Luke Steele's contract offer

i can understand to an extent Luke being offered a new deal on a lower salary but i am still racking my brain to understand why he has only been offered a one year deal when others have been offered two.

Good players are easy to lose but a damn sight more difficult to replace.

 

Got to agree JT although I know **** all because as I keep being told, by a football expert, that Luke is ***** and should be playing park football on a Sunday morning.

 

because would you tie yourself down for longer then a year on reduced terms at a club that could well be in league one after your first year

 

I really admire your positive outlook.

 

I bet you are good company at parties.

 

Are you saying the club have just assumed he would reject a longer contract, so didn't even make the offer!? By that logic, they must be very confident that he will accept a big wage cut or they wouldn't have offered that either.

Confused? Yes, I think you are.

 

Luke wanted a longer deal. I think it may have gone some way to making the huge decrease in money more acceptable. As it is, if he signs it I'll be amazed.

 

If he rejects it will the club offer him a better deal? Higher salary than originally offered or longer terms or both?

 

Me too. Keith Hill let it be known that Luke was the highest paid player at the club (not a very smart move in an avalanche of not very smart moves) so it's understandable if the club want to reduce his monthly salary, but the way that is usually done is by increasing the length of the contract. Personally I don't believe a 4 or 5 year contract is out of the way for a 28 year old goalkeeper who has proven time and again he is a very capable player at this level. He may not be the best 'keeper in this division, (he may be, I don't know), but he's certainly a good 'un. And he's going to be a good 'un for many years to come. A club like ours should consider itself very fortunate to have such a good player on a long contract. If some other club comes in for him we can command a very decent fee, and if they don't we have a solid player on the books for years to come so we don't have to waste time and money looking for a replacement.

As it stands, I can't see a one year contract on a reduced wage being very appealing for an experienced player like Luke who has been an exemplary player for this club for a number of years. I can only conclude we don't really want him and, after watching how well he has performed for the past few seasons, I'm amazed by that.

 

Superb post. Everything he said.

I've heard it from 3 different people now it is a 50% cut and only a year. I think that is an insult to a player of Luke's ability.

 

One year is ridiculous, I agree. BUT I don't know how we can say a 50% cut is an insult without knowing how much he is on now. If he's on 50% more than the next highest paid player will be next year then it isn't. If it means he will be paid less than other players it is

 

I don't understand the logic of offering a one year deal unless it's a player with suspect fitness or getting closer to the stage of retirement.

Steele is clearly neither and has saved us more points than he's cost us. If we don't rate him... why offer any contract? If we do rate him... why only offer one year (if that is indeed the case) and if we're scared of the downside to a drop in league status, why not use clauses for our benefit instead of being held to ransom like we have been?

Moneywise, we have what we have and I think players would understand that, even if they didn't like it, but to be offered such short terms neither benefits the club or the player and probably doesn't help our reputation much either.

 

Spot on, Jay.

 

To these goalkeeping experts out there. Tell me who we can get who is better than Steele,on a free transfer and for less than what Steele is on at the moment? And would these players come to us above other championship clubs?


Just some food for thought.

 

I know I'm probably in a minority of one

But I think the concept of us offering a contract to a player who isn't wanted is bullsh1t. Also, as has been insinuated by some not you, claiming David Flitcroft is behind this approach is unbelievable and disrespectful. I don't know of the accuracy of the contract details, but movement and compromise of both parties from their initial stance in any negotiations is normal.

 

Care to share your source old chap?

 

He'd have to be on 100% more than the next highest paid player for a 50% pay cut not to be a ridiculous offer.

However, I'd rather not bemoan the club when we don't know for sure how long the contract offered is (unless someone has confirmed it without my knowledge), how much Luke is on and how much the wage cut is.

I'm also not convinced about this idea that offering a longer contract makes a pay cut more acceptable. Why should Luke tie himself down to the same wage for numerous years when he could move to another club after 1 year and be almost certain to earn more. There's inflation and what not to consider as well.
I'd have thought that Luke will have wanted this longer contract at the wages he was on, but is offering a longer contract on these reduced terms likely to persuade him to sign? It wouldn't me. It would put me off further.

Tying yourself down to a club for several years on a good wage package is brilliant, but tying yourself down on a poor wage package is just as equally bad in my opinion.

 

Re: I know I'm probably in a minority of one

It's not how you go about retaining someone, Kev. To say Luke did as much as any player to keep us up and avoid that enormous loss of revenue. On the assumption that these figures are correct - to effectively say, 'after all that we value you half as much', is a terrible message to send out. Even if he stayed, his heart wouldn't be in it and his confidence will take a bashing. It's constructive dismissal by any other name. As is Bobby's offer.

 

Re: I know I'm probably in a minority of one

I'd agree mate if we knew for definite that this would mean he was going to be earning less than other players, and if that is the case I hold my hands up. But in fairness Luke's existing contract was signed at a very different time when the club was in a very different position.

Of course Flicker wants him to stay, but at a price we can afford. This might be the difference between signing O'Grady or not.

As for Bobby, surely we all expected a contract on reduced terms given his age? Didn't Foster sign a contract on reduced terms last year?

One final point. I think we need to be careful about the terms we use here. We are talking quarter of a million pound salaries here for playing second division football, all paid for by me and you who could only dream of such salaries.

 

Re: I know I'm probably in a minority of one

A quarter of a mill a year?

I think they'd have both signed if that was even close to being the figure.

There are reductions, and there are reductions.

I'm going to be quiet and leave it there.