|
Post by Gas_Quarters on May 3, 2018 18:22:57 GMT
But as has been previously stated, under previous owners we did get reasonable sums for our best players. This was when we used to give longer deals to players that people are suggesting we do again. But based on the teams performance which regime has worked best, offering long term deals or short term deals. I would definitely say the current regime, unfortunately you can’t have it both ways and you have to take the bad with the good.
|
|
|
Post by axegas on May 3, 2018 18:51:32 GMT
But as has been previously stated, under previous owners we did get reasonable sums for our best players. This was when we used to give longer deals to players that people are suggesting we do again. But based on the teams performance which regime has worked best, offering long term deals or short term deals. I would definitely say the current regime, unfortunately you can’t have it both ways and you have to take the bad with the good. Exactly, you can either offer long term deals and maybe offer a little too much job security to players which can affect performance as well as meaning that it is a struggle to get underperforming players off the books or you can offer short term deals which does the opposite as it means players will have to work harder and maintain performances to earn the next contract and it gives the manager a bit more power in the summer to shape the squad to how he sees best fit. It does mean however that it is always a struggle to keep best players and find a good fee for them and often clubs in that situation have to rely on the goodwill of the player of the player to sign a new deal so the club can get a good price, as we already know this is not always the case. Peterborough are a good example of a team that offer long term contracts to players, they have got good fees for their best players and made good transfer profit however they have suffered their squad dynamic as a result and haven't really got anywhere as they still find themselves in League one. it has also meant that they have found players such as Luke James difficult to move on to different clubs. I'd say we are a pretty good example of a club that offers short term deals and has done well because of it. It has kept our players motivated and wanting to do well, Lines said as much in a recent interview and we have found ourselves able to adapt our squad and find success. If we had offered Jonny Burn a 3/4 year contract we may of seen ourselves stuck with him and we would of been unable to bring in a replacement however because we only offer short term deals it has meant that we have been able to move him on pretty quickly after realising he wouldn't make the cut in League one. This has come at the expense of having trouble trying to tie down our best players, Bodin flat out refused to sign a new contract meaning we had no choice other than to sell him for a relatively cheap fee rather than the player running down his contract and leaving in the summer for absolutely nothing. It also gave Taylor the bargaining power to insert a really low release clause as we could either agree to his terms or let him leave as the player was coming to the end of his short deal. We also run the risk of this happening again in the future with Sercombe. If you gave me the choice of Peterborough's method whereby players are sold for good profit, like what will happen with Marriott in the summer, but never really progress to the next level or our method whereby the squad benefits from the motivation to want to earn a new contract and the flexibility that can entail pushing the squad to new heights but perhaps at the expense of transfer revenue, I would take our method without hesitation. There's no right or wrong answer really and different clubs pursue different approaches.
|
|
|
Post by lastminutewinner on May 3, 2018 18:57:35 GMT
But as has been previously stated, under previous owners we did get reasonable sums for our best players. This was when we used to give longer deals to players that people are suggesting we do again. But based on the teams performance which regime has worked best, offering long term deals or short term deals. I would definitely say the current regime, unfortunately you can’t have it both ways and you have to take the bad with the good. Exactly, you can either offer long term deals and maybe offer a little too much job security to players which can affect performance as well as meaning that it is a struggle to get underperforming players off the books or you can offer short term deals which does the opposite as it means players will have to work harder and maintain performances to earn the next contract and it gives the manager a bit more power in the summer to shape the squad to how he sees best fit. It does mean however that it is always a struggle to keep best players and find a good fee for them and often clubs in that situation have to rely on the goodwill of the player of the player to sign a new deal so the club can get a good price, as we already know this is not always the case. Peterborough are a good example of a team that offer long term contracts to players, they have got good fees for their best players and made good transfer profit however they have suffered their squad dynamic as a result and haven't really got anywhere as they still find themselves in League one. it has also meant that they have found players such as Luke James difficult to move on to different clubs. I'd say we are a pretty good example of a club that offers short term deals and has done well because of it. It has kept our players motivated and wanting to do well, Lines said as much in a recent interview and we have found ourselves able to adapt our squad and find success. If we had offered Jonny Burn a 3/4 year contract we may of seen ourselves stuck with him and we would of been unable to bring in a replacement however because we only offer short term deals it has meant that we have been able to move him on pretty quickly after realising he wouldn't make the cut in League one. This has come at the expense of having trouble trying to tie down our best players, Bodin flat out refused to sign a new contract meaning we had no choice other than to sell him for a relatively cheap fee rather than the player running down his contract and leaving in the summer for absolutely nothing. It also gave Taylor the bargaining power to insert a really low release clause as we could either agree to his terms or let him leave as the player was coming to the end of his short deal. We also run the risk of this happening again in the future with Sercombe. If you gave me the choice of Peterborough's method whereby players are sold for good profit, like what will happen with Marriott in the summer, but never really progress to the next level or our method whereby the squad benefits from the motivation to want to earn a new contract and the flexibility that can entail pushing the squad to new heights but perhaps at the expense of transfer revenue, I would take our method without hesitation. There's no right or wrong answer really and different clubs pursue different approaches.
Either way you lose your best players but at least Peterborough get financial rewards for it. God knows why they are still in L1 but I doubt receiving shedloads of cash for players over a number of years does them any harm.
|
|
pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 18,765
|
Post by pirate on May 3, 2018 19:01:26 GMT
Exactly, you can either offer long term deals and maybe offer a little too much job security to players which can affect performance as well as meaning that it is a struggle to get underperforming players off the books or you can offer short term deals which does the opposite as it means players will have to work harder and maintain performances to earn the next contract and it gives the manager a bit more power in the summer to shape the squad to how he sees best fit. It does mean however that it is always a struggle to keep best players and find a good fee for them and often clubs in that situation have to rely on the goodwill of the player of the player to sign a new deal so the club can get a good price, as we already know this is not always the case. Peterborough are a good example of a team that offer long term contracts to players, they have got good fees for their best players and made good transfer profit however they have suffered their squad dynamic as a result and haven't really got anywhere as they still find themselves in League one. it has also meant that they have found players such as Luke James difficult to move on to different clubs. I'd say we are a pretty good example of a club that offers short term deals and has done well because of it. It has kept our players motivated and wanting to do well, Lines said as much in a recent interview and we have found ourselves able to adapt our squad and find success. If we had offered Jonny Burn a 3/4 year contract we may of seen ourselves stuck with him and we would of been unable to bring in a replacement however because we only offer short term deals it has meant that we have been able to move him on pretty quickly after realising he wouldn't make the cut in League one. This has come at the expense of having trouble trying to tie down our best players, Bodin flat out refused to sign a new contract meaning we had no choice other than to sell him for a relatively cheap fee rather than the player running down his contract and leaving in the summer for absolutely nothing. It also gave Taylor the bargaining power to insert a really low release clause as we could either agree to his terms or let him leave as the player was coming to the end of his short deal. We also run the risk of this happening again in the future with Sercombe. If you gave me the choice of Peterborough's method whereby players are sold for good profit, like what will happen with Marriott in the summer, but never really progress to the next level or our method whereby the squad benefits from the motivation to want to earn a new contract and the flexibility that can entail pushing the squad to new heights but perhaps at the expense of transfer revenue, I would take our method without hesitation. There's no right or wrong answer really and different clubs pursue different approaches.
Either way you lose your best players but at least Peterborough get financial rewards for it. God knows why they are still in L1 but I doubt receiving shedloads of cash for players over a number of years does them any harm.
They've also played Championship football a lot more recently than we have and built a new stand. I reckon they will be there or thereabouts for the playoffs next season.
|
|
|
Post by axegas on May 3, 2018 19:20:36 GMT
Either way you lose your best players but at least Peterborough get financial rewards for it. God knows why they are still in L1 but I doubt receiving shedloads of cash for players over a number of years does them any harm.
They've also played Championship football a lot more recently than we have and built a new stand. I reckon they will be there or thereabouts for the playoffs next season. Everybody said that about them this year. Considering they had a striker who scored 27 goals for them and a winger with one of the highest amount of assists in the league, it has been a very poor season. If they don’t replace Marriott well, I can’t see them doing any better next year if I’m honest.
|
|
pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 18,765
|
Post by pirate on May 3, 2018 21:40:46 GMT
They've also played Championship football a lot more recently than we have and built a new stand. I reckon they will be there or thereabouts for the playoffs next season. Everybody said that about them this year. Considering they had a striker who scored 27 goals for them and a winger with one of the highest amount of assists in the league, it has been a very poor season. If they don’t replace Marriott well, I can’t see them doing any better next year if I’m honest. It has been a poor season, but the difference is now they have a manager with promotions on his C.V. They will have money to spend and, like you intimated, much will depend on how they spend it.
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on May 3, 2018 21:47:31 GMT
Everybody said that about them this year. Considering they had a striker who scored 27 goals for them and a winger with one of the highest amount of assists in the league, it has been a very poor season. If they don’t replace Marriott well, I can’t see them doing any better next year if I’m honest. It has been a poor season, but the difference is now they have a manager with promotions on his C.V. They will have money to spend and, like you intimated, much will depend on how they spend it. But you don’t have to spend anything ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2018 2:08:36 GMT
Exactly, you can either offer long term deals and maybe offer a little too much job security to players which can affect performance as well as meaning that it is a struggle to get underperforming players off the books or you can offer short term deals which does the opposite as it means players will have to work harder and maintain performances to earn the next contract and it gives the manager a bit more power in the summer to shape the squad to how he sees best fit. It does mean however that it is always a struggle to keep best players and find a good fee for them and often clubs in that situation have to rely on the goodwill of the player of the player to sign a new deal so the club can get a good price, as we already know this is not always the case. Peterborough are a good example of a team that offer long term contracts to players, they have got good fees for their best players and made good transfer profit however they have suffered their squad dynamic as a result and haven't really got anywhere as they still find themselves in League one. it has also meant that they have found players such as Luke James difficult to move on to different clubs. I'd say we are a pretty good example of a club that offers short term deals and has done well because of it. It has kept our players motivated and wanting to do well, Lines said as much in a recent interview and we have found ourselves able to adapt our squad and find success. If we had offered Jonny Burn a 3/4 year contract we may of seen ourselves stuck with him and we would of been unable to bring in a replacement however because we only offer short term deals it has meant that we have been able to move him on pretty quickly after realising he wouldn't make the cut in League one. This has come at the expense of having trouble trying to tie down our best players, Bodin flat out refused to sign a new contract meaning we had no choice other than to sell him for a relatively cheap fee rather than the player running down his contract and leaving in the summer for absolutely nothing. It also gave Taylor the bargaining power to insert a really low release clause as we could either agree to his terms or let him leave as the player was coming to the end of his short deal. We also run the risk of this happening again in the future with Sercombe. If you gave me the choice of Peterborough's method whereby players are sold for good profit, like what will happen with Marriott in the summer, but never really progress to the next level or our method whereby the squad benefits from the motivation to want to earn a new contract and the flexibility that can entail pushing the squad to new heights but perhaps at the expense of transfer revenue, I would take our method without hesitation. There's no right or wrong answer really and different clubs pursue different approaches.
Either way you lose your best players but at least Peterborough get financial rewards for it. God knows why they are still in L1 but I doubt receiving shedloads of cash for players over a number of years does them any harm.
There in league one because when they get promoted their owner is not at all wealthy compared to most if not all owners in the championship and their gates are the lowest or nearly lowest. End result is instant relegation. Imo the shorter contracts have served the club well but going forward they have to judge who the best players are and get them on longer deals. If dc really believes in say ellis and broadbent give them 3 year deals.
|
|
|
Post by pucklegas on May 4, 2018 5:34:35 GMT
Cheltenham will be looking to cash in their ISA but we won’t pay what they want and I remember the clamour for Omar Bogle, another Luke James 😂
|
|
pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 18,765
|
Post by pirate on May 5, 2018 21:36:16 GMT
|
|