| Welcome to The Arab League, one of the longest established Dundee United Football forums, with many members from the old ArabFC forum. New members are always welcomed, so to join the debate, just sign up - registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join The Arab League! If you're already a member please log in: |
| The Russell catch-all transfer thread | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 20 2013, 01:07 PM (22,051 Views) | |
| findus | Apr 24 2013, 02:18 PM Post #61 |
|
Jerry Kerr
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Conan's point still stands. Kick and scream for a new contract after 12-18 months or for a move (with another juicy Year 1). Don't get the new contract and there's an ill feeling around you at the club, performance drops, etc. You've now engineered a move away. Other clubs know this, so your sale value is lower than your actual value. Club loses on every level in this scenario. That's not a 'No', but it needs modification to spread the power a bit more evenly and to avoid such easily manipulatable smash n grabs contracts. I suppose what I'm saying here is that there is no strong incentive for players to stick around. The opposite, in fact. Edited by findus, Apr 24 2013, 02:26 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| whatsthatonyourback | Apr 24 2013, 02:46 PM Post #62 |
|
Waldo Jeffers
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm not sure that was Conran's point, but why would performance drop? If the player really wants away, he will have to attract a transfer by playing well. There's no reason why the club won't play him, and perhaps even a reason to give him more game time to get him off the books and maybe a transfer fee. He could sit out his last low-pay year in a sulk, but I don't see that benefitting anyone. Don't players get frozen out or lethargically wind down their contracts already? I'm struggling to see this system making that any worse. If a player wants a new contract 12-18 months in - fine - he must be performing well to deserve it - either the club decide they can afford it or have fair warning that this player is unaffordable and needs to be sold before their transfer price collapses. Again, I don't see how this works against the player - it's a performance industry, and neither does it work against the club. Top performers can really take advantage of the system but overpaid players are not stuck unwanted on the books quite so much as they are more affordable to a new club who might not be able to stomach his "average" wage, but could deal with his final year wage. Clubs pay for their signing mistakes nice and early rather than the slow strangling death of an experienced overpaid pro hanging around because he'll never make this sort of money elsewhere, causing bad feeling rather than being a role model to the squad. And anyway - does this happen any more at a club like ours? We don't sign pros near rthe end of their careers looking for one last big pay day, and footballers are much happier to just have a job at our level. Front-loading the contract is essentially inviting players - You think you're good? Think you're worth more money? Great - we'll pay you good money now - and if you're as good as you think you are, come back in a year and ask for more. If you're right about how good you are and how much you're worth, you'll get it either way and we'll help you get paid more either here or elsewhere. |
![]() |
|
| Naebody | Apr 24 2013, 05:45 PM Post #63 |
|
Twat
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Predictable grumbles above ... Of course it doesn't solve the biggest problem, which is that players in the final year of their contract have no resale value. If anyone wishes to solve that problem, please go ahead. What front-loaded pay does is help avert the problem from occurring. As for the "ill feeling, despondency, rancor and such" argument, I'm not buying it. Perhaps it would be irking to take an effective 50% pay cut on the last year of your contract (having taken an effective 50% pay rise in the first year). But, before assuming it will, you have to work out why that pay cut has happened. I see only three possibilities: 1. The player's not been offered a contract extension. That means he's not wanted by the club and is looking for a new job. If that's the case, he'd be an idiot to slack off for the final year. 2. The player's rejected a contract extension. That means he expects to get a new job elsewhere. That means he'd be tremendously brave to slack off for the final year. 3. The player's retiring at the end of the season, so is old, so shouldn't have been on a deflator contract in the first place. In those circumstances, any player who decides: "f*ck this for a laugh, I'm benchwarming until my dream move to Preston North End" would probably be the type of player that, historically, clubs have had to pay to go away. And, you know what? If their contract's been front loaded, the final payoff is much lower. Once again, it's a win. This is a brilliant idea. I'm glad I thought of it. |
![]() |
|
| Hamish | Apr 24 2013, 06:28 PM Post #64 |
|
Ian McCall
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The issue is resolved to some degree by building in enhanced percentages of future transfers into contracts which assist in removing the influence that the likes of Viola can have when players are in Russell's position - approaching 12 months left on the contract. That percentage - and it will vary over the duration of the contract - must amount to significantly greater in value than the enhanced wages deal that the agent can negotiate at an alternative club in the final, say 18, months of a player's contract. In short, the player must know he will benefit to the greater degree the higher his transfer value is. |
![]() |
|
| whatsthatonyourback | Apr 24 2013, 07:48 PM Post #65 |
|
Waldo Jeffers
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Not sure I follow that, Hamish. Care to provide an example? |
![]() |
|
| Hamish | Apr 24 2013, 08:47 PM Post #66 |
|
Ian McCall
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There is no example. It's an idea of how clubs like DUFC could begin to resolve the current issue that they face. Completely aside, did you watch the Dortmund demolition of Madrid tonight? Wonderful stuff. |
![]() |
|
| reekie | Apr 24 2013, 09:11 PM Post #67 |
|
lum raker
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Of course, there is the left-field, and not unreasonable, thought that players like Russell could just sign any proffered extension as they approach the final year of their contract. You know, acknowledge the fact that the club that has spent considerable time and money allowing them to realise their dream of being a professional footballer deserves some recompense. A little humility, that's all. I've no doubt that the agents have a singular, vested interest in advising them otherwise but that's their game, love it or loathe it. |
![]() |
|
| Micky | Apr 24 2013, 09:50 PM Post #68 |
|
Gordon Chisholm
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Are we entitles to a tribunal-determined fee given we developed him, or is that just between certain countries? And if so, which? |
![]() |
|
| reekie | Apr 24 2013, 09:57 PM Post #69 |
|
lum raker
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think we would be but that shouldn't detract from the fact that this could be easily, and profitably, resolved for all parties by the extension being agreed. |
![]() |
|
| Naebody | Apr 24 2013, 10:59 PM Post #70 |
|
Twat
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Reeks, it's a ten-year career in which 99 out of 100 professionals earn less than a dentist. While it's nice to talk about loyalty and suchlike, I really can't grudge anyone's decision to prioritise money. Hamish, I think what was being requested was a hypothetical example. I also struggled a bit to understand your masterplan. |
![]() |
|
| Skeletor | Apr 25 2013, 08:59 AM Post #71 |
|
Most likely to be Ann Widdecombe
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
And in the papers recently: Christian Dailly says.... not much Craig Brewster says go abroad Peter Houston says don't move, look at David Goodwillie he's shit now, just sign another year then get a move that's great for everyone, like David Goodwillie did. That last article has a nice little quote:
|
![]() |
|
| Setenza | Apr 25 2013, 10:25 AM Post #72 |
|
Knitting with only one needle
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Wouldn't there be a bit of a risk of wage inflation? Player get above his fair value one year, then if does well can keep earning that new level - but then why wouldn't he expect same deal next time, and then his wages are really starting to rise. It would end up pricing him out of the level we can afford. 1000/ week = 1500 / week for yr 1 Player does well Player expects 1500 / week wage. Then next time is expecting 2250/ week wage. |
![]() |
|
| Conan the Destroyer | Apr 25 2013, 11:24 AM Post #73 |
![]()
I prefer it when we're pish
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That's what I think. Say you would ordinarily pay a player £1000 a week. You agree to front load his contract and give him £1500 a week for year one. That's the wage budget increased straight away. When it comes time to reduce the wage the guy is either going to clear off or want a new contract at the inflated rate he was given before. It's not going to work. The rolling 18 month contract idea was much better. |
![]() |
|
| whatsthatonyourback | Apr 25 2013, 11:27 AM Post #74 |
|
Waldo Jeffers
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm not sure the wage inflation caused by a player doing well would be any more than in the current system. It would discourage good players from winding down their contracts and leaving for free, and if they have played so well that they could justifiably expect a much higher renegotiated contract, we will have the usual problem of deciding whether we can actually afford to renew this valuable player we have under contract. |
![]() |
|
| whatsthatonyourback | Apr 25 2013, 11:36 AM Post #75 |
|
Waldo Jeffers
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If he wants to clear off, that's fine - we have him on a 2 year contract and he has good money in the bank - assuming he's a player other clubs would want, they'll need to deal with us offering money. If he's good enough to retain, we can offer him an improved contract - or maybe even the same contract restarted so that he gets £1,500 p/w for the first year again - that's up to us to decide do we want to retain him, can we afford it and does he have resale value. I don;t imagine we'd significantly renegotiate contracts on players we didn't think had resale value. Of course, as their wage decreases it's up to the player to prove us wrong. It gives players who improve the chance to make more money out of us whilst we get to make money out of them when they move on. If the player is just so-so, his contract expires and he's been paid the same over the piece, with the advantage that he got more of it at the start and was able to buy a flash car and house he now can't afford. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Any Football · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




2:35 PM Jul 11