Alex Battle re-signs for Argyle

[Ted]

Can somebody clarify this.

Argyle allegedly didn't offer Alex a contract.
Alex then accepts Bolton contract.
Argyle then offer him a contract so as to receive compensation.

If Alex had left it until July 1st or whenever contracts expire these days and become a free agent before talking to Bolton, could he have signed for free?

As far as I understand, even if he rejects our offer we can still chase compensation from his next employer as we have contributed to his development.

Unless it's Asda. And even if it is, there is nothing wrong with that.

The way I understood it was that Argyle did not make Alex an offer until after Bolton.

I was wondering what his position would have been if he waited to be released before talking to Bolton.

Working from the basis that Argyle only made any offer when Bolton made one...

 

[Shadowknight]

I think we would still have a dog in the fight with regards to compensation even if we'd not offered anything.

 

[Presto]

He had an offer of a contract with Argyle he turned it down. End of story. Perhaps he is the next Messi in waiting or maybe he is just another immature player with an overinflated opinion of his abilities. Whatever he is a free agent and good luck to him. There are hundrds of Alex Battles sculling around the professional game some make it some do not. I hope for him and his family he does but I suspect he is just another nearly made it player.

 

[Keepitgreen]

Can somebody clarify this.

Argyle allegedly didn't offer Alex a contract.
Alex then accepts Bolton contract.
Argyle then offer him a contract so as to receive compensation.

If Alex had left it until July 1st or whenever contracts expire these days and become a free agent before talking to Bolton, could he have signed for free?

As far as I understand, even if he rejects our offer we can still chase compensation from his next employer as we have contributed to his development.

Unless it's Asda. And even if it is, there is nothing wrong with that.

The deadline for him to accept Argyle's offer passed weeks ago and he turned it down. No ifs about it. The only question now is where will he turn up next?

 

[DartPilgrim]

Pretty sure he will not be a free agent Presto , he may not have signed a new contract with Argyle , but they still hold his registration and any club that wants him will have to come to an agreement with the club or face going to a tribunal to learn his valuation .

 

[Pele10]

Told not part of plans by DA, goes Bolton, receives offer, Argyle then say you are part of plans just not 1st team plans. Cleverly worded, hence the issues.

 

[HC Green]

Told not part of plans by DA, goes Bolton, receives offer, Argyle then say you are part of plans just not 1st team plans. Cleverly worded, hence the issues.

It would seem Bolton have a lot to learn about youth recruitment, first they let Threlkeld leave for free when there must have been known about interest in him and then they offer a youngster a deal that immediately puts a value on him for his current club and seem surprised that that club wants to cash in.
Perhaps that is why Bolton seem to have had money problems.

 

[jimsing]

Told not part of plans by DA, goes Bolton, receives offer, Argyle then say you are part of plans just not 1st team plans. Cleverly worded, hence the issues.

More Pasoti "facts"

 

[davie nine]

Told not part of plans by DA, goes Bolton, receives offer, Argyle then say you are part of plans just not 1st team plans. Cleverly worded, hence the issues.

https://www.pafc.co.uk/news/2018/april/six-offered-pro-deals/
This (above) seems to indicate, quite clearly, that Alex Battle was offered a contract at the same time as Hodges, Jephcott, Law, Sangster and Rooney.
How can it be suggested that he was not part of Argyle's plans on 30th April in the same way as the other 5 were?
Obviously, it was quite possible and understandable that Alex, having been used as a substitute in the last game of the 2017/18 season, asked the manager if he was part of the first team plans for 2018/19 and was told that he had been offered a contract as he had shown sufficient progress and potential for management to continue to monitor his progress by offering him a contract.
It could be suggested that your second 'explanation', compared to your first on page 5 of this thread, has also been 'cleverly worded'.
As I have indicated on many occasions, I hope that Alex is still with us when these 'issues' have been resolved.

 

[MarkMatthews]

Told not part of plans by DA, goes Bolton, receives offer, Argyle then say you are part of plans just not 1st team plans. Cleverly worded, hence the issues.

https://www.pafc.co.uk/news/2018/april/six-offered-pro-deals/
This (above) seems to indicate, quietly clearly, that Alex Battle was offered a contract at the same time as Hodges, Jephcott, Law, Sangster and Rooney.
How can it be suggested that he was not part of Argyle's plans on 30th April in the same way as the other 5 were?
Obviously, it was quite possible and understandable that Alex, having been used as a substitute in the last game of the 2017/18 season, asked the manager if he was part of the first team plans for 2018/19 and was told that he had been offered a contract as he had shown sufficient progress and potential for management to continue to monitor his progress by offering him a contract.
It could be suggested that your second 'explanation', compared to your first on page 5 of this thread, has also been 'cleverly worded'.
As I have indicated on many occasions, I hope that Alex is still with us when these 'issues' have been resolved.

Perhaps he was told in February, he wouldn’t be part of DA plans and free to go, hence why his trial was in February. Only for Argyle then to make him an offer/stumbling block.

 

[greengiant1886]

Told not part of plans by DA, goes Bolton, receives offer, Argyle then say you are part of plans just not 1st team plans. Cleverly worded, hence the issues.

https://www.pafc.co.uk/news/2018/april/six-offered-pro-deals/
This (above) seems to indicate, quietly clearly, that Alex Battle was offered a contract at the same time as Hodges, Jephcott, Law, Sangster and Rooney.
How can it be suggested that he was not part of Argyle's plans on 30th April in the same way as the other 5 were?
Obviously, it was quite possible and understandable that Alex, having been used as a substitute in the last game of the 2017/18 season, asked the manager if he was part of the first team plans for 2018/19 and was told that he had been offered a contract as he had shown sufficient progress and potential for management to continue to monitor his progress by offering him a contract.
It could be suggested that your second 'explanation', compared to your first on page 5 of this thread, has also been 'cleverly worded'.
As I have indicated on many occasions, I hope that Alex is still with us when these 'issues' have been resolved.

Perhaps he was told in February, he wouldn’t be part of DA plans and free to go, hence why his trial was in February. Only for Argyle then to make him an offer/stumbling block.

It wouldn't be a stumbling block for a well run club, but if Bolton can't afford compensation for Battle, which lets be honest will be modest in the grand scheme of things, then I think it says a lot more about them than us.

 

[TynanWozGr8]

Lets assume Alex was told he was not part of DA plans in February and that he will be released at the end of his contract and therefore free to trial elsewhere.

He did trial elsewhere and was successful. Argyle knew they would be entitled to compensation if he was offered a place somewhere else before his contract was terminated and were in a win win situation which is why they encouraged him to trial early before they terminated his contract.

Have Argyle Donne anything wrong? No - they are simply looking for a return on the time invested in the lad which is acceptable and complies with the terms and conditions of his contract.

Where Alex has gone wrong is not getting released before trialing elsewhere, but considering the timescales involved he was always going to get caught trialing before being released because of his contract and the fact we hold his registration. No one can blame the lad for trialing elsewhere to pursue his probably long held dreams to become a pro.

It would now appear Argyle have a player who they do not believe has what it takes to make the first team and his development will be limited if he is playing in the SWPL - which is a much poorer standard than it used to be - and not training with the first team.

For all parties it would make sense to come to some form of loan arrangement with Bolton so Alex gets the benefit of playing and training for a club who believe in him, with better players and higher quality matches in an environment where he will develop better than training with the apprentices and playing SWPL which is 8 or 9 leagues below where Argyle currently are.

Him stagnating with us for a year is doing neither party any good.

 

[Kentishgreen]

It’s all pure speculation at present. Only three people actually know what happened, Argyle, Bolton and Alex. Until they let us know we are none the wiser. You can think ill of the club if you like but thus far only one of these has said anything and Adams has said he’s played it straight.
So it is totally wrong to cast aspersions against any of them unless you do happen to know the truth. But as no one does .....
I get the argument about letting him go to Bolton on loan but given their financial situation you can also understand why Argyle would want cash up front. For Alex’s sake I do hope this situation gets resolved one way or the other and soon.

 

[DartPilgrim]

Told not part of plans by DA, goes Bolton, receives offer, Argyle then say you are part of plans just not 1st team plans. Cleverly worded, hence the issues.

https://www.pafc.co.uk/news/2018/april/six-offered-pro-deals/
This (above) seems to indicate, quietly clearly, that Alex Battle was offered a contract at the same time as Hodges, Jephcott, Law, Sangster and Rooney.
How can it be suggested that he was not part of Argyle's plans on 30th April in the same way as the other 5 were?
Obviously, it was quite possible and understandable that Alex, having been used as a substitute in the last game of the 2017/18 season, asked the manager if he was part of the first team plans for 2018/19 and was told that he had been offered a contract as he had shown sufficient progress and potential for management to continue to monitor his progress by offering him a contract.
It could be suggested that your second 'explanation', compared to your first on page 5 of this thread, has also been 'cleverly worded'.
As I have indicated on many occasions, I hope that Alex is still with us when these 'issues' have been resolved.

Perhaps he was told in February, he wouldn’t be part of DA plans and free to go, hence why his trial was in February. Only for Argyle then to make him an offer/stumbling block.

Perhaps he was told in February he wasn't part of DA's 1st team plans but the club wanted to keep and further develop him as a player but he could look for another club if he thought he could do better, although the club would expect to be compensated if he left .

 

[Presto]

Perhaps, Maybe, what if, DA might of - and so it goes on. Only fact known is that he was offerred a contract and declined it. Nobody on here knows any more only the lad himself and the Argyle management know the truth.

Was he a 20 goal a season player - no. Was he a key component of the mid field -no was he a stalwart of the back 4 - no. He made one appearance for a few minutes in the last game of the season. What is all this nonsense. He does not want to play in green so good luck and good bye.