Contracts...or lack of.

[Hugh_G_Rection]

Can anyone offer an explanation as to why we are letting so many players run their contracts down??
Roofe and Klich are now both in the last year of their deals (as was BPF before he left). The power of renegotiating a new contract is now in their hands. They can squeeze us for whatever they want, secure in the knowledge that, come January they can talk to anyone.
We all know about Kalvin but even our new wonderboy Bogs only signed for two and a half years (now down to two).
Radz is, or seems to be, a more than competent business man so why are we unwilling or unable to tie players down??

[hopelesslyoptimistic]

It is the accepted way of carrying out business. Fifa don’t like contracts longer than 5 years and being realistic football can be so unpredictable that tying players to long contracts can be a huge burden of a team gets relegated or revenue otherwise goes down - not least if said player has not been performing.

The flip side as you say is that there are then frequent contract negoriations.

[WTF11]

It is the accepted way of carrying out business. Fifa don’t like contracts longer than 5 years and being realistic football can be so unpredictable that tying players to long contracts can be a huge burden of a team gets relegated or revenue otherwise goes down - not least if said player has not been performing.

The flip side as you say is that there are then frequent contract negoriations.

Missed.the point of HGRs question, unsurprisingly.

The query was relating to how many players are in, or approaching, the final year of their contract, not how long new contracts might be.

Answer from the Oracle came there none.

[Hugh_G_Rection]

Missed.the point of HGRs question, unsurprisingly.

The query was relating to how many players are in, or approaching, the final year of their contract, not how long new contracts might be.

Answer from the Oracle came there none.

Ha ha, you both missed the point!!!

This is in relation to Roofe and Klich both entering in to the last year of their contract.

I'm curious as to why we seem to be the only club who allows our best players (subjective, I know!) to run down their contracts?

As soon as they enter the last year, the power of negotiation swings towards the player as they know they can field offers from anyone in January.

At this point, any interested clubs tend to offer much larger contracts than normal as the money they would have spent on a transfer fee is used to supplement the wages they offer.

Klich and Roofe's contract (and BPF) should have been sorted out long before it got to the last year. Kalvin and Mateuz Bogusz will have only have one year left after this season.
We also saw the same thing with Chris Wood, Becchio and Byram.

Is it just me? Do other clubs have such a consistent stream of first team players running their contracts down?

[WTF11]

But I was closer than he was, nah nah ne nah nah!

[WTF11]

Ha ha, you both missed the point!!!

This is in relation to Roofe and Klich both entering in to the last year of their contract.

I'm curious as to why we seem to be the only club who allows our best players (subjective, I know!) to run down their contracts?

As soon as they enter the last year, the power of negotiation swings towards the player as they know they can field offers from anyone in January.

At this point, any interested clubs tend to offer much larger contracts than normal as the money they would have spent on a transfer fee is used to supplement the wages they offer.

Klich and Roofe's contract (and BPF) should have been sorted out long before it got to the last year. Kalvin and Mateuz Bogusz will have only have one year left after this season.
We also saw the same thing with Chris Wood, Becchio and Byram.

Is it just me? Do other clubs have such a consistent stream of first team players running their contracts down?

On a more serious note.......

I suspect it has to do with the FFP stuff, an assessment by the club following the large number of transfers out this window as to the wage bill we are moving forward with, all that kind of stuff? Plus (maybe) a desire to see how we perform between now and January, with the prospect of some hard negotiations around that time for those who have shown they can deliver not just in one season (take into account the comments from Bielsa at the end of last regarding what he thought the current squad could, or more to the point, couldn't be expected to do)?

I imagine also that it would be different if the owner had deeper pockets and was certain (as much as you can be certain) of promotion and willing to stretch/break FFP rules on the assumption any fines would pale into insignificance alongside the riches to be gained from promotion? As it is, we don't (have an owner with deeper pockets) so that's all a bit nugatory speculation!

[Hugh_G_Rection]

But I was closer than he was, nah nah ne nah nah!

Lol, can't argue with that logic!!

[Hugh_G_Rection]

On a more serious note.......

I suspect it has to do with the FFP stuff, an assessment by the club following the large number of transfers out this window as to the wage bill we are moving forward with, all that kind of stuff? Plus (maybe) a desire to see how we perform between now and January, with the prospect of some hard negotiations around that time for those who have shown they can deliver not just in one season (take into account the comments from Bielsa at the end of last regarding what he thought the current squad could, or more to the point, couldn't be expected to do)?

I imagine also that it would be different if the owner had deeper pockets and was certain (as much as you can be certain) of promotion and willing to stretch/break FFP rules on the assumption any fines would pale into insignificance alongside the riches to be gained from promotion? As it is, we don't (have an owner with deeper pockets) so that's all a bit nugatory speculation!

I agree that it's probably down to FFP but it still doesn't make fiscal sense to me.
You have to replace the players who leave and, unless you're getting them on a free, you will end up paying much more in transfer fees than you would for a bigger contract. Which makes FFP just as problematic.
If your players are tied down to a contract then you still have the option of selling but you have more control over the price you sell at (although PJ's transfer makes a mockery of that assumption).
We never seem to sign players entering their last year for a fee lower than their true worth but always seem to be selling because of that very reason.
Is my perception wrong? Are other clubs in the same boat year after year?

[spaldy]

have to call BS on this one.

Do you think it has anything to do with whether we go up or not?

I think the team makeup would be vastly different if we do.

Bogz probably doesn't sign a long term contract at 18. Roofe is fragile. Klich was not even playing regular until last year. We also need a war chest to sign Phillips and the incoming players if we go up. It's unfortunate we gambled on bamford and kiko but other than thsoe failures we've been pretty good and managing the money. Our youth program is solid and likley enables us to stay up if we make it to the prem.

Talking about past players is insanity. Other than the one year with Grayson we've not even sniffed going up until Radz and MB showed up. We were closer to relegation than promotion. The only players that would have signed long term contracts were high risk players with just as strong likelihood of washing out than making it. We all know we had an owner more interested in making money than spending on a team.

[whitestomper45]

It happens much more now, agents have a lot to do with it.

Club can't win, wasn't long ago folk were moaning we had too many on long term contracts. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.. hey ho