Renewing players contracts.

[backson]

That's a hell of a lot of players. I've worked out that there's only 10 contracted past the summer, and I've had a little search around to see who's got what left.

2009 - Whing, Robinson, Gatting Elphick
2010 - Lynch, Cox, Forster, Thomson, Dixon
2011 - Murray

 

[Withdean Wanderer]

Yup I wouldn't be sorry to see Mayo, Hart or Butters go. As they're all senior players and have been at the club for some time they are probably among our most highly paid players. .

That's just rubbish - if anything, they'd be our LOWEST paid players...and that's why i'd consider keeping them, even if only on a short term deal, before seeing who comes in in the summer.

When Racon, Westlake, Richards and to a lesser extent Martot clear off, the squad is going to be thing. There's no guarantee we're going to get adequate replacements, and I can't help but think that with a squad so thing, we'd be better off keeping 'solid' squad players as opposed to gambling on unknown signings like McFaul.

 

[BigGully]

A player on a longer contract is worth more than someone on a short contract. I don't see Elphick as being a carrot/stick type player. He clearly plays because he loves the game and I really can't imagine him giving anything less than 100%. If you reward those that work hard at their game and show loyalty, then the benefits are immeasurable. One spin off scenario is that this sort of thing will continue to attract young players to the club/academy

I am not saying that Elphick isnt a club player through and through and we all have high hopes for him.

But I am not sure why you should feel that a player on a longer contract can somehow attract a higher transfer fee at his age.

Another team either will want to buy him or not, long contract or short contract
( except if there is minimum or maximum transfer clause in it ).

Hammond left whilst at the end of a contract and the club got £250,000, not sure if Hammond had a longer one whether the fee would increase.

It is entirely down to whether there is a willing buying club and a willing selling club.

 

[BigGully]

That's just rubbish - if anything, they'd be our LOWEST paid players...and that's why i'd consider keeping them, even if only on a short term deal, before seeing who comes in in the summer.

When Racon, Westlake, Richards and to a lesser extent Martot clear off, the squad is going to be thing. There's no guarantee we're going to get adequate replacements, and I can't help but think that with a squad so thing, we'd be better off keeping 'solid' squad players as opposed to gambling on unknown signings like McFaul.

Disagree

Butters, Mayo & Hart are more than likely to be the higher end of the wage scale.

We all know that Hart and Mayo's contract are linked in to a time when they were KEY players within the squad and to some extent Butters is too, although he has made a real contribution this year.

Dunno what Racon and Westlake has done to upset you, they seem to be very very good players at a good age, but both on loan anyway.

 

[Da Man Clay]

I am not saying that Elphick isnt a club player through and through and we all have high hopes for him.

But I am not sure why you should feel that a player on a longer contract can somehow attract a higher transfer fee at his age.

Another team either will want to buy him or not, long contract or short contract
( except if there is minimum or maximum transfer clause in it ).

Hammond left whilst at the end of a contract and the club got £250,000, not sure if Hammond had a longer one whether the fee would increase.

It is entirely down to whether there is a willing buying club and a willing selling club.

Of course it makes a diffence how long a contract is on his worth. Had Hammonds contract not been up this year I doubt very much we would have sold him for any less than 400k.

If next year someone comes calling for Elphick in say January and offer 400k, we would have little choice but to take it IMO. Tribunals can being up some very strange figures and given that Elphick would have only played league 1 football I doubt we would get any more than that.

However if Elphick was on a contract till 10/11 we could tell them to get stuffed for anything less than 750k. Surely it makes sense to reward you're better players with long contracts?

 

[The Large One]

I am not saying that Elphick isnt a club player through and through and we all have high hopes for him.

But I am not sure why you should feel that a player on a longer contract can somehow attract a higher transfer fee at his age.

Another team either will want to buy him or not, long contract or short contract
( except if there is minimum or maximum transfer clause in it ).

Hammond left whilst at the end of a contract and the club got £250,000, not sure if Hammond had a longer one whether the fee would increase.

It is entirely down to whether there is a willing buying club and a willing selling club.

Of course a longer contract is worth more in transfer terms.

It shows commitment from the club for a player's services. The longer his contract, the more he is desired. If nothing else, the value placed upon a player by the buying club needs to incorporate the paying up of the rest of the contract to the selling club on account of the fact that the selling club is losing out on someone whose services they assumed they would be getting. It's a form of compensation.

Of course, that counts for bugger all in the higher divisions, but that is the concept of a player contract - a document of commitment from both parties to each other.

 

[O Lads]

Kerry Mayo-Past it, way way way too slow for League 1 and definitely for championship
Adam Hinshelwood-Give him another 6 month contract. He was quality in the championship and you never lose natural talent, regardless of how long you've been out. I'm sure he's back from injury just after season ends? Get him match fit he'll be a great assett.
Adam El-Abd-Definitely worth a new deal
Gary Hart-People keep saying 'he's lost his pace' against Swindon he was up and down that right wing like his old self. not sure though
John Sullivan-We kept him over Richard Martin and if given the chance at first team level hopefully he can do well. Worth a new deal
Guy Butters-Not worth a new playing contract, too slow, not enough stamina. if he wants to coach however then keep him on. Ive seen him in pre match warm ups going a few drills with our defenders and definitely knows alot about football.
Paul Reid-Don't think anyone can argue with his performances when he's played, been a bit unlucky with injuries but when fit, worth keeping. Very versatile as well.
Michel Kuipers-Definitely worth a new contract.
Sam Rents-Not sure, haven't seen too much of him.
Tommy Fraser-Great tough tackling midfielder, could develop into the Roy Keane of our side.
Doug Loft-I'd say he's worth a new contract, makes an impact when he comes on and if we dont sign Westlake perm. need a bck up left winger.
Scott Chamberlain-Not seen much of him
Wes Fogden-seems like he could become a decent player, worth keeping hold of.
Shane Mcfaul-Does anybody know how good he is? Has only played about 15 seconds for the first team.
Sam Gargan-not seen to much of him
Sonny Cobbs-''
Lloyd Skinner-''
Chris Winterton-''
Tommy Elphick-Do i even have to say anything?

 

[Dave the OAP]

Kerry Mayo-Past it, way way way too slow for League 1 and definitely for championship
Adam Hinshelwood-Give him another 6 month contract. He was quality in the championship and you never lose natural talent, regardless of how long you've been out. I'm sure he's back from injury just after season ends? Get him match fit he'll be a great assett.
Adam El-Abd-Definitely worth a new deal
Gary Hart-People keep saying 'he's lost his pace' against Swindon he was up and down that right wing like his old self. not sure though
John Sullivan-We kept him over Richard Martin and if given the chance at first team level hopefully he can do well. Worth a new deal
Guy Butters-Not worth a new playing contract, too slow, not enough stamina. if he wants to coach however then keep him on. Ive seen him in pre match warm ups going a few drills with our defenders and definitely knows alot about football.
Paul Reid-Don't think anyone can argue with his performances when he's played, been a bit unlucky with injuries but when fit, worth keeping. Very versatile as well.
Michel Kuipers-Definitely worth a new contract.
Sam Rents-Not sure, haven't seen too much of him.
Tommy Fraser-Great tough tackling midfielder, could develop into the Roy Keane of our side.
Doug Loft-I'd say he's worth a new contract, makes an impact when he comes on and if we dont sign Westlake perm. need a bck up left winger.
Scott Chamberlain-Not seen much of him
Wes Fogden-seems like he could become a decent player, worth keeping hold of.
Shane Mcfaul-Does anybody know how good he is? Has only played about 15 seconds for the first team.
Sam Gargan-not seen to much of him
Sonny Cobbs-''
Lloyd Skinner-''
Chris Winterton-''
Tommy Elphick-Do i even have to say anything?

you forgot the Dixon from Aldershot ( who the word on the street, signing was a mistake"!!!!)

 

[Da Man Clay]

Dixon isn't out of contract till 2010.

 

[Dave the OAP]

Dixon isn't out of contract till 2010.

if he is still here in August, I will be amazed

 

[Da Man Clay]

Ill be amazed if he's not. We aren't the sort of team that outs dead wood before their contracts are up. I haven't seen enough of him (and I doubt many have other than people at the club) to make a decision on whether he is dead wood or not.

 

[BigGully]

Of course it makes a diffence how long a contract is on his worth. Had Hammonds contract not been up this year I doubt very much we would have sold him for any less than 400k.

If next year someone comes calling for Elphick in say January and offer 400k, we would have little choice but to take it IMO. Tribunals can being up some very strange figures and given that Elphick would have only played league 1 football I doubt we would get any more than that.

However if Elphick was on a contract till 10/11 we could tell them to get stuffed for anything less than 750k. Surely it makes sense to reward you're better players with long contracts?

Hammonds transfer was driven by the bosman that he had at the end of the season, thats why clubs need to tie their important players down to longer deals when a player is nearing a bosman.

It was us who was driving the deal to sell.

If Elphick came to the end of his current deal and was offered a new deal I am not convinced that the club are any less covered if they didnt want to sell, because his registration is still solely BHA's and the negotiations remain exactly the same.

I am sure ( but not certain ) that as long as the club offers a player a new deal within the correct timeframes etc. that the player or any buying club does not have any redress at tribunals.

Having said that what happens if he turns down the contract offer

 

[The Large One]

Hammonds transfer was driven by the bosman that he had at the end of the season, thats why clubs need to tie their important players down to longer deals when a player is nearing a bosman.

It was us who was driving the deal to sell.

If Elphick came to the end of his current deal and was offered a new deal I am not convinced that the club are any less covered if they didnt want to sell, because his registration is still solely BHA's and the negotiations remain exactly the same.

I am sure ( but not certain ) that as long as the club offers a player a new deal within the correct timeframes etc. that the player or any buying club does not have any redress at tribunals.

Having said that what happens if he turns down the contract offer

You're putting a lot of faith that, because he's under 24, that we'd be entitled to a fee. It would be only a fraction of a fee than if he remained under contract - the longer the better.

You're also forgetting the point that Elphick is effectively a first-year professional (his number of first team appearances before this season? FIVE), and is therefore relatively inexpensive. If he continues improving at the rate he is going at, it is going to be harder to negotiate a contract when he could command a higher salary later on.

 

[BigGully]

Of course a longer contract is worth more in transfer terms.

It shows commitment from the club for a player's services. The longer his contract, the more he is desired. If nothing else, the value placed upon a player by the buying club needs to incorporate the paying up of the rest of the contract to the selling club on account of the fact that the selling club is losing out on someone whose services they assumed they would be getting. It's a form of compensation.

Of course, that counts for bugger all in the higher divisions, but that is the concept of a player contract - a document of commitment from both parties to each other.

It shows commitment from the club for a player's services:

Agreed

The longer his contract, the more he is desired:

This is where the club needs to be careful, he is desired when that contract is signed but it is not guaranteed that that desire remains for the duration of that contract.

If nothing else, the value placed upon a player by the buying club needs to incorporate the paying up of the rest of the contract to the selling club on account of the fact that the selling club is losing out on someone whose services they assumed they would be getting:

Thats called a transfer fee. Think that most fee's are based on current market rates for similar players rather than attributing length of contracts. Ultimately how much does the club wish to sell and how much does a club wish to buy.

Of course, that counts for bugger all in the higher divisions, but that is the concept of a player contract - a document of commitment from both parties to each other.[/QUOTE]

Agreed

 

[BigGully]

You're putting a lot of faith that, because he's under 24, that we'd be entitled to a fee. It would be only a fraction of a fee than if he remained under contract - the longer the better.

You're also forgetting the point that Elphick is effectively a first-year professional (his number of first team appearances before this season? FIVE), and is therefore relatively inexpensive. If he continues improving at the rate he is going at, it is going to be harder to negotiate a contract when he could command a higher salary later on.

But that is the call .............

I am recognising the fact of his relative inexperience ...............

Do you sign him today on a longer decent contract with a chance of him not developing as much as we would like.

Or do you hang fire see if he continues to progress and have to pay a higher premium in a year's time.

Guess we gotta leave it to Wilkins and trust him.

 

[The Large One]

It can work both ways.

We could sign him up for four years, and he becomes a donkey OR...

We could sign him up for four years, and he is instrumental in us pissing League One next year, and West Brom or Middlesbrough or someone pay £3m for him in 2 years' time.

Who can say?

 

[Da Man Clay]

Thats called a transfer fee. Think that most fee's are based on current market rates for similar players rather than attributing length of contracts. Ultimately how much does the club wish to sell and how much does a club wish to buy.

[/I][/B]

Its based on a combination of factors. Obviously lengths of contract is one of those factors. If a player is on a five year contract he is obviously going to be more highly rated by the selling club and as such would put more value on. If there is 6 months or a year left on a contract this suits the buying club as they know the selling club only have a limited time in which to "cash in"

 

[BigGully]

Can someone confirm the current rules for a 21 year old player that is offered within the statutory timeframes etc, a new improved contract at a time when another club shows an interest.

If that players club will not sell and the player wishes to leave for that buying club, at what point would that trigger a tribunal ??

 

[The Large One]

Can someone confirm the current rules for a 21 year old player that is offered within the statutory timeframes etc, a new improved contract at a time when another club shows an interest.

If that players club will not sell and the player wishes to leave for that buying club, at what point would that trigger a tribunal ??

A tribunal is only triggered when two clubs agree a transfer, but can't agree a fee (after a player has accepted his own terms, of course).

 

[BigGully]

A tribunal is only triggered when two clubs agree a transfer, but can't agree a fee (after a player has accepted his own terms, of course).

I think it might also be triggered when a new contract is rejected and another club wishes to sign that player irrespective of the wishes of that players initial club.

BBC SPORT | Football | My Club | Coventry City | Tribunal sets fee for Best move

It seems that a longer contract would undoubtedly give a greater security to the club of a player and offer that club an independance in negotiations should there be outside interest.

I stand corrected ............... to a point !!