Obviously losing key players in January was dissapointing, but Leicester players' seeming lack of effort now that they're on significantly bigger contracts shows that being too loyal to players can backfire. I'm not suggesting that we got everything right in terms of contracts, but say we could have afforded to hand out contracts for £10/20k a week for players like Winnall and Hourihane in the summer, would the effort of players have been there like it was? Our transfer policy means that players are playing for a move effectively. It's natural that if you play well, you will get a big move and get more money. But if we'd already given them big contracts as a reward, the desire to earn a move would have undoubtedly been less. Not to mention the added risk from a financial point of view for the club. With our policy, there's no chance of players becoming complacent. Of course I'd love all of our best players from recent years still to be here, but having achieved so much, I think the example of Leicester, albeit on a different level, shows that rewarding players too much gives them the chance to relax; and that is not necessarily a good thing. I think it's an interesting discussion point and it's interesting to see the difference between how ours and leicester's seasons have differed after last season's success after we dealt with contracts and rewards in such different ways.
Leicester over-achieved enormously last season. They're now back where they belong - fighting relegation. The new contracts for some of the players means that they'll get top dollar for them when sold instead of them leaving for nothing in the summer.
Leciesters problem is journey men footballers suddenly thought they were gods gift. Jamie Vardy, Wes Morgan and Danny Simpson are heading where they belong.... league 1.
We're doing things perfectly right for a club our size trying to be self efficient, it's getting replacements in the building quickly that's the only thing that is letting the club down, and I believe that could well be down to the club not willing to be held to ransom, by players and other clubs in terms of wages and transfer fee, so negotiations take forever and a lot of the time we don't agree and both party's go different directions, which is also the right decision for a club our size trying to do what we are, but this is the most infuriating part for me, players will always leave, and I hope they always leave like Conor, Sam, and Jim, for good money after giving their all for the club and helping to improve us. I can cope with that, and can even cope with one or two leaving for free after helping improve the club and giving their all right to the end of their contracts, it the speed in which we are replacing them that is pissing me right off at the moment, and having to go down the loan route time after time to avoid being ripped off by greedy B'astards.
Yes but Chelsea emply players who expect and are used to that. At Leicester those players were not, so the players think they're something they're not. My point was that if we'd done something similar theoretically (obviously much smaller contracts), it COULD have happened to our players potentially. Just thought it was an interesting point to look at
Two years ago Chelsea won the EPL under Mourinho was was sacked even quicker than Ranieri was after a poor start to last season so there's an exact similarity between the two clubs there. Leicester are the current champions so I'm not sure how you can think the players imagine they're something they're not.
Leicester remind me of Flitcroft's Barnsley. Both turned some bang average players into world beaters for a period, then in the summer they rewarded those players only for them to return to their natural level the next year. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's a good point and given our rapid rise up the leagues and financial position I think we were unaware to plan for the position we found ourselves in. I think the answer to your question is also the answer to how much a footballer's desire to move is driven by money and how much by prestige and the desire for success. You'd think this would be fairly simple until you see multi- millionaire footballers relocating to the footballing wilderness of China for even more money.
What's a big contract? Is it a long contract - or is it big wages - or is it both ? Because Barnsley under the present ownership can't afford any of these. What it needs is a contract that can be tailored to different circumstances - a smart contract. I don't know how this would work - but I'm sure there's brain power at the club that could achieve this.