Centenary celebrations but will it be Tony Stewart's last?

[UlleyMiller]

You make some valid points, but I think that the central premise of your 'plan' - that we gather a nuclus of young players who we can rely on to be here every year is so far removed from the reality that clubs have to deal with. It is a players game, not a problem with that, they are the performers, and if you are fortunate or even skillful enough to unearth a real gem, maybe not to command silly money, but of the ilk of Chio, Dan and Victor, then I'm afraid that they hold the cards and when it comes to the contract renegotiation with us, I don't think they will be as keen to resign on the max money that we can afford to pay them. They will have a good idea of their worth, and whilst we may think that we are making them a good offer, if they don't agree, they know that the clock will run down and better money awaits elsewhere.

How would you deal with these real world scenarios? You seem to again be talking about a kind of alternative reality that seems a bit removed from the one we have to live in! Although I must stress that I agree that there is seeming evidence that the club can and should be run better, that there are most likely to be many things that Tont should be doing differently, I don't think trying to apply unrealistic scenarios is very helpful.

DB signed on a 3 year deal after failing to make top level and having stuttered around with Crewe and Accrington.
CO signed on a 3 year deal, wasn't good enough to make it at Champ level, and made little impact in L2 for Exeter.
VJ signed on a 2 year deal and then extended after failing to break through at Leicester.

They were willing to sign for 3 years plus. All of them. And putting aside your needless swipes, the actual reality is that the first two gave enough to justify better terms after the first year. In both cases it wouldn't be unrealistic to negotiate hard to get a 3-4 year deal from that point, a big jump in salary, and an agreeable release clause. They're confident lads, but a season of good play after a pretty uninspiring few years doesn't make them think Liverpool are waiting.

Ollie shouldn't be in his situation either. The Wiles move was avoidable, or could have yielded more. Humphreys enters the same territory soon. Lindsay will likely walk too.

People can kid themselves all they like, but all these situations come from the refusal to back what we have. We'll always uncover more Hugills than Humphreys, but it's ridiculous to suggest we can't reposition their deals until they hold the aces when we do find quality.

[ragingpup]

DB signed on a 3 year deal after failing to make top level and having stuttered around with Crewe and Accrington.
CO signed on a 3 year deal, wasn't good enough to make it at Champ level, and made little impact in L2 for Exeter.
VJ signed on a 2 year deal and then extended after failing to break through at Leicester.

They were willing to sign for 3 years plus. All of them. And putting aside your needless swipes, the actual reality is that the first two gave enough to justify better terms after the first year. In both cases it wouldn't be unrealistic to negotiate hard to get a 3-4 year deal from that point, a big jump in salary, and an agreeable release clause. They're confident lads, but a season of good play after a pretty uninspiring few years doesn't make them think Liverpool are waiting.

Ollie shouldn't be in his situation either. The Wiles move was avoidable, or could have yielded more. Humphreys enters the same territory soon. Lindsay will likely walk too.

People can kid themselves all they like, but all these situations come from the refusal to back what we have. We'll always uncover more Hugills than Humphreys, but it's ridiculous to suggest we can't reposition their deals until they hold the aces when we do find quality.

Ok, but I remember in the first year, Barlaser for one went through a very poor patch and I don't think that there was a clamour for anyone of these players to be resigned on a much larger contract at that stage. I would completely agree that it would be wonderful if you could assuredly and definitely guarantee that such talent could be spotted and nailed down to much improved terms within 9 months of not perfoming well enough for other clubs to sign, and it to pay off consistently with such players realising their potential so they could serve out their contracts for years to come for us and us defying that trend that you correlates final league position with size of the wage budget. And that we wouldn't be hit with a player that resigns on great terms, and then loses form completely so we are left with a big money reserve.

I do agree with your general point that we need to be better at identifying great talent earlier and offering them better terms so they accept but I'm not sure you fully recognise the trickiness in identifying such talent in the up and down flux of players form as well as the costiness when you get it wrong. I agree we could be better at it but I'm not sure you fully realise the difficulty and risk involved to any club operating with a tight budget.

[Derbymiller]

Ok, but I remember in the first year, Barlaser for one went through a very poor patch and I don't think that there was a clamour for anyone of these players to be resigned on a much larger contract at that stage. I would completely agree that it would be wonderful if you could assuredly and definitely guarantee that such talent could be spotted and nailed down to much improved terms within 9 months of not perfoming well enough for other clubs to sign, and it to pay off consistently with such players realising their potential so they could serve out their contracts for years to come for us and us defying that trend that you correlates final league position with size of the wage budget. And that we wouldn't be hit with a player that resigns on great terms, and then loses form completely so we are left with a big money reserve.

I do agree with your general point that we need to be better at identifying great talent earlier and offering them better terms so they accept but I'm not sure you fully recognise the trickiness in identifying such talent in the up and down flux of players form as well as the costiness when you get it wrong. I agree we could be better at it but I'm not sure you fully realise the difficulty and risk involved to any club operating with a tight budget.

You are correct players have a lot of power, well actually it is the agents that do. However 10s if not 100s of footballers drop out of the game every year at various stages of their careers and a number of them still have a lot to give. Now we shop in that market and it is not unreasonable for the fans to expect the professional buyers that are paid well by the club should be able to identify and resource three or four of them a season, remember the head of that department was recently promoted to DoF. Secondly we have suffered losing players for nothing or next to nothing as their contracts have come to an end, so what approach to contracts have been taken that meant we lost out, do other clubs similar to us use a different approach, do they get better results in regards to moving players on. These questions are valid and this is what the DoF And the CEO (ha!) should be resolving and improving. Now it could be that TS stops such creative and different ways of working, you would hope not because it is the clubs pockets that are being hit. So what is it that stops us doing better in this area? If it is short-sighted TS then little we can do until he moves on, if it is the skills of the employees then change them, we change the coaches when they hit a bad run of results, why not the ones that hide in the background. We are a small club but this year has highlighted a number of areas that simply are not acceptable even within the constraints we operate within. Just an opinion

[ragingpup]

You are correct players have a lot of power, well actually it is the agents that do. However 10s if not 100s of footballers drop out of the game every year at various stages of their careers and a number of them still have a lot to give. Now we shop in that market and it is not unreasonable for the fans to expect the professional buyers that are paid well by the club should be able to identify and resource three or four of them a season, remember the head of that department was recently promoted to DoF. Secondly we have suffered losing players for nothing or next to nothing as their contracts have come to an end, so what approach to contracts have been taken that meant we lost out, do other clubs similar to us use a different approach, do they get better results in regards to moving players on. These questions are valid and this is what the DoF And the CEO (ha!) should be resolving and improving. Now it could be that TS stops such creative and different ways of working, you would hope not because it is the clubs pockets that are being hit. So what is it that stops us doing better in this area? If it is short-sighted TS then little we can do until he moves on, if it is the skills of the employees then change them, we change the coaches when they hit a bad run of results, why not the ones that hide in the background. We are a small club but this year has highlighted a number of areas that simply are not acceptable even within the constraints we operate within. Just an opinion

Absolutely fair to ask questions and as I said I'm sure there are big areas we could improve on with many aspects of the club. But reading some of the crits on several threads, you would have thought that we were a hopeless Lge 2 side on it's way to the conference, not a club that has League 1 budget but has spent most of the last decade in the championship. Surely we are getting some things right historically, although Warne was clearly a big factor in that. Just think any discussion of this could do with more balance and some recognition of the achievements from the club in recent years, as well as scrutiny of what could be done better.

[UlleyMiller]

Ok, but I remember in the first year, Barlaser for one went through a very poor patch and I don't think that there was a clamour for anyone of these players to be resigned on a much larger contract at that stage. I would completely agree that it would be wonderful if you could assuredly and definitely guarantee that such talent could be spotted and nailed down to much improved terms within 9 months of not perfoming well enough for other clubs to sign, and it to pay off consistently with such players realising their potential so they could serve out their contracts for years to come for us and us defying that trend that you correlates final league position with size of the wage budget. And that we wouldn't be hit with a player that resigns on great terms, and then loses form completely so we are left with a big money reserve.

I do agree with your general point that we need to be better at identifying great talent earlier and offering them better terms so they accept but I'm not sure you fully recognise the trickiness in identifying such talent in the up and down flux of players form as well as the costiness when you get it wrong. I agree we could be better at it but I'm not sure you fully realise the difficulty and risk involved to any club operating with a tight budget.

As well as a 'problem for every solution' mindset, you seem to obsess about the idea that anyone questioning the club's ability to improve has a poor grasp on reality or can't understand pretty basic concepts. Far be it from me to coach new thinking into anyone, but maybe consider how limiting that is - there wouldn't be much progress anywhere if people routinely shut down every time they hit a challenge.

Barlaser was with us on loan in his first season, we signed him after that and his stats and value slowly improved. He's not an isolated example, in fact it's harder to find examples of good contract management, but he's yet another we scouted, had belief in, signed, coached, developed a rapport with, and then sat back, watching his 36 months drift by. The approach we lack is continuity, and despite putting in the hard yards to scout and attract the talent, we then assume that either things will be different this time (they seldom are), or that we haven't seen 'enough' to extend contracts in a timely manner. It's not even just about pinning down the best talent, just ensuring we don't lose all the talent and cycle round like we do. Let's remember that we have faith in those charged with bringing players in (scouts, DoF, manager), and if we lose the faith in so many players after one season to a point where we don't want to retain a lengthier term, get rid of the scouts and DoF.

I model financial risk and work around complex contracts all week. It's a far bigger risk to not have adequate resource and to not have security around partnerships than it is to have a small percentage of your cost base not performing. The latter is easily fixable.

[Brin]

….and the prize for the longest, longest, longest post goes to……

[ragingpup]

Barlaser was with us on loan in his first season, we signed him after that and his stats and value slowly improved. He's not an isolated example, in fact it's harder to find examples of good contract management, but he's yet another we scouted, had belief in, signed, coached, developed a rapport with, and then sat back, watching his 36 months drift by.

I model financial risk and work around complex contracts all week. It's a far bigger risk to not have adequate resource and to not have security around partnerships than it is to have a small percentage of your cost base not performing. The latter is easily fixable.

What is the evidence that we did nothing in the 36 months to get him to sign? I would have expected that we would have been negotiating from at least half way through that point, and whilst we weren't successful asd we were with Victor, I can't say that we didn't try. If we didn't then you would completely be right but isn't it possible that we offered him terms but they were't agreeable to him and he, and his agent of course, realised by this point that he could do better and earn more in a way that of course proved correct for him. And Chio.

If we did indeed do nothing but let his contract run down and not once spoke to him until the final transfer window, then I'd be furious also with the club. But as Stewart is a business man and is surely aware of the potential value of the better players, I'm sure that such conversations took place.

Didn't Rathbone indicate as much? That there had been discussions and he was open to staying if the right offer came along. That doesn't sound like watching a contract run down - it sounds like conversations were had, but the player vaued his services more than we could/were prepared to offer. In your business, what do you do if someone asks for more money than you can afford to pay or that you think he's worth. I have that quite a lot where I work, where public funds are limited, I train a lot of great people and then lose them to our wealthier competitors in the sector. I work with the directors, I se ethe balance sheets - its the way of the world as far as I can see. I have to find fresh talent and quickly upskill them again.

If it is true that we do as you say, sit back for 36 months and let their contracts run down and opened the door for them to leave, then I completely apologise. Just don't see it somehow.

[UlleyMiller]

….and the prize for the longest, longest, longest post goes to……

...forum contributors...

[Brin]

...forum contributors...

Chill out cup cake it was a humorous slant on what I had just read through . A good debate actually and well contributed to like you say.

[UlleyMiller]

What is the evidence that we did nothing in the 36 months to get him to sign?

What's the evidence either way? It's utterly moot. The issue is we failed as a club, so hire people who can make more impact. We're dreadful at this, so fix it.

In your business, what do you do if someone asks for more money than you can afford to pay or that you think he's worth.

Opinions are irrelevant, I don't care what any one person thinks any employee is worth. It's a case of the cost to retain vs the impact of them going - opinions come out of it. There are more metrics in football than anywhere, and the Moneyball approach underpins how all of this works in any sensible organisation. Thankfully I don't work in the public sector (for a huge number of reasons), so there's a far greater connection between the commercial reality of these situations.