Hecky in the Chronicle.......

I think most fans support the plan but where it falls down is when we have to sell players under value because we haven't tied them down to a longer contract.

 

Hecky says the same thing about the players and himself.
In essence he is a proponent of kaizen and wants continuous improvements in all departments.

 

also I've noticed ... People who are short .... are just not tall

 

No wonder the board has lost so many good posters. Easy to see why reading same drivel from same people time and time again. Sithi

 

Have to agree, the jury is no longer out on these boys ... no longer a gamble, get them on longer contracts now

 

Some do. some don't and some still have no idea why we sell players..
The last year as been successful.. fact. But selling the plan in leaner times, which will come, may take some doing...

 

Read to here and thought ffs have you really just asked that question?

How about reading people's responses to your threads rather than just posting the same sort of thing again and again? It's all explained to you, you just refuse to acknowledge it. Hence I won't be bothering to respond to this question or reading this thread any further.

 

Club: "Here, sign this contract for three years on a wage lower than the league average."
Player's Agent: "Do one."

Club: "Here, sign this contract with a clause saying if it turns out you have some kind of market value we can extend it on the same terms, but if you turn out to be **** we can get rid of you without the risk of giving you a three year contract and guaranteed money"
Player's Agent: "Do one."

Do I need to get the sock puppets out?

 

So if I'm reading you right, there is nothing we can do? There is no scenario where a player will extend their contract with us, unless they are carp and wouldn't get a deal elsewhere anyway?
Probably best not to bother then... save on the paperwork.

 

Define longer contracts. 3 years seems long enough to me. That's what we gave to Winnall and Hourihane. They didn't want to extend contracts

Do you want us to give out even longer contracts? 4 years? 5 years? That seems a big risk given some of those signings won't work out

 

It's very easy to say 'give options to extend'. But players are simply not going to agree to those options.

What sort of contract extension were you thinking? We've given out some 2+1. We've given other players 3 years straight. Anymore is just not possible. Because of these reasons:

A) if we offered say 3+2, and it was at the player's option, the player would still have to sign and agree to it. It was fairly clear that Winnall at least would not have agreed to it
B) if it was the same length but at the club's option, the player wouldn't not agree to it initially. They would not want to commit to potentially 5 years at one club when probably bigger offers would come calling and may be put off
C) if it was a clause involving games/goals, the player would not agree to it again for the above reasons

 

Lost me at blah...

 

Non league Angus McDonald wouldn't sign a contract with an automatic extension in It?

 

I would have thought that ideally you want to keep your better players on a kind of a rolling 3 tear contract. Now if they are past the first year of say a 3 year contract then offer to extend by a year, and then do the same following year if it suits. If one year they say they're not interested then look to offload while they still have value. Can't see why that wouldn't work. Year on year the club know where they stand and have some control.

Not a criticism of the club, as I think they have been caught out by their own success, but if that system had been in place (maybe with buy out clauses) with Sam & Conor then I think we would have been in a much better position. It does require some bravery on the part of the club to sell at the optimum value especially if the team are doing well. That said I don't think we have a choice really given the size of our gates. In an ideal world you would replace them with someone who is slightly better than they were when we bought them. That way you're always trying to trade up a step at a time.

Actually I think that is the plan, we just got caught out by how well we are doing.

 

He would at this stage. But obviously it depends on the length of time. Clearly when we signed him I've not doubt he wouldn't have signed a contract for 3+1 years for example. But we're all rich with hindsight; we've got to take into account the potential of the signing not working out. That's why it's always a fine balancing act between player and club for contracts. It's got to suit all parties

 

It's a good plan but are you suggesting that if, say in the summer of 2015 Winnall and Hourihane had said they don't want to extend by a year, you'd look to offload them even though they were our most valuable players?

 

The clubs got an option on MacDonald at the end of his contract

 

An extension in the clubs favour and performance related pay increases in the players should keep both parties happy. As you say it's not easy but it's something that we need to improve on. I would follow the plan outlined by Cambridge Red above its a model that helped Peterborough progress but ran out of steam. This does require facing some difficult questions and can result in difficult decisions like the Winnall Conor one in the summer but it seems the way forward.

 

That's the first time I've heard that including from Angus himself but I'm not saying you are wrong.