| 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 (22,047 Views) | |
| whatsthatonyourback | Apr 27 2013, 06:07 PM Post #121 |
|
Waldo Jeffers
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There would be quite a lot different. Russell would now be facing his final year at the club for £500p/w if he wants to see out his contract. When he's looking to move for much higher wages which, let's face it, he is worth, that is going to hurt a lot. The fact that he got disproportionately more of his total contract two years ago will now seem irrelevant to him. Assuming he's not dying to leave Dundee United for reasons other than money, what we could offer him now is a new 3 year contract for, let's say, £3kp/w starting now, with it going down to £2k p/w and finally £1k p/w. We might even throw in a transfer sweetener where he gets 20% of any future transfer fee in the first year of his contract, 10% in his second, 0% in his third year (not really thought this through, but you can see the same principle of descending payments to the player as his contract nears its end, encouraging the re-signing of contracts). Why would he sign this extension? Well, on the assumption that other than money he is pretty happy here, he can bag £3k p/w next year rather than £500 p/w, as well as a big cut of any transfer fee we make. That is a big difference to wave in front of him, even if it involves a longer contract, and it should be made very clear to him that we have no intention of keeping him to the end of his contract, only to make sure whoever buys him is doing so because he is a valued asset rather than the impulse purchase of discounted sweet snacks nearing their Best Before date. Just to be clear - United want to sell our players, all of our players, for as much as we can get. All of the time. We are a selling club. We do this by making the players as good as possible and selling them when they're as good as we can make them. We make less by holding on to players too long or by selling them too early, while the players make less if they leave too early, stunting their development and future earnings in the process. We make the club as desirable as possible for young players to come to and stay at until they're ready for the big move. Paying them great money up front and expecting them to ask for improved contracts and be sold to a better team is how we sell the club to them. Trying to imprison them on lengthy contracts that they could do much better than elsewhere is unrealistic and undesirable. |
![]() |
|
| whatsthatonyourback | Apr 27 2013, 06:14 PM Post #122 |
|
Waldo Jeffers
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Isn't that a bit like a watered down version of the Frontloading contract? If so, is this your way of accepting the superior qualities of frontloading? I'm not against it in principal, but it sounds a bit complicated and inserting an extra year into an existing contract might be legally dubious. |
![]() |
|
| whatsthatonyourback | Apr 27 2013, 06:15 PM Post #123 |
|
Waldo Jeffers
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Tell us the benefits and how it would work and I might go for it. |
![]() |
|
| whatsthatonyourback | Apr 27 2013, 06:26 PM Post #124 |
|
Waldo Jeffers
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Assuming you're referring to Naebs's prior advocacy of the 18 months rolling contract, that's a pretty spurious reason to reject anything different he might suggest later. Is it better to stick to the first thing you said on a subject despite more information and better alternatives emerging? |
![]() |
|
| reekie | Apr 27 2013, 09:09 PM Post #125 |
|
lum raker
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Nope. Still don't see the game-changing idea here. ST - Johnny, want to sign an extension? JR - Not really, no. ST - Ah, but we've got this new contract thing where...[explains front-loaded contract idea]...see? JR - Uh, no thanks. Think I'll just head to the Championship/Celtics for £10k a week. I've only got a year left on my current deal, so everything's in my favour really. I'm not being deliberately obtuse here. And I get the concept. I just can't see how it would help clubs like United. |
![]() |
|
| Naebody | Apr 27 2013, 09:34 PM Post #126 |
|
Twat
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think the point, Reeks, is that he would've signed the pay-forward contract in 2009. That would put United in a stronger position at the moment. You'll note from that press release that McCord, Watson and Russell were all at the same stage of development. Turned out one made the grade, one didn't and one remains a work in progress. Those are the outcomes outlined here. And no-one's given a reason yet why presenting these outcomes does not benefit both the employer and the employee.
... which is precisely the problem you want to neutralise when you can. |
![]() |
|
| reekie | Apr 27 2013, 10:18 PM Post #127 |
|
lum raker
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Which brings me back to my point that it's not the length or renumerative quality of the contract offer but the timing of it. I'm sure that, in reply to the recent Rooney speculation, Sir Alex stated that, 'he'll be getting offered a new contract because he's only got two years left on his current one. With the best will in the world, you can offer JR the best, front-loaded or not contract United can muster, but if we've left it until he's only got a year left on his deal then it's a busted flush. You asked, 'why wouldn't players sign such a contract' (or, what are the drawbacks)? I'm asking, why would they? |
![]() |
|
| findus | Apr 27 2013, 10:31 PM Post #128 |
|
Jerry Kerr
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Russell doesn't sign the pay-forward contract. His agent insists there is no 50% loan (why the fcuk would they agree to that option?), just a front-loaded contract. 12-18 months in, just as they're hitting the mid-salary point they kick and scream for better terms. They don't get them, they push for a move and other clubs are alerted that United will now probably be forced to sell on the cheap. We've lost money by overpaying him in the first part of the original front-loaded contract. We're now overpaying him again in this second front-loaded contract. Edited by findus, Apr 27 2013, 10:43 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| whatsthatonyourback | Apr 27 2013, 11:14 PM Post #129 |
|
Waldo Jeffers
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Don't follow your point findus. Did he sign the second front loaded contract or not? Either way, 12-18 months into his contract is exactly when we want him and his agent to be moaning about a new contract. If we offer one and he signs, we have him safely under contract for 3 years. If he doesn't sign we've had plenty of warning that we need to sell him, or make him sweat that he'll be on 500 quid next season. Nothing can make players sign if we really can't afford them or they really want to leave for nothing. I still think a frontloaded contract makes it more likely they'll sign on for longer with us and see out their contract less often. We'd be giving the player an immediate financial incentive to sign rather than begging them to act against their financial interests by tying themselves to us for a further 3 years that pays them way less than they could earn right now somewhere else. |
![]() |
|
| reekie | Apr 27 2013, 11:31 PM Post #130 |
|
lum raker
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But they never see out their contracts! That's the point. All the cleverly-induced enticements in the world don't matter unless you offer any new contract in good time. It just doesn't work, I'm afraid. You're offering a final-year bad deal that will never be realised. No? |
![]() |
|
| findus | Apr 28 2013, 12:09 AM Post #131 |
|
Jerry Kerr
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
And we've just overpaid them for that first year of the front-loaded 3-year contract that merely gets reset to a new (and probably improved) front-loaded 3-year contract 12-18 months into the contract. The low-salary end of the contract doesn't get seen! That is, unless the player is getting old or will be surplus to requirements... and in those cases, we're not expecting to sell them on for a profit anyhow. The young prospects that we want to sell on we end up overpaying or they leave at a cut price or they leave for free. It's like the situation we have now, only we shell out more on wages most of the time. Edited by findus, Apr 28 2013, 12:25 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| reekie | Apr 28 2013, 12:25 AM Post #132 |
|
lum raker
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes! |
![]() |
|
| Naebody | Apr 28 2013, 11:36 AM Post #133 |
|
Twat
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Time value of money. It's quite an important concept here. Central, in fact. If a player('s agent) doesn't understand that £50k today is worth more than £50k in three years then I give up.
Look, signing a player at the age of 19 is always a gamble. There's no way of knowing if they'll be a Russell, a Watson or a McCord. So. At the age of 20, Russell, Watson and McCord are all offered three-year deals at £100k a year. All of them take the interest-free loan repayable in year three, because all of them understand the foundation principle of all financial transactions. After 18 months it's apparent that McCord won't make the cut. He enters his final year, repays the £50k loan and leaves on a free. The club and the player are no worse off than they were. After 18 months it's apparent that Watson can do a job for the first-team. That's good. So the club wants to extend his contract for a further three years. But Watson reckons he could wait a year then move to another SPL club, bag the signing bonus and earn a little more. However, doing that would mean he had to repay the £50k loan, which would offset any potential pay rise. Watson has to consider also that the repayment clause would kick in six months before he could talk to another club, and six months is a very long time in a football career. These are all disincentives for Watson to walk out the door for free. The club benefits from improved stability at a cost (as in debt, still repayable) of £50k. After 18 months it's apparent that Russell will probably be moving to a higher level. That's great. The club wants to extend his contract for a further three years. But Russell reckons he could just wait a year then move to Sicily/Birmingham/Glasgow for free, bagging the big signing-on bonus. However, doing that would mean he had to repay the £50k loan, which would put a not insignificant dent in his bonus. Therefore, it's in his interests to either extend his contract or seek a transfer asap, as either of these options saves him £50k. They also, needless to say, benefit the club for whom the £50k debt is now nearly irrelevant in the context of a £1m+ player.
Ideally, that's true. The player succeeds and gets an extension, or he moves and the club gets a transfer fee.
We've said already. This is a structure suitable for unproven kids, not journeymen.
No. We pay them the same amount, unless they are transferred for a fee.
They can only leave at a "cut price" the club accepts. They're under contract.
If their contract runs to term then, yes, they can. That's unavoidable, right? Unless you're looking to repeal slavery laws, I'm not sure what you're shooting at here.
No. The wages "shelled out" are identical. The contracts are the same length. Only the phasing of the pay changes. Honestly, I think we must be talking at cross purposes. |
![]() |
|
| whatsthatonyourback | Apr 28 2013, 11:55 AM Post #134 |
|
Waldo Jeffers
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
All that would seem to be the case if the players were of the same standard and value throughout their contract. However, they are not, and the frontloaded contracts is really for the young players you hope will increase in ability and value. It gives them an incentive to sign now, and an incentive to sign with us again even if they improve. Currently, we are trying to sign them on the lowest wages we think they'll accept, then hope they get really valuable really quickly so that they don't realise they're worth a lot before their contract enters its final 18 months. If they actually turn out to be good, in the final 18 months they hold all the cards - they can demand to be sold now to whoever they want at a low price or threaten to play out their contract and leave for nothing. We can't offer them anything good in return - all we can do is offer them a hopeless contract that pays them far less than they can get in the Championship while tying them in for another 3 years. The only chance a valuable young player will sign that is if he is easily guilt tripped into signing a new one as a favour to the club that spotted he was good and paid for his bibs for years. Or we can consign them to playing for the youths to hurt everyone involved. In a sense you're right that, if a player is good enough to be in-demand and we give him another 3 year contract 12-18 months after he signed a frontloader, we have overpaid him. However, that's the price we pay for signing players who we expect to become too good for us quite quickly. The whole point is to give a promising young player an incentive to sign for us, not let his contract run out, play well and improve. Frontloading seems to improve the odds on all of these. For the players it ends up we pay more to, these would be the players that we think are worth the most in the transfer market anyway. That seems fair to me. Any player who makes it through to the end of a frontloaded contract will either have balls of steel to have put up with a puny wage in his last year so that he could sign a big free agent contract elsewhere, or is someone that nobody, particularly not us, especially wants after his contract expires. I'm not sure I understand your final point:
Regards to a) - we're only "overpaying" them if we end up offering them a new contract early on in the current one. Why would we do that? Perhaps because they are now worth more than we were paying them and someone else will pay them more. So, err, were we actually overpaying them? b) - When do they leave at a cut price again? Are they more or less likely to leave at a cut price on a frontloader than a evenspreader contract? Walk me through your logic. c) - Again - how likely is it that they will see out their contract and leave for free? I've stated many times already that the idea is that the low pay in the final year is a deterrent to players seeing out their contract, and that a frontloaded contract offered at this point with the clear understanding that we want to sell them anyway gives the talented youngster a financial reason to sign for us whilst playing to attract a lucrative move. Do you not think there is an increased chance of keeping talented youngsters a little longer and selling them for money than under the current method? |
![]() |
|
| whatsthatonyourback | Apr 28 2013, 12:03 PM Post #135 |
|
Waldo Jeffers
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That's the crucial point - we only end up paying more to players that turn out to be good and worth higher wages anyway, so we weren't actually overpaying them at all. Right now, we sign players on contracts hoping, effectively, that we are underpaying them, resulting in them wanting to leave in the way that we make the least money. Unless they are an idiotic violent angel, like David Goodwillie. The current contracts actually undermine our ability to retain and make money from good young players. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Any Football · Next Topic » |





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




2:35 PM Jul 11