how many games in do you give rafa before the panick button gets pushed

[kingstonbob]

Ok. So it goes the way you say, who comes in to steady the ship? Guardiola, Mourinho or Curbishley, O'Leary?

We cant get rid of the dead wood because Charnley gave them ridiculously lucrative 4/5 year contracts. We will end up paying them to go. Complete mid management. Hes the one who should go.

Could Ashley be trying to force Rafa out as he's given him too much power and 99.9% of the fans want him? Ie going back on their agreement, everyone knowing the millions sitting there from tv money and sales but he won't hand it over, he is such an egotistical **** that he wont like Rafa speaking out in the press.

[toonlegend]

Ok. So it goes the way you say, who comes in to steady the ship? Guardiola, Mourinho or Curbishley, O'Leary?

probably JFK

[ghostrider]

Ok. So it goes the way you say, who comes in to steady the ship? Guardiola, Mourinho or Curbishley, O'Leary?

We cant get rid of the dead wood because Charnley gave them ridiculously lucrative 4/5 year contracts. We will end up paying them to go. Complete mid management. Hes the one who should go.

Could Ashley be trying to force Rafa out as he's given him too much power and 99.9% of the fans want him? Ie going back on their agreement, everyone knowing the millions sitting there from tv money and sales but he won't hand it over, he is such an egotistical **** that he wont like Rafa speaking out in the press.

It appears Charnley gave them 5 year contracts and basically he's an incompetent at best and a total bell end at worst, I imagine, right?
Fair enough if that's the consensus among some, but what contracts do we give players we do buy?

Forget what they end up like, because we simply do not know the outcome of that until tried and tested.
Let me make this a bit more clearer.

What would you be saying if we gave Cabaye a smaller contract and he was picked up for nothing after turning out to be the decent player he was?
We didn't really know him any more than all the others. He was a gamble.

As I mentioned before: hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[toonlegend]

you can always give a decent 3 year contract - and you will know soon enough, within the 1st year whether to up that contract or not. or even have it built in that x y z enhancements will be made dependant on performance.

[waalsendmick]

we give 5 yr contracts, because we pay less. as June says, a good 3 yr contract is just as attractive to a potential signing.

they accept lower wages, knowing they're going to leave early and get their contract paid up.

[ghostrider]

you can always give a decent 3 year contract - and you will know soon enough, within the 1st year whether to up that contract or not. or even have it built in that x y z enhancements will be made dependant on performance.

Agreed. I totally agree but there lies a major problem with this club especially. Basically more to do with north east and the lure of the South or whatever.

So, if we look at the players we bought in who we gave 5 year deals to and set them on 3 year deals instead, I think we'd be losing a lot of players who's price tag went up massively because of it.

Look at Sissoko.
Imagine a 3 year contract on him.
Debuchy.
Cabaye, as I mentioned.

I could go on but the issue is, players are a gamble and the bosman ruling ensures that clubs have to take a chance on contracts to ensure a sell on fee rather than a player sitting out a final season of his contract, knowing he can go free or that a club will come in and steal him for much less than he's worth....Enrique as an example.

With the likes of Riviere and the likes, they're not that much of a club killer but a classic surplus that all clubs end up with in some shape or form.
When you build for the championship like we had to, then those players are going to dig in their heels when we try to offload.
I believe we will ship them out and may lose a few million in the deals...but, it's a minor issue if it frees up space for the odd incoming.

If we stick the newbies on shorter contracts and they end up having a good two seasons with us and get touted, then we lose them for knock down fees or the player could simply play out his contract and leave for free.

I prefer the longer deals and the rough with the smooth, because let's face it, we haven't done bad at all in that department.

[ghostrider]

we give 5 yr contracts, because we pay less. as June says, a good 3 yr contract is just as attractive to a potential signing.

they accept lower wages, knowing they're going to leave early and get their contract paid up.

No they don't accept lower wages at all. Where did you get that from?