lauren Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 anyone got an explanation as to why Chelsea gave Grant a 4 year contract? This makes no sense from a business point of view. It will cost millions to sack him and whether or not RA is loaded it's a piss poor decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad_mac Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 because we won't sack him, Lauren. We will just move him into another position within the club. therefore, if he doesn't like it, he'll forfeit his contract, and cost the club nothing. But I doubt anyone else will pick him up. QPR turned him down FFS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evissy Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 because we won't sack him, Lauren. We will just move him into another position within the club. therefore, if he doesn't like it, he'll forfeit his contract, and cost the club nothing. But I doubt anyone else will pick him up. QPR turned him down FFS Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 I think Grant would probably have no problem getting another job on the back of his record at Chelsea. Probably not at a big club like Chelsea, but QPR would likely jump at him now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ethicalstrategy Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 I think Grant would probably have no problem getting another job on the back of his record at Chelsea. Probably not at a big club like Chelsea, but QPR would likely jump at him now. I'd imagine most people would jump at him - especially if he crept up behind you on a dark night! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killbill Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 anyone got an explanation as to why Chelsea gave Grant a 4 year contract? This makes no sense from a business point of view. It will cost millions to sack him and whether or not RA is loaded it's a piss poor decision. because we won't sack him, Lauren. We will just move him into another position within the club. therefore, if he doesn't like it, he'll forfeit his contract, and cost the club nothing. But I doubt anyone else will pick him up. QPR turned him down FFS Wasn’t he already under contract as a paper shifter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorset Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 I think Grant would probably have no problem getting another job on the back of his record at Chelsea. Probably not at a big club like Chelsea, but QPR would likely jump at him now. Qaz - May I ask why you think this is only a probability? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phillip Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 anyone got an explanation as to why Chelsea gave Grant a 4 year contract? This makes no sense from a business point of view. It will cost millions to sack him and whether or not RA is loaded it's a piss poor decision. Probably for the same reason that we signed Kezman, Malouda, Sheva, SWP, . . . Need I go on with the list of flops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MURDOCH_(8) Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 anyone got an explanation as to why Chelsea gave Grant a 4 year contract? This makes no sense from a business point of view. It will cost millions to sack him and whether or not RA is loaded it's a piss poor decision. Probably so he gets a big pay day when he gets sacked or whatever, he is Romans friend afterall.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts