Luke Steele and reduced terms

Am I the only one who can understand why? And before I begin I think Steele is quality.

Firstly, when we had him on emergency loan and we got to the semi final wasn't it part of the deal to extend his loan that we had to sign him at the end of the season on certain wages which were very substantial?

Secondly, over the last two years the club has tried to restructure its wage bill so that a group of individual players weren't accounting for much of the expenditure. It has been this move (getting rid of Lovre, Jay Mac, Shackell), and offering reduced terms to older players like Foster, that have allowed us to pull together a much more balanced playing squad on a lower overall budget.

I don't know what Steele earns, but if it is a lot more than the rest then for the sake of balance of squad and equity amongst the players I can understand why he might have been offered reduced terms. Although it would be beyond me as to why it would be a one year deal.

Not that we know he has been offered reduced terms of course.

 

I think you may be well correct here , Sir

and lets face it Keepers are not the best paid players, Strikers seem to get the most money. Which is understandable in some terms. Steele is a very VERY good keeper, but there are a lot out there a lot better. If he was that good then by now premier teams would have taken him , and yes paid compensation to us maybe. So maybe Luke is thinking a little above his station. He is a most excellent championship keeper...but Premier league hmmmm.
(here's an edit too.)

I want to add that I totally love and respect Luke Steele , I was at Anfield for THAT cup match. Ok Howard put that goal in at the end... but Luke was magical that day. He has also put in many many fantastic performances to help us . I truly hope he stays and would thank him for all he has done for us. But he has had a few howlers too, so is not a super human. LUKE please stay .

 

Re: I think you may be well correct here , Sir

In fairness I wouldn't criticise Steele. If he's offered reduced terms he's every right to look elsewhere. I just understand the rationale behind the club offering him less. Not the one year deal bit though. That's just repeating all previous mistakes

 

Agree entirely. Foster had to take one, assume Bobby will too.

But not the one year deal. If we're reducing his terms surely it'd make sense by us offsetting that with more security and longer term?

Seems we're scared **** less of being relegated only 3 weeks after the season finished.

 

Re: I think you may be well correct here , Sir

With reduced terms should come more security which doesn't appear to be the case. He should be under a longer contract so we could get a decent fee should a big club come in. Are we trying to drive him out for the sake of 50k and an extra year on the contract? Luke would cost a million pounds to replace with the same guaranteed quality. Makes no sense at all.

I think our collective enthusiasm and optimism will wane a bit if Luke goes. Is it worth it?

 

And yet can offer TK. A two year deal!

 

Re: I think you may be well correct here , Sir

It`s the one year contract not the reduced wages.

 

Forward planning for life in L1 2014/2015.

 

ever thought we may be playing a game called "Call My Bluff"

maybe Flicker and his team are looking at it that way. They do not want any "Billy Big ******" in the dressing room. They want a collective that will be a brotherhood. That my friends gets things done. I accept there will be limitations, but listen to this .....

(oops sorry forgot the link )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJVewWbeBiY


there it is

 

Negative.

Get behind em

Unless you fear like I that Flicker will be pissing in the wind with our "board"

 

A collective brotherhood? Sounds a bit left wing to me

 

I think lots of things need to change. If this contract is true then it proves the point that not much is...

 

I don't see how much can, despite Flickers best efforts.

Someone lost interest for a variety of reasons when Simple was sacked.

 

Thing is what i dont understand is, even if you lose interest surely its in your interests to maximise the basics for purely selling on prospects anyway. Bizarre.

A shake up at the top is needed, when the mean mode and median board age is above 60 in a fast paced business environment your going to run into problems at every corner. Tinpot.

 

Re: I think you may be well correct here , Sir

It works both ways though. Is Luke likely to sign a long contract that will tie him down on the same wages for numerous seasons? I think he's more likely to sign a 1 year deal that means he can move away next season if a different club offers him better wages. He can always fall back on us if no one does. Has anyone thought that it might be Steele that is asking for a 1 year deal?

If he does go we won't go out and spend 1 million on a goalkeeper. We'll get someone in on a free on similar wages.

 

Re: I think you may be well correct here , Sir

You are wrong, it is not Steele asking. He wants 3 years.

 

Re: I think you may be well correct here , Sir

How do you know?

 

Re: I think you may be well correct here , Sir

I just do mate. Cant say how I know.

 

Re: I think you may be well correct here , Sir

Was it Ricky VonwinkHemsworthhoff that told you, after his best mate Luke told him whilst dining out together at Woody's in tarn?

 

Surely you do not think it is the board that makes these offers. Flicker is the one behind the offers, hence is mate TK getting 2 years.