Watkins and Scowen - that's about 12M walking out the door

Daft post . Even if they were in the middle of their contracts they wouldn't be worth more than £1.5m

 

The difference pre bosman being we'd get a transfer fee regardless. Now, players own their contract, not the club. So if we'd been in this situation back in the 80;s we could've had the benefit of Hourihane, Watkins, Bree etc, then at the end of the season got a big fee too. I don't think that was right either, but as is usually the case when an old law is rightly changed, it goes from one extreme to the other.

 

Well that makes total sense to me.

Why risk spending time and money developing players only for other clubs (sometimes our rivals) to benefit from that?

As Hecky says - the club has to get better in the transfer market by selling - the right player - at the right time - for the right money.

We are still waiting (after all this time) to hear if the directors agree with that.

 

I know it's a gorgeous day but someone's got to the pub early if they think even if they had three years left on both contracts
we'd get anywhere near 12 million for the pair. We'd get maybe a quarter of that if we were lucky.

 

How do we manage in the scenario of offering an extension (which may or may not be signed by the player) when there's more than 1 year left on the contract if the original contract is only 2 years long? Should we only sign players who will accept 3 year contracts initially and offer an extension after 1 year? How long an extension do we offer? Do we look to sell them after 1 year of service if they won't sign an extension? Whilst I can see logic and merit in much of what has been said, I'm not convinced it would progress the club on the pitch.

Sent from my SM-T710 using Tapatalk

 

You would need to build an extension in tbe clubs favour when the players sign the original contract. We did this with Ryan Williams.

 

An idiot

 

Ironic I guess that with this one the club haven't taken the option of activating the extension clause, albeit that comes from having a stronger contract position.

If the players will sign up to these terms at the outset, then it does make sense. Would think it'd be hit and miss depending on the players view of themself and agents advice too,

Sent from my SM-T710 using Tapatalk

 

I also feel another potential issue is that no player seems to want to commit initially for more than 3 years. We haven't signed any player in the last 3 years for a contract worth more than 3 years. One can hardly blame players for not wanting to commit for any longer.

It's an interesting one though. The extensions would have to be at the club's option, otherwise there would still be a possibility that the player rejects it; but if that was the case, a player would potentially be committing for 4-5 years, which they may not want to do.

Take Yiadom for example. If we offered him 2+2 at the club's option, it looks ideal. But having seen himself linked with Swansea, in this hypothetical situation we could have given him 2 more years, leaving him with 3 years on his deal. Good from our point of view, but would a player want to do that? Would be great if they did, but I doubt it personally

 

When was there a good time to offer contracts? When we were bottom of League One they wouldn't have wanted to sign up. At the end of the day, it's simple. If the player wanted more than we could afford, they leave. I love both players and it would have been great for them to stay, but for no player is it worth offering more than we can afford

 

Sign players on a two year contraxct with the option of third year in our favour. Then at the end of the original two we either come to a mutually beneficial extension for a number of years or activate the extension and put them straight on the transfer list.

 

The plan will fail if you let your assets leave for free. You have to be confident in your recruitment and back your judgement.

 

It's all about negotiation isn't it? Sheffield United do it as standard on all contracts. Seems sensible to me. Non League Mark Roberts / Angus wouldn't let a clause get in tbe way of living the dream. Further down the line they probably would. It's about confidence in your recruitment and having a strategy

 

Yep, can't dispute that to be fair. Didn't Gus extend recently too, proving your point really!?

 

Yes, bad business Alfie Mawson

 

We did back our judgement; but if, at whatever stage, we offered them a contract and they said they wanted, say £10k a week, we simply cannot afford to offer such contracts

 

Your not reading correctly my friend. I am saying in the initial contract negotiations between us and a player. If we are following the plan and the blueprint we need to protect ourselves against scenarios like January and like we find ourselves in with Roberts and Yiadom. You must get it right here. Sign players willing to sign a contract that includes an automatic extension in the clubs favour or don't sign them at all . No point scrabbling about later it's too late then. That's when you need to back yourself not later. Far too late.

Sheffield United for example have just activated such clauses in all their key players entering the last year of their contracts. It's common sense.


Sent from my iPad using Barnsley FC BBS Fan Forum mobile app

 

£2m a piece tops in my opinion.

Hourihane & Winnall might have come to closer to £12m under long contracts as clubs pay a premium for goals & assists