will develop. Could easily end up lumbered with a player for a couple of seasons who isn't going to feature.

If only running a club was as easy as everyone makes it out to be.

This - Marv was a massive gamble, it wasn't in our interest to put him on a 3 or 4 year deal at that time. I'm sure he would have jumped at it given the chance. (Didn't he have to give up his day job as a pe teacher?)

Such a huge gamble that they gave him a 2 and a half year contract. You do know you can offer extensions and new contracts at any point.

I'm not sure what your point is.

Marv joined January 2018, contracts run to 30 June, so our options were an 18 month, 2 1/2 year, or 3 1/2 year contract.

There's no way he would have given up his job for an 18 month contract, so 2 1/2 years is the minimum he would have accepted.

[Ornchurch]

In an ideal world Yes but:-

1. Would a talented youngster sign for 3 or 4 years if it meant that they couldn't move on after a good season or two?
2. Quite often it is not known how a prospect will develop. Could easily end up lumbered with a player for a couple of seasons who isn't going to feature.

If only running a club was as easy as everyone makes it out to be.

This - Marv was a massive gamble, it wasn't in our interest to put him on a 3 or 4 year deal at that time. I'm sure he would have jumped at it given the chance. (Didn't he have to give up his day job as a pe teacher?)

Such a huge gamble that they gave him a 2 and a half year contract. You do know you can offer extensions and new contracts at any point.

Offer being the key word.

Once he started to get a reputation and talked about he may have been advised to sit out his contract, move on a free and pocket a signing on fee.

[Thor]

Some mention why we didn’t give him a longer contract, whilst others suggest it would have been a gamble. Both view points have an element of truth in them.

What I find strange is that the club didn’t put a clause in that rests on their side that gives them the option of a 1 year extension, that way if he performs we either get to keep him longer, or we sell him for a fee, both scenarios are win wins for the club.

It would be interesting to know if we considered such a contract clause?

[PoliticOs]

I mean, realistically, with that being such a regular part of contracts nowadays, we'd have obviously considered it - wouldn't we? But I'm sure his agent and team advising him negotiated that out of it. His agent is Dom Yarwood, who is particularly well known for being a tough negotiator.

It's all just a pointless search for an answer we won't find. We signed him for cheap, we probably paid him cheap, we got good value and a championship out of him, he took a better deal for him. It's just pretty clear cut.

[Smendrick Feaselberg]

Some mention why we didn’t give him a longer contract, whilst others suggest it would have been a gamble. Both view points have an element of truth in them.

What I find strange is that the club didn’t put a clause in that rests on their side that gives them the option of a 1 year extension, that way if he performs we either get to keep him longer, or we sell him for a fee, both scenarios are win wins for the club.

It would be interesting to know if we considered such a contract clause?

Would be good to have something like a vesting option that is triggered if they play a certain number of games in the year before the final guaranteed year expires, or a certain number over the course of the contract.

Orient seem to have a deliberate policy of maximum two years.

[Thor]

I’ve no problem with him moving on to a higher standard of football and earning more money, it’s the game and it’s how it works. It just seems that on the football side of things, once more we have been found to have possibly been a touch naive.

[PoliticOs]

It's that naivety part that I find difficult to believe Thor. Why can you, I, or anyone here see it but not them?

What is more realistic; Ling and Co saying 'let's just sign him for 2 years, no one will ever come in for him' or that the contract was mutually agreed to be as so? It sometimes seems on here that people think either the club get 100% of what they want and zero concessions or they've been naive, duped, lacking foresight, inept etc.

(Course I accept it can be naive, but it just seems unlikely we would know more than them)

[BiggsyMalone]

This - Marv was a massive gamble, it wasn't in our interest to put him on a 3 or 4 year deal at that time. I'm sure he would have jumped at it given the chance. (Didn't he have to give up his day job as a pe teacher?)

Such a huge gamble that they gave him a 2 and a half year contract. You do know you can offer extensions and new contracts at any point.

I'm not sure what your point is.

Marv joined January 2018, contracts run to 30 June, so our options were an 18 month, 2 1/2 year, or 3 1/2 year contract.

There's no way he would have given up his job for an 18 month contract, so 2 1/2 years is the minimum he would have accepted.

Half way through the promotion season, he should have been given a 2/3 year extension with a fair buyout clause

[BiggsyMalone]

This - Marv was a massive gamble, it wasn't in our interest to put him on a 3 or 4 year deal at that time. I'm sure he would have jumped at it given the chance. (Didn't he have to give up his day job as a pe teacher?)

Such a huge gamble that they gave him a 2 and a half year contract. You do know you can offer extensions and new contracts at any point.

Offer being the key word.

Once he started to get a reputation and talked about he may have been advised to sit out his contract, move on a free and pocket a signing on fee.

They didn’t even begin to talk to him until midway through the past season

[Hedmans Header]

The club website says they offered Ekpiteta " numerous terms across the season", but he turned them all down
This statement gives me the impression, the club knew his contract would expire this summer, & tried to get him to commit himself, from the off, but he wasnt going to.
If that was the case, why didnt the club put him on the transfer list, and sell him in January. what ever fee they got, was obviously going to be more than what they'd get for him, if he just ran down his contract & left for free in July
This strikes me as incompetence, from Ling ( as DOF).
When it became obvious, Ekpiteta wasnt interested in re signing for us....the club should have looked at what was best..FOR THE CLUB.....and that would have been to sell him in the January window.
Just to let a players contract run out so he goes for free, seems criminal

A slight flaw in your argument is of course that other clubs may not have been sufficiently interested in paying a fee to get Ekpiteta during the January transfer window and instead preferred to sit things out and wait until his contract expired and then pay nothing. Just a thought.

Another flaw in the argument is that IF a number of clubs were in for
Marvin all the clubs wouldn’t have been able to sign him so it would
been a case of what club blinked first...
IF Rotherham alledgely did offer 200k why wasn’t he allowed to go if
the club KNEW he had no intention of signing it’s a lose lose situation
the club could be a few quick richer and Marvin would now be a
Championship player with Rotherham..

Just a thought...