BOROCHAT
Newest article: Re: Ronnie Henry by WASPYesterday 21:30Yesterday at 21:30:48view thread
Oldest article: Trophy by Old_man2/9/2025 18:57Tue Sep 2 18:57:31 2025view thread
Next thread: International Break by Sodjesbandana4/11/2025 09:33Tue Nov 4 09:33:31 2025view thread
Revs
Views: 1268
Signed a contract extension do we think?
reply to this article | return to the front page
4 people
Re: Revs
Views: 724
Great move. Let’s start with a good run in the FA Cup this weekend!
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Revs
Views: 601
I got 3/1 on Chesterfield winning today as it was entirely inevitable after that contract announcement.
In fact, just remembered I told everybody on Confguide to do likewise. Wonder if anybody did.
Lame.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Revs
Views: 606
Maybe give him another 2 years?
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Revs
Views: 783
If ever we were going to do this, it'd be for Revs - the definition of the right man in the right place. Wonderful news. Peace of mind all round!
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Revs
Views: 755
And peace of mind for players, knowing that about your manager.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Revs
Views: 861
Tell me Peterborough phoned this week without telling me Peterborough phoned
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Revs
Views: 908
Only reason I can think that he’s signed a huge contract is PW knows clubs are sniffing about.
He’s had a fantastic start to the season. Done okay last season and his first spell was terrible.
Be a hefty bit of money having to be paid if Revs is ever sacked.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Revs
Views: 767
No mention of Cuthbert or Banfield , wonder if they are just on rolling contracts or a lesser version of Revs new contract..Sure when all 3 were announced when appointed nothing was said then as well.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Revs
Views: 1141
A 5-year contract, at this level, for a club like ours, is pretty rare, maybe even unprecedented (for us).
A really am impressed with Revs but I'm worried that if the wheels come off in a few years we're left with quite the bill to pay him off.
Can't see it happening but the worry is there.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Revs
Views: 909
Such a move can only suggest the club are massively worried about losing him. Never thought I'd see the day we give a manager a 5 year contact.
Hope it doesn't come back to bite us.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Revs
Views: 903
Wonder if the contract specifies 5 years as manager of 5 years of employment.
Anyway, even if you have to pay off say 2 years of the contract, I can't imagine he's on millions, so it would be a manageable hit.
I like the thought of having a manager for that long though. These days the turnover of managers at clubs is crazy and I'd love us to be different and give a manager time to carry out a long term project.
reply to this article | return to the front page
4 people
Re: Revs
Views: 692
If the wheels were to fall off (aka bad season), reckon Wallace knows it won't be for lack of effort, diligence or quality on Revs' side. And we *know* he can learn and adapt. In essence, PW is treating Revs how he'd treat any highly valued senior employee.
Put it this way: who else would PW want as manager. Like out of *anyone* else? He'd pick Revs wouldn't he
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Revs
Views: 890
Generally, if you sack a manager part way through their contract you only have to keep paying them until they get their next job.
So if he was out of work for 6 months, you'd only pay 6 months wages even if the contract had 3 years to run.
I think.
Edited by BALDOCKBORO at 22:38:16 on 31st October 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Revs
Views: 420
All comes down to the termination clause, it could be 6 months in which case 5 years is irrelevant and is probably done to stir up hype in him with a big buy out clause...
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Revs
Views: 426
So the 5 years protects us from him being poached but not him - his only protection is the termination clause?
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Revs
Views: 348
Maybe yes but I am assuming the new termination clause is much better to us if he got poached or him if he gets sacked.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Revs
Views: 336
Exactly. Each one is different. I remember hearing that a certain ex manager who didn't last long before Steve made more of a fuss about his out clause than his actual deal......
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Revs
Views: 826
Wasn't Alan Pardew being paid by Newcastle for 8 years despite getting the sack 2 years into the contract?
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Revs
Views: 999
It could also be loaded with performance bonuses and stuff like that, which means the total payoff (should it be needed) won't be as horrendous as it could be.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Revs
Views: 1017
I can’t recall us handing out a five year contract at any time in our history.
It’s a statement. Protects our investment in Revs if he carries on his current trajectory. There’s always a risk he won’t but there’s a risk in everything.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Revs
Views: 984
I was wondering if we'd ever handed out one. Did GW ever get anything like that from us?
I also wonder if it comes with a release clause and what we'd set that at. Surely got to be up at around £1 million at least.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Revs
Views: 963
"Did GW ever get anything like that from us?"
Of course not, Wallace isn't an idiot.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Revs
Views: 919
He probably made GW pay him for the privilege to manage us.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Revs
Views: 379
GW paid/invested to feed his ego and manage the club allegedly
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Revs
Views: 722
Back in those early days it was banded about that GW bank rolled some of the players he wanted.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Revs
Views: 375
quite a hefty fee for a executive box for his family i believe the story was, until it was looked into by some governing body, something to with value for money on the "investment"
but yes it was muted that some of the players were contracted to his company in some way or other
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Revs
Views: 952
Pretty certain he didn’t.
Few three year contracts handed out to players on our last foray into League One I believe but after how that turned out we’ve been reticent to do so again.
A five year contract to anyone would usually be quite concerning for me but we’ve been getting these things more right than wrong for a while now so on the face of it this is positive news.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Revs
Views: 1094
If we carry on punching way above our weight Revs will be at a big L1/Championship club in the next few years. But also If my nan had a pair of bollocks she would be my grandad.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Previous thread: 🎙️SFC POD: Exit / S7EP22 by Boromatt3/11/2025 07:07Mon Nov 3 07:07:59 2025view thread