Playing Devil’s Advocate..

.As the debate goes on in the Forum about the fact that a seemingly fit Jack Hunt was not being played at the specific instruction of the owner’s son then I thought that I would play devil’s advocate here and explain why that may be.

Let me emphasize that I have absolutely no knowledge of the situation but as someone from a business background I do often sympathise with a situation that owners find themselves in and try to understand where they are coming from . I recognise from my own experiences that things are never as black and white as many people would have us believe and there are always 2 sides to every story. Often people only see 1 side so i will try and guess the other.

Before the season started we had a strategy of signing younger fitter players who were hungry but also had less injury problems than the guys from last year. Indeed I suspect that part of George Friend’s fact find was to monitor games on the pitch before recommending a potential signing.

Indeed this season Jack Hunt has been injured as has Chris Martin and even Grant Ward is having to be played carefully. It is not healthy to be so reliant of injury prone older players . They also take up space on a payroll and prevent us signing younger players who will give us more game time - albeit they lack the expertise and experience of the older players - it is a difficult balancing act.

Jack Hunt signed for us on the 17th August according to Wiki on a 2 year deal. That means he has been with us for 58 weeks and if the wages quoted online of £5500 per week are correct than he has been paid £319,000 or £12,760 per game . That shocked you didnt it!!

There are not just those costs either as there are medical costs associated with treating injured players and whilst many of them are fixed there are invariably external add ons if the players for example needs an operation or scans that Rovers cannot perform in house. Who knows what last seasons treatment cost would have been?

None of this of course is of Jack Hunt’s making and he is only being paid what has been agreed under contract and I do not even know whether the figure above is correct. I emphasize that i am trying to explain what may be happening here .

When Joel Senior was signed he looked a similar type of player to Jack in that he is a strong runner and during pre-season I thought that Jack Hunt’s days would be numbered simply because he is coming up to 34 and has injury problems. I was not thinking of the money situation and Joel was more or less an ever present for Morecombe last year.

During pre season Joel Senior played well and I was surprised that he did not feature early doors but then he picked up a long term injury and hence we have need of a replacement right back.

Whilst I fully understand why the Manager and every fan wants our best player out on the pitch in that position we surely must understand why the owners would have given instruction to try and offload Jack- as a higher earner. The fact that he was injured during the transfer window seems to rub salt into the wounds.

It would seem that Jack will be with us until the next transfer window or more likely for the duration of his contract which sounds sounds great news for the supporters but if I was an owner of the club who had sanctioned the signing of Joel Senior as Jack’s replacement then I would feel twitchy that I am now paying 2 salaries for a right back – maybe £15,000 per game if the figures being discussed are accurate.

Surely any Bristol Rovers fan must see how ridiculous those figures look .

To suggest that the owner is using Rovers  as a play thing because they encouraged the Manager not to risk further injury to Jack Hunt is unfair. We did not seem to need Jack and from a business viewpoint it would seem a sensible move to try and move him off the wage roll.

We now need the experience and skills of Jack Hunt and so he is being played . Despite the comments from the forums I am sure that the Owners will have snctioned this.

I am sure that Jack Hunt understands that the situation is not a personal slight and does not see it as a fall out - as many fans were seeming to suggest. Certainly during the match on Tuesday he was chatting amicably with the manager and coaching staff at about the 60 minutes mark. He is a true professional will always give his best when he is asked to play.

I think that it is unfair to suggest that the Vice President is trying to be a Manager when in fact he is playing his part as a business person and trying to keep costs down where he can. Remember that the club also has to comply with regulations !

These things are just part of running a football club and if the new owners did not know that when they took the club over then they are learning that lesson now. They also risk becoming unpopular for just doing their job.

Of course Jack Hunt wants people to realise that he is ready to play if required as I am sure that he feels frustrated by the situation. Humour is a great way of dealing with the problem and Jack is using it .

To suggest that Rovers have some power struggle going on with meddling owners however is I feel too simplistic .

We would all love to see Rovers being run in a way where money is no object but it seems to me that the owners have backed the club and i see no reason to think that the Jack Hunt situation - if true - changes any of that .

All opinions are my own- who else would want them ? UTG