Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

    Search       Member List      Official United Site     ArabZone      ArabTRUST       BBC Sport     Twitter
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 6
  • 33
The Russell catch-all transfer thread
Topic Started: Apr 20 2013, 01:07 PM (22,050 Views)
reekie
Member Avatar
lum raker
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Naebody
Apr 24 2013, 10:59 PM
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.
I appreciate the brevity of a footballer's career but, in this instance, I suspect we're talking about someone who's going to make a very decent living from the game, whether he signs a contract extension or not.
By not signing one, the only loser is United.
It's not some misguided sense of loyalty that I'm talking about.
It's morally suspect to me.
If this is the cycle that our much vaunted youth academy is going to follow well....what 's the point?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
whatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
Waldo Jeffers
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Bear in mind the point of this, and the club generally, is not to retain great players forever.

We need to sell players for money, preferably when they're nearer their market peak, not when they have been devalued by an expiring contract.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
reekie
Member Avatar
lum raker
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
My point.

Hard to avoid this devaluation though, if the player won't sign an extension.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Conan the Destroyer
Member Avatar
I prefer it when we're pish
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
whatsthatonyourback
Apr 25 2013, 11:36 AM
Conan the Destroyer
Apr 25 2013, 11:24 AM
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.
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.
And if he does clear off after two years then the club have paid over the odds. The system would only work if you pay him in year one what you were going to pay him anyway.

This a stupid idea and I'm out.
Edited by Conan the Destroyer, Apr 25 2013, 12:05 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
whatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
Waldo Jeffers
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
reekie
Apr 25 2013, 11:57 AM
Hard to avoid this devaluation though, if the player won't sign an extension.
Of course, but frontloading the player's contract won't make this any worse, and gives the player an incentive to sign a new contract, if only for the bumper wages he'll get in the first year of the new contract.

If a player has a financial advisor rather than just an agent, he'd tell him "F*ck yeah - take the frontloaded contract" as it's much better for the player than the same money spread evenly over the whole contract.

It would take a pretty tough character to sit out his contract in the final year when he's on one third of what he was on two years ago. More likely, he'll sign a new contract with us or scream "GET ME OUT OF HERE!" to his agent, which should provide us with some sort of transfer fee and a highly motivated player. Throwing a sulk and sitting out his contract on peanuts in the reserves would really f*cking hurt and I don't see many doing that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
whatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
Waldo Jeffers
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Conan the Destroyer
Apr 25 2013, 12:04 PM
whatsthatonyourback
Apr 25 2013, 11:36 AM
Conan the Destroyer
Apr 25 2013, 11:24 AM
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.
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.
And if he does clear off after two years then the club have paid over the odds. The system would only work if you pay him in year one what you were going to pay him anyway.

This a stupid idea and I'm out.
It's a bit unusual, I'll grant you. Stupid? Dunno. I'm not hearing any major problems that the club can't control.

If he leaves after two years, we get money for him. The threat of sitting out his contract on one third of his first year's wages will be reduced significantly. He'd be highly motivated to find another club rather than hang about like a bad smell for a year.

Might even reduce the price mark down of players once they enter their final year, as those that see out their contract will reduce in numbers.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
reekie
Member Avatar
lum raker
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
whatsthatonyourback
Apr 25 2013, 12:06 PM
reekie
Apr 25 2013, 11:57 AM
Hard to avoid this devaluation though, if the player won't sign an extension.
Of course, but frontloading the player's contract won't make this any worse, and gives the player an incentive to sign a new contract, if only for the bumper wages he'll get in the first year of the new contract.

If a player has a financial advisor rather than just an agent, he'd tell him "F*ck yeah - take the frontloaded contract" as it's much better for the player than the same money spread evenly over the whole contract.

It would take a pretty tough character to sit out his contract in the final year when he's on one third of what he was on two years ago. More likely, he'll sign a new contract with us or scream "GET ME OUT OF HERE!" to his agent, which should provide us with some sort of transfer fee and a highly motivated player. Throwing a sulk and sitting out his contract on peanuts in the reserves would really f*cking hurt and I don't see many doing that.
Apologies, I wasn't commenting on your contract idea.
I really just talking about the current situation with Russell.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
whatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
Waldo Jeffers
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
reekie
Apr 25 2013, 12:16 PM
whatsthatonyourback
Apr 25 2013, 12:06 PM
reekie
Apr 25 2013, 11:57 AM
Hard to avoid this devaluation though, if the player won't sign an extension.
Of course, but frontloading the player's contract won't make this any worse, and gives the player an incentive to sign a new contract, if only for the bumper wages he'll get in the first year of the new contract.

If a player has a financial advisor rather than just an agent, he'd tell him "F*ck yeah - take the frontloaded contract" as it's much better for the player than the same money spread evenly over the whole contract.

It would take a pretty tough character to sit out his contract in the final year when he's on one third of what he was on two years ago. More likely, he'll sign a new contract with us or scream "GET ME OUT OF HERE!" to his agent, which should provide us with some sort of transfer fee and a highly motivated player. Throwing a sulk and sitting out his contract on peanuts in the reserves would really f*cking hurt and I don't see many doing that.
Apologies, I wasn't commenting on your contract idea.
I really just talking about the current situation with Russell.
Oops.

No, I apologise.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Conan the Destroyer
Member Avatar
I prefer it when we're pish
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
whatsthatonyourback
Apr 25 2013, 12:12 PM
Conan the Destroyer
Apr 25 2013, 12:04 PM
whatsthatonyourback
Apr 25 2013, 11:36 AM
Conan the Destroyer
Apr 25 2013, 11:24 AM
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.
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.
And if he does clear off after two years then the club have paid over the odds. The system would only work if you pay him in year one what you were going to pay him anyway.

This a stupid idea and I'm out.
It's a bit unusual, I'll grant you. Stupid? Dunno. I'm not hearing any major problems that the club can't control.

If he leaves after two years, we get money for him. The threat of sitting out his contract on one third of his first year's wages will be reduced significantly. He'd be highly motivated to find another club rather than hang about like a bad smell for a year.

Might even reduce the price mark down of players once they enter their final year, as those that see out their contract will reduce in numbers.
Stupid is harsh, but sometimes I like to be harsh, especially when it's on the internet and nobody is going to punch me.

Replacement "stupid" with "unworkable".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Conan the Destroyer
Member Avatar
I prefer it when we're pish
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I remain out.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
whatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
Waldo Jeffers
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Conan the Destroyer
Apr 25 2013, 12:19 PM
I remain out.
You don't need to be in.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
findus
Member Avatar
Jerry Kerr
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I can see potential benefit with players who are in the latter years of their career. Club can attract the player with immediate decent money, which then declines as he gets old and less useful. Such a player is less likely to kick and scream or engineer a move as, well, he's old and less useful - noone is interesting in paying him good money. On the other hand, does that player even care about front-loading by now? 'Gimme the money whichever way you want'.

For non-twilighters, I still can't see it making much sense in terms of redistributing some power from the players/agents back to the clubs. Players/agents would be stupid not to 'play' such a system.
Edited by findus, Apr 25 2013, 01:13 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hamish
Member Avatar
Ian McCall
[ *  *  *  * ]
Naebody
Apr 24 2013, 10:59 PM
Hamish, I think what was being requested was a hypothetical example. I also struggled a bit to understand your masterplan.
Hardly a masterplan. I thought it was rather obvious.

Follow the principles of the David Goodwillie situation - and from here I am making assumptions that what was reported in the press is by and large accurate.

DG's value rose when he signed his final contract extension which included 10% of a transfer fee. I am, again, assuming that that share was part of the extension to his deal and not the original contract.

Johnny Russell's valuation last autumn was probably about £1.5 million. It's currently probably about £1 million (though I suspect the club will do well to clear £800,000 this summer).

If he signed even a one-year extension now - to mid-2015 - that would bump up his valuation again to about £1.5 million. To achieve that, he'd need the incentive of a share - say 15%.

Incentivising players with a 'golden goodbye' cheque is in the interests of the club getting a greater number of transfer fees.

It's what I'd be doing with GMS now (and perhaps the club is) - as he's signed up to mid-2015. Persuade him to sign for another year in return for a share of any transfer fee.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Naebody
Member Avatar
Twat
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It's getting a bit TL;DR above, so apologies if I'm repeating anyone's point, but I think we're getting sidetracked here.

Let's change the example slightly.

Instead of paying players variable rates of pay over the length of the contract, what if it offered them interest-free loans?

For this hypothetical example, let's say a 21 year old on the fringes of a starting place and is signing his second professional deal that raises his pay to first-team levels.

As well as paying this player £100k a year over three years, the club offers him the option of an interest-free loan of £50k. The loan would be repayable only on completion of the contract.

So:

If the player runs his contract to completion he owes the club £50k.

If the player signs an extension, the £50k debt gets kicked forward.

And if the player moves before the end of their contract, the £50k loan is written off.

The gamble for the club is that the player's transfer value while in contract will be worth more than six month's wages. That doesn't seem an outrageous risk, in context.

(Disclaimer: anyone mentioning EBTs shouldn't expect a polite response.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Conan the Destroyer
Member Avatar
I prefer it when we're pish
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
whatsthatonyourback
Apr 25 2013, 12:19 PM
Conan the Destroyer
Apr 25 2013, 12:19 PM
I remain out.
You don't need to be in.
Ok. I'm in then.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Any Football · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 6
  • 33

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.