I think any time Man U, Chelsea et al come knocking on our door, our chances of keeping a player are a smidge anorexic ;-)
Many a new player when they join say the manager sold the vision to them. In this case if he doesn’t buy into our vision then he’s not the player for us. I think that’s why the plug was pulled so quickly.
I'd be interested to see how much new signings are fed lines to say in their opening intro. Obviously they don't generally know that much about the club or the fans or the area, but they have to say something feelgood to try and get fans on board early. I vaguely recall Tom Bradshaw waxing lyrically about Millwall, how fantastic the manager was, how the club was a great club and how he'd always wanted to play for them when he'd visited. If Bradshaw can say that on joining Millwall from us, I'd suggest a large proportion of players are just trying to curry favour when they first join. Mads, i'll give you. The lad just looked delighted to be in a decent ground playing in a league that gets more fans and attention. But lets say Derby, or Brentford or Forest or Boro came knocking and offered him £5-£10k a week more (or in other terms, £250k to £500k a year more)… what's he going to do?
With the older lots contracts there doesn’t seem much we could do, but I am hoping all these new signings with long contracts that if an offer as you say comes their way there won’t be much they can do.
I think the reason for longer contracts is to try and leverage a higher transfer fee though. We've seen a few times that we've let players go because they weren't happy. Players still have the power, however long is left on their contracts, but if we can at least get good value that can be reinvested like Brentford and Bristol City are doing, that allows us to progress and improve... as long as the players can settle pretty quickly and keep performing on the pitch.
That’s right, but we hear about release clauses that seem to be low especially if the players stock increases. I just hope we are tightening up on such things.
We very much had release clauses in the days of the Rowing. Whether we do now, I really don't know. There may be a few instances where a player could insist on it. But I suspect the more we pay, the more leverage we have to increase any such clause. The issue past of clauses were that they were far too low (think Vaz Te and Hammill in particular). It's certainly not easy getting really good players over the line in a way that can be advantageous to the club if all goes right, and not hugely damaging if it all goes wrong.
Where my mind at is how Peterborough do business. They just pluck a value out of the air and that’s that, pay it or go away. You get the impression the player doesn’t have much say.
It's being said on tykes talk FB group that we pulled out of Pearce deal, and weren't shafted by Wigan.
I'm local to Peterborough and most of their fans are so fed up of how they're run. Yes they bring in a really good amount for a large number of the players they sell, but so little seems to get re-invested.
Just a thought. The problem with this is if a player had the choice to sign for us or them, most of the time they’ll choose us because they know we wouldn’t stand in their way if they wanted to move on. We have no idea how many of our players decided to join us for that very reason because we are a stepping stone. I’d guess it’s a high percentage. Annoying as it may be it probably means we’ve brought in players that we wouldn’t normally have done. It’s brought us success but means the players don’t hang around for long. Meanwhile, Peterborough are still in league 1.
Their business doesn't reflect on the pitch, though. At least we're making steps in the right direction.
Wigan signed him. If we can’t compete with them. Like a say we may as-well pack up. Hopefully something went wrong on outside not his side
That lass that wouldn’t talk to me at the pub on Saturday was never my first choice and I’m exploring other options.