It's the 'out of contract' bit that is our problem, you ain't going to get that kind of money for players with only 3/4 months left on their contracts.
Se should be putting in our contracts that we have an option for a further 2/3 years from the initial contract. We must be able to protect our assets better than we are doing currently.
I don't understand why some of our assets won't sign contract extensions. It won't affect them if they want to leave at a later date, and will protect the club from letting them go for free. Or is there something I'm missing? It's a two way street, and I think they owe the club that at least. Sent from my SM-G850F using Tapatalk
But we are doing it far better than we have done in the recent past. Small steps 'n all that ........ all part of the upward curve
Because they would be able to negotiate lucrative personal terms without a transfer fee involved.would be able to offer more.
Back many years ago, at a couple of clubs other than Barnsley, I saw first hand that it wasn't uncommon for very large signing on bonuses to be paid to out of contract players as a sweetener to welcome there signature. Its easier for an out of contract player to command higher salary if their isnt a transfer fee involved. The flip side, those less likely to warrant attention or ones sliding down the ladder are all too happy to sign extensions. Either way, you risk losing out one way or the other. For me, the best time to visit a salary negotiation is at the start of year 2 of a 3 year deal and keep reviewing it that way. Once you get to the last year, the club has very little leverage to get a quality player to resign on better terms. Having said that, Hammill followed his heart in the summer.... but how many players can you say that about in the last 20 years?
Yer not missing much, but the way I see it .......... a player always knows well in advance is a club is sniffing after him. Direct chats, agent talk, etc. So if it was Sam (this is only an example) who had heard that say Villa were in for him. I would imagine the conversations and carrot dangling would be along the lines of: "Hey Sam, we can buy you now for £5m, but if you let your contract run down we'll buy you for £1m later in the year and with the savings will be able to offer you a much nicer weekly figure. That sound good?" I think we have some loyal players, but if running their contract down means the difference between £10k a week and £15k a week, there is only one way their head is going to turn.
It's part of the attraction of the players to come to the club in the first place. Our part of the deal is to have a season like the one just gone. Surely we buy/ take players to do well for the club,if we can sell on later for a profit all well and good if they leave for free and have given their all good luck to them and thanks for your efforts imo. Highlighted wrong post , was a reply to Huddersfield red
No club in U.K. Can sign a contracted player on pre contract agreement The players are taking a huge risk too not signing. They could be assured a nice 3/4 year contract on considerably better money now. But what happens if they snap a cruciate like Bolasie has, or break a leg like McGeehan. They could then find themselves without a club, and no way to fund their rehabilitation, and any club taking them on would never pay them big bucks in case they never returned to full fitness.
The sooner Brentford agree a deal, the better. We'll be looking at £2m+ depending how high the figure goes. It'll easily be the biggest transfer fee in our history, and we won't be selling anyone!
I'm sure they can sign pre contract agreements. Can't see what the problem of saying to a club I'll sign for you on such and such a date if you promise to take me on with injuries. Clubs not paying a transfer fee can afford to gamble imo.