Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MikeO

Ruddy & Jutkiewicz

Recommended Posts

It was Ruddy's contract, not his handshake, that was the problem. His contract was the same as Thomas Myhre in that we will have had to pay Cambridge Utd (in Ruddy's case) 'x' pounds for every 'so many' games he played.

 

In Myhre's case we had to pay about £250k(?) to his old club for every 'x' number of games he played. So, when he was approaching playing the agreed number of games he, too, was farmed out 'on loan' until we had the money to have him back so he could play for us and we could pay his old club.

 

Ruddy's only game (I was there) was also by fluke, as a very early sub against Blackburn because Iain Turner (3rd choice) was sent off for handling outside the area and he was only playing because Martyn & Gerrard were injured. So Moyes put Ruddy in, he played a blinder when he had to, we won 1-0 and Ruddy was never seen again because we didn't have the money for the clause in his contract which said we have to pay Cambridge, as well as him, when he plays.

 

I think a lot of clubs arrange contracts like this - it's just that we've never had the money to fulfill them, as others do, and sadly we don't get the benefit of seeing what, in Ruddy's case, have been some very fine performances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruddy's only game (I was there) was also by fluke, as a very early sub against Blackburn because Iain Turner (3rd choice) was sent off for handling outside the area and he was only playing because Martyn & Gerrard were injured. So Moyes put Ruddy in, he played a blinder when he had to, we won 1-0 and Ruddy was never seen again because we didn't have the money for the clause in his contract which said we have to pay Cambridge, as well as him, when he plays.

 

 

Joke that Moyes didn't let him keep his place for the next game, emergency loan was a shocker and a slap in the face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was Ruddy's contract, not his handshake, that was the problem. His contract was the same as Thomas Myhre in that we will have had to pay Cambridge Utd (in Ruddy's case) 'x' pounds for every 'so many' games he played.In Myhre's case we had to pay about £250k(?) to his old club for every 'x' number of games he played. So, when he was approaching playing the agreed number of games he, too, was farmed out 'on loan' until we had the money to have him back so he could play for us and we could pay his old club.Ruddy's only game (I was there) was also by fluke, as a very early sub against Blackburn because Iain Turner (3rd choice) was sent off for handling outside the area and he was only playing because Martyn & Gerrard were injured. So Moyes put Ruddy in, he played a blinder when he had to, we won 1-0 and Ruddy was never seen again because we didn't have the money for the clause in his contract which said we have to pay Cambridge, as well as him, when he plays.I think a lot of clubs arrange contracts like this - it's just that we've never had the money to fulfill them, as others do, and sadly we don't get the benefit of seeing what, in Ruddy's case, have been some very fine performances.

 

Very popular contract type especially with young talent with potential but as these types of contracts are usually triggered after x-amount of games not from the word go so in Ruddy's case it was not the same as Myhre as he wasn't playing first team football so either I'm missing something or the above is totally irrelevant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruddy shouldn't go. He'd be best off staying at Norwich where he will be guaranteed first team football. If he moves to Chelsea I highly doubt he'll get a run ahead of Cech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruddy shouldn't go. He'd be best off staying at Norwich where he will be guaranteed first team football. If he moves to Chelsea I highly doubt he'll get a run ahead of Cech.

or Coutois (even if he is on loan). Strange buy if Chelsea go through with it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or Coutois (even if he is on loan). Strange buy if Chelsea go through with it...

 

Like you said, Courtois is on loan. They've released Hilario and Turnbull so they need a new backup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's to good to be a back up keeper and I'd have him back here in a flash tbh, Courtois is a class act and for me much better than Ruddy but Courtois will be one of the best around in time given the chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Like you said, Courtois is on loan. They've released Hilario and Turnbull so they need a new backup.

Cant see him going to be backup anyway, unless he just wants a pay cheque...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chelsea want to buy him because they can't fulfil their quota of English players. He would have to be mad to go there as he won't dislodge Cech and whilst Courtois is on loan for another year he still remains the one to replace Cech long term

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruddy is good; Howard is better; neither are the best.

Id put it the other way round - Howard is good, Ruddy is better and about 10 years younger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×