Let's keep this simple. I have been trying my damnedest to work out what is clever about having all your most saleable assets, and a capable, coveted manager, on contracts which run out in the summer, and with both a week of this window, and an entire January window, in which their agents can force a sale.
I could understand the strategy if either:
Footballers were machines, and a major technological breakthrough in the machines was expected next year, or
Footballers were low-cost labourers and new legislation was coming in next summer which meant the single-minded ruthless owners could sack them all and hire replacements at half the price.
However neither of these things are true, so I remain mystified.
I reckon a smart man like you can figure it out...
I think I can reasonably summarise having read this thread, that we are all agreed that we are in a dark place.Therefore we need to move our attention towards ' what can we the supporters do' ? All I can suggest is that we all support the Charlton Trust, at least they are combining to put together to look for a solution since we basically know little apart from the fact that we are in the shit.
Mmm it must surely be about the 'pending' sale. If a meaningful dialogue is already in place with perspective purchasers, they will not want to be tethered to a longer term contract with the existing manager as it is often the case that new owners like a new broom to spend their money.
By the same token they will also not want any longer term player contracts as the 'new broom' manager will want to bring in his own players and retain the option of offering new contracts to those he wishes to keep.
There is also the issue of Academy graduates and clearly the present owners would want CP to fully utilise this conveyor belt as aspiring graduates are both cheap and will accept shorter contracts.
Let's keep this simple. I have been trying my damnedest to work out what is clever about having all your most saleable assets, and a capable, coveted manager, on contracts which run out in the summer, and with both a week of this window, and an entire January window, in which their agents can force a sale.
I could understand the strategy if either:
Footballers were machines, and a major technological breakthrough in the machines was expected next year, or
Footballers were low-cost labourers and new legislation was coming in next summer which meant the single-minded ruthless owners could sack them all and hire replacements at half the price.
However neither of these things are true, so I remain mystified.
Keeping it simple Prague. What if they ,the board,cannot afford to pay the raise in wages that players and staff would command with a new contract because they are completely potless?
keeping it simple , then they best sell up sharpish and cut their losses so they don't end up more potless !
Let's keep this simple. I have been trying my damnedest to work out what is clever about having all your most saleable assets, and a capable, coveted manager, on contracts which run out in the summer, and with both a week of this window, and an entire January window, in which their agents can force a sale.
I could understand the strategy if either:
Footballers were machines, and a major technological breakthrough in the machines was expected next year, or
Footballers were low-cost labourers and new legislation was coming in next summer which meant the single-minded ruthless owners could sack them all and hire replacements at half the price.
However neither of these things are true, so I remain mystified.
How about if you expect to pay most of them less than they are currently being paid, if you retain them at all that is? I accept that this won't apply to all of the players, but it might apply to most. Also, what do you do if you are relegated and can't offload your most highly paid players because nobody will pick up their wages?
In reality, agreeing new contracts is always going to be a fine balance; renewing players now for three years, say, is a two-way street. It has the potential to increase risk as well as to reduce it. It does appear that the Club is taking a hard line, but perhaps it's a calculated gamble that might come off? Who knows? What would we say if we heard next month that both Solly and Wiggins had been offered extensions? Would we still think the owners were nuts? I'm not saying the owners are doing the right thing. I simply don't know. I'm merely suggesting its not black and white.
It's the Manager's job to keep the players focused and motivated. I'm sure that's not easy when players have unrealistic expectations, with agents encouraging them to operate a "heads I win, tails you lose" strategy in which they'll happily take higher pay than they deserve if they underperform (bet Danny Green won't match his current pay next time around) or, alternatively, quickly push for an increase if they happen to develop, but it's an important part of the role.
I agree that it's not looking great, but we do need to retain a sense of perspective. A case can be made that we have, potentially, a better squad than last season (though we'll miss Fuller and need Sordell to deliver) whilst the players are obviously now more experienced at this level. If the Manager is as good as we all think he is, we'll be fine, but it's going to be another hard season.
Mundell
I'm not suggesting its black and white either. I'm just casting around for what the 'white' might be. I am trying to think of one good reason why we have so far failed to give Chris Solly a new contract, and cannot. Surely you are not suggesting that it is to save £10k or so by giving it to him in October rather than August?
In the late 90's Richard Murray regularly used the more intimate fans meetings and the Supporters Director to explain some of the financial inner workings and the strategy that the Club were pursuing as a result. He knew that this understanding would spread out through the fanbase. So generally there was very little criticism of how we handled our existing talent, or even of the modest budgets they gave to Curbs. The Trust can play a similar role, if only the current owners chose to use it as a vehicle to explain the business strategy. Until they do, we are reduced to fretting on here.
And at the risk of veering off into football matters I think your assertion that we have "potentially, a better squad than last season" is contentious. As you say, we will have to see. Are Church and Sordell going to be better over a season than Haynes and Fuller were last season? Big question. But far from the only one. Kermorgant and Jackson, the two talismen of Chris Powell's success, are both the wrong side of 30 now. Yet the only midfield addition is even older. And Stephens shows no sign of justifying Jiminez' faith in him as a monetary asset. Green and Wilson seem to be failing to step up to the plate. The only other development potential in the squad I can see is if the youngsters come good. Delighted if they do, but a big ask, and I wonder how measured a decision that is, to rely on them. It may work out but you appear to be piling on the pressure on Chris Powell to 'deliver'; me, I question whether he has been given adequate tools to deliver.
Mmm it must surely be about the 'pending' sale. If a meaningful dialogue is already in place with perspective purchasers, they will not want to be tethered to a longer term contract with the existing manager as it is often the case that new owners like a new broom to spend their money.
By the same token they will also not want any longer term player contracts as the 'new broom' manager will want to bring in his own players and retain the option of offering new contracts to those he wishes to keep.
There is also the issue of Academy graduates and clearly the present owners would want CP to fully utilise this conveyor belt as aspiring graduates are both cheap and will accept shorter contracts.
Post FPP the world is rapidly changing.j
You make some good points, and they are as rational as anything I have seen or can think of.
However people keep waving FFP around as a generalised explanation. What has FFP got to do with the failure to protect your best assets (arguably Solly, Wiggins, Hamer and Kermogant) by offering them longer contracts. I can see why you want short contracts and lower salaries for people like Green and Wilson, but the aforementioned four are coveted and have options.
Let's keep this simple. I have been trying my damnedest to work out what is clever about having all your most saleable assets, and a capable, coveted manager, on contracts which run out in the summer, and with both a week of this window, and an entire January window, in which their agents can force a sale.
I could understand the strategy if either:
Footballers were machines, and a major technological breakthrough in the machines was expected next year, or
Footballers were low-cost labourers and new legislation was coming in next summer which meant the single-minded ruthless owners could sack them all and hire replacements at half the price.
However neither of these things are true, so I remain mystified.
Keeping it simple Prague. What if they ,the board,cannot afford to pay the raise in wages that players and staff would command with a new contract because they are completely potless?
Yes, that brutally simple explanation is what worries me the most.
If players are not performing because their contracts run out in 9 months time they should remember they are still under contract at the moment and should be giving 100%.
Some very good points made and I like Prague am mystified by the situation with regard to contracts. It seems to fly in the face of everything we think is good practice. There is however just a very small part of me which says hang on these people are very astute businessmen that have no interest in CAFC other than as a vehicle to make a profit. It's what they do. Nothing else. Decisions made will be hard nosed but calculated. It may well be that there is now a determination to exit as soon as possible but they won't be looking to do that at a loss and will know that anything they do to hurt the business will increase that likelihood. I believe that there is a plan. I might not like it and it will only serve the owners interests and not that of Charlton Athletic unless those interests overlap. The decision to not renew those contracts is one I cannot understand but don't for a moment think that it is not a calculated strategy with a defined outcome. This season will be like no other. As supporters we can just hope that SCP and the boys get it together enough to avoid a relegation battle in the face of machinations that will undoubtedly unfold as the season progresses. Return to your seats and secure your seat belts for a season of extreme turbulence.
Mmm it must surely be about the 'pending' sale. If a meaningful dialogue is already in place with perspective purchasers, they will not want to be tethered to a longer term contract with the existing manager as it is often the case that new owners like a new broom to spend their money.
By the same token they will also not want any longer term player contracts as the 'new broom' manager will want to bring in his own players and retain the option of offering new contracts to those he wishes to keep.
There is also the issue of Academy graduates and clearly the present owners would want CP to fully utilise this conveyor belt as aspiring graduates are both cheap and will accept shorter contracts.
Post FPP the world is rapidly changing.j
You make some good points, and they are as rational as anything I have seen or can think of.
However people keep waving FFP around as a generalised explanation. What has FFP got to do with the failure to protect your best assets (arguably Solly, Wiggins, Hamer and Kermogant) by offering them longer contracts. I can see why you want short contracts and lower salaries for people like Green and Wilson, but the aforementioned four are coveted and have options.
Prague, I think the point is that Solly, Wiggins and some others would expect a much higher wage now than they would expect in the summer if the reductions that some (me included) are predicting come true. The difference could be staggering. If we assume that we have three players that will, ultimately, sign for a grand a week less in the summer than they would now, and we give them three year deals we are, potentially, talking about £450k over three years. If we give ten players a £500 a week rise now it, immediately, increases the costs by £5k a week which is enough to sign another player.
I would love to see our better players contracted for longer, but I, personally, have big doubts that any of our players are good enough for the Premier League. With that in mind the increase they can get elsewhere will be modest (still a Championship club) and any transfer fee is also going to be modest.
Add to that the consequences of the atmosphere in the dressing room if three players get new contracts and the rest don't.
I'm not justifying what they are doing, but I can, to some degree, understand it.
Let's keep this simple. I have been trying my damnedest to work out what is clever about having all your most saleable assets, and a capable, coveted manager, on contracts which run out in the summer, and with both a week of this window, and an entire January window, in which their agents can force a sale.
I could understand the strategy if either:
Footballers were machines, and a major technological breakthrough in the machines was expected next year, or
Footballers were low-cost labourers and new legislation was coming in next summer which meant the single-minded ruthless owners could sack them all and hire replacements at half the price.
However neither of these things are true, so I remain mystified.
How about if you expect to pay most of them less than they are currently being paid, if you retain them at all that is? I accept that this won't apply to all of the players, but it might apply to most. Also, what do you do if you are relegated and can't offload your most highly paid players because nobody will pick up their wages?
In reality, agreeing new contracts is always going to be a fine balance; renewing players now for three years, say, is a two-way street. It has the potential to increase risk as well as to reduce it. It does appear that the Club is taking a hard line, but perhaps it's a calculated gamble that might come off? Who knows? What would we say if we heard next month that both Solly and Wiggins had been offered extensions? Would we still think the owners were nuts? I'm not saying the owners are doing the right thing. I simply don't know. I'm merely suggesting its not black and white.
It's the Manager's job to keep the players focused and motivated. I'm sure that's not easy when players have unrealistic expectations, with agents encouraging them to operate a "heads I win, tails you lose" strategy in which they'll happily take higher pay than they deserve if they underperform (bet Danny Green won't match his current pay next time around) or, alternatively, quickly push for an increase if they happen to develop, but it's an important part of the role.
I agree that it's not looking great, but we do need to retain a sense of perspective. A case can be made that we have, potentially, a better squad than last season (though we'll miss Fuller and need Sordell to deliver) whilst the players are obviously now more experienced at this level. If the Manager is as good as we all think he is, we'll be fine, but it's going to be another hard season.
Mundell
I'm not suggesting its black and white either. I'm just casting around for what the 'white' might be. I am trying to think of one good reason why we have so far failed to give Chris Solly a new contract, and cannot. Surely you are not suggesting that it is to save £10k or so by giving it to him in October rather than August?
In the late 90's Richard Murray regularly used the more intimate fans meetings and the Supporters Director to explain some of the financial inner workings and the strategy that the Club were pursuing as a result. He knew that this understanding would spread out through the fanbase. So generally there was very little criticism of how we handled our existing talent, or even of the modest budgets they gave to Curbs. The Trust can play a similar role, if only the current owners chose to use it as a vehicle to explain the business strategy. Until they do, we are reduced to fretting on here.
And at the risk of veering off into football matters I think your assertion that we have "potentially, a better squad than last season" is contentious. As you say, we will have to see. Are Church and Sordell going to be better over a season than Haynes and Fuller were last season? Big question. But far from the only one. Kermorgant and Jackson, the two talismen of Chris Powell's success, are both the wrong side of 30 now. Yet the only midfield addition is even older. And Stephens shows no sign of justifying Jiminez' faith in him as a monetary asset. Green and Wilson seem to be failing to step up to the plate. The only other development potential in the squad I can see is if the youngsters come good. Delighted if they do, but a big ask, and I wonder how measured a decision that is, to rely on them. It may work out but you appear to be piling on the pressure on Chris Powell to 'deliver'; me, I question whether he has been given adequate tools to deliver.
Fair comments.
I used the word "potentially" (when talking about this season's squad compared to last season's) quite deliberately though!! However, don't forget that whilst they were very effective at times, neither Haynes (12 starts, 8 subs) nor Fuller (20, 11) played regularly last season. Even Kermorgant missed one third of our League games (28, 4).
You're right that we can't rely on youngsters, but I have to say that Cousins looked very assured on Saturday. He had a real presence and I woudn't be surprised if he plays a significant part this season. Pigott may be a little further behind, but he also looked the part against Oxford. These two could be very good players.
Injuries will again be important; Wiggins only made 19 starts last season.
So, "potentially", we may be in better shape squad wise than last year. I guess only time will tell.
I know I've mentioned FFP elsewhere but I wouldn't be surprised to discover that it is dawning on the players that, not only are they not going to get big pay rises, but their next contract could well see a significant pay cut.
Add into that the fact that many of our players will have been signed in league 1 with payrises on promotion. Those players that haven't raised their game enough are probably going to slip down the leagues again and that will, undoubtedly, mean less money.
All this will impact on the players individually, and as many of us on here know all too well, it is very hard to make changes to our lifestyle to account for a small drop in income, let alone a significant drop.
I'm not saying that the problems at the club are not having an impact, but I think all players outside of the Premier League will in, say five years, look back on today and bemoan just how good they had it!
Whether it is FFP or the owners (of all Championship clubs) looking to reduce the annual deficit there is definitely a downwards trend in player contracts. In the absence of any proof I think it best to look at the last close season to imagine how things might pan out next summer... some players offered and signed extensions quickly, some let go and some offered lower terms... the last group either found better terms elsewhere or signed on at CAFC for another year.
So for players to keep up their remuneration when the average might be falling they either have to make themselves indespensible or attractive to other clubs.
And the management have the challenge of getting the club through this phase...
All we have to do is give them 100% support.
Within any squad there will be players moving forward in their careers and others fading or treading water. The contract situation should reflect that, regardless of what is happening across the wider market. At present there is at least one very serious pay anomaly within our squad that would stagger most people on here. I can't disclose it but I'm not at all surprised if that is affecting performances.
I find these 'I'm in the know' teasing posts more than slightly annoying. For me, either speak up or shut up.
I am quite sure that Solly, Wiggins and possibly Hamer would be targets for PL clubs albeit those at the bottom. And Kermo is allegedly still of interest to Celtic. In which case all your salary assumptions go flying out of the window.
Hmmm, time to apply Occam's razor - the simplest explanation is usually the right one.
Given the lack of logic in letting our saleable assets potentially flounce off to another club where they feel more appreciated, I suspect that we are simply potless.
If they do have a cunning plan to replace the entire squad like a couple of years ago, then they are running a very real risk that we will be back in the division below in May - a squad full of players either uncertain of their futures or believing that they are not valued is a recipe for disaster. It would be a very big gamble indeed.
I know I've mentioned FFP elsewhere but I wouldn't be surprised to discover that it is dawning on the players that, not only are they not going to get big pay rises, but their next contract could well see a significant pay cut.
Add into that the fact that many of our players will have been signed in league 1 with payrises on promotion. Those players that haven't raised their game enough are probably going to slip down the leagues again and that will, undoubtedly, mean less money.
All this will impact on the players individually, and as many of us on here know all too well, it is very hard to make changes to our lifestyle to account for a small drop in income, let alone a significant drop.
I'm not saying that the problems at the club are not having an impact, but I think all players outside of the Premier League will in, say five years, look back on today and bemoan just how good they had it!
Whether it is FFP or the owners (of all Championship clubs) looking to reduce the annual deficit there is definitely a downwards trend in player contracts. In the absence of any proof I think it best to look at the last close season to imagine how things might pan out next summer... some players offered and signed extensions quickly, some let go and some offered lower terms... the last group either found better terms elsewhere or signed on at CAFC for another year.
So for players to keep up their remuneration when the average might be falling they either have to make themselves indespensible or attractive to other clubs.
And the management have the challenge of getting the club through this phase...
All we have to do is give them 100% support.
Within any squad there will be players moving forward in their careers and others fading or treading water. The contract situation should reflect that, regardless of what is happening across the wider market. At present there is at least one very serious pay anomaly within our squad that would stagger most people on here. I can't disclose it but I'm not at all surprised if that is affecting performances.
I find these 'I'm in the know' teasing posts more than slightly annoying. For me, either speak up or shut up.
Usually I'd agree with you but in this case not. It's clearly a fact that certain individuals have had access to an official financial report so it isn't an "I heard from someone....." teasing post. I don't know who the player is or what the financial situation is. Do I want to know? Yes, 'course I do. Should I find out on a public forum? No. Doesn't mean people shouldn't be made aware. You then chose to believe or not.
Mmm it must surely be about the 'pending' sale. If a meaningful dialogue is already in place with perspective purchasers, they will not want to be tethered to a longer term contract with the existing manager as it is often the case that new owners like a new broom to spend their money.
By the same token they will also not want any longer term player contracts as the 'new broom' manager will want to bring in his own players and retain the option of offering new contracts to those he wishes to keep.
There is also the issue of Academy graduates and clearly the present owners would want CP to fully utilise this conveyor belt as aspiring graduates are both cheap and will accept shorter contracts.
Post FPP the world is rapidly changing.j
You make some good points, and they are as rational as anything I have seen or can think of.
However people keep waving FFP around as a generalised explanation. What has FFP got to do with the failure to protect your best assets (arguably Solly, Wiggins, Hamer and Kermogant) by offering them longer contracts. I can see why you want short contracts and lower salaries for people like Green and Wilson, but the aforementioned four are coveted and have options.
Absolutely but you are taking a considered and logical view to the problem whereas the owners are working on the spinning of the wheel to come up with their lucky number.
Others have mentioned that they are in discussions with a consortium with whom they have had previous dialogue (I have no clue if true or false) and they are betting on black that they can complete the deal.
I suppose if your stake is £7m per annum you would move heaven and earth to do the deal and if the man wants minimal contractual liability then you give him minimal contractual liability and keep your fingers and toes crossed that the manager (possibly outgoing) can sufficiently motivate his squad to ensure that the club is not too far adrift by completion of the contract and the January window.
But if the silver ball lands on red then you shrug your shoulders accept you've dropped a packet put the club into Administration and look for a better deal.
Reports say that CP looks glum at his press conferences and maybe he understands the writing on the wall but his devotion to duty stops him from walking away from a game he can't win.
Yep you're right we all use FPP as the reason for financial austerity whereas in this instance it's all down to a gamble, a speculation of financial locusts who have zero regard to the longstanding well being of 108 years of history and well being.
Don't suppose in 1905 those lads could have ever imagined such a state of affairs.
I know I've mentioned FFP elsewhere but I wouldn't be surprised to discover that it is dawning on the players that, not only are they not going to get big pay rises, but their next contract could well see a significant pay cut.
Add into that the fact that many of our players will have been signed in league 1 with payrises on promotion. Those players that haven't raised their game enough are probably going to slip down the leagues again and that will, undoubtedly, mean less money.
All this will impact on the players individually, and as many of us on here know all too well, it is very hard to make changes to our lifestyle to account for a small drop in income, let alone a significant drop.
I'm not saying that the problems at the club are not having an impact, but I think all players outside of the Premier League will in, say five years, look back on today and bemoan just how good they had it!
Whether it is FFP or the owners (of all Championship clubs) looking to reduce the annual deficit there is definitely a downwards trend in player contracts. In the absence of any proof I think it best to look at the last close season to imagine how things might pan out next summer... some players offered and signed extensions quickly, some let go and some offered lower terms... the last group either found better terms elsewhere or signed on at CAFC for another year.
So for players to keep up their remuneration when the average might be falling they either have to make themselves indespensible or attractive to other clubs.
And the management have the challenge of getting the club through this phase...
All we have to do is give them 100% support.
Within any squad there will be players moving forward in their careers and others fading or treading water. The contract situation should reflect that, regardless of what is happening across the wider market. At present there is at least one very serious pay anomaly within our squad that would stagger most people on here. I can't disclose it but I'm not at all surprised if that is affecting performances.
I find these 'I'm in the know' teasing posts more than slightly annoying. For me, either speak up or shut up.
Don't think it's that hard to guess. Think of a young player who became a regular in the Division One promotion season. That player would have been being paid less than his team mates, many of whom had just been signed on attractive deals - that's why we got them. This youngster has since won POTY two years on the spin, but, we are being told, he hasn't had a pay increase. At least that's what I infer. I'm not staggered though.
I have no idea why he's not been offered a new deal nor whether he's demotivated by it, but I do sense (though I don't know) that this situation is being over generalised and that this, in turn, is creating a great deal of concern. I don't want to appear flippant, but you need to think positively and it's not unreasonable to expect the players to get on with it.
More speculation on my part assuming its Solly were talking about but IMHO I wouldn't blame him given his star is still rising to say to us stick your new contract where the sun don't shine and I don't mean the West Upper.
I can only reiterate that the numbers are extraordinary and while the players are all well paid by general standards they will evaluate what they get against each other, not against the average wage.
What this player gets is grossly unfair by that standard and the situation would, I think, demoralise anyone in his position, especially (and this bit is pure speculation) if he'd been promised the unfairness would be addressed by now.
There is, as it happens, an explanation for the contract situation in the leaked document. It says the situation is advantageous because the players generally have a clause meaning they would get rises on promotion and having them all expire in 2014 means that if we get promoted they can all be released at no cost.
I think that's called putting the cart before the horse.
I really think this discussion best revisited in a month or so...more football played... clearer what the squad is...and perhaps additional players signed although personally I doubt that. Some players will inevitably be released next summer so worry about the rest if you will...But if you are looking for certainty or waiting for a detailed explanation on commercially sensitive matters you will be in for a long wait! Let me see now... I've been following Charlton for 40 years Definition of corporate insanity - same people, same attitudes but you expect a different outcome!
There is, as it happens, an explanation for the contract situation in the leaked document. It says the situation is advantageous because the players generally have a clause meaning they would get rises on promotion and having them all expire in 2014 means that if we get promoted they can all be released at no cost.
The sentence isn't very precise(not you Airman but the phrase)... contracts expire - players get released? Simples! But it appears to bring us back to the scenario that Shooters Hill Guru shared - next summer is a clean slate.... some players will indeed be "released at no cost". Back in May or whenever that document was prepared that makes sense given a fairly successful round of contract negotiations.
But now, three months later with the same owners, it looks high risk and assumes both that the best players can be retained and that a better squad can be reassembled - whatever division we are in!
Back then perhaps the owners thought they would be long gone and a new board might have addressed concerns raised here/ be pushing on for the play-offs with the three / four new signings that everyone hoped for.
Comments
By the same token they will also not want any longer term player contracts as the 'new broom' manager will want to bring in his own players and retain the option of offering new contracts to those he wishes to keep.
There is also the issue of Academy graduates and clearly the present owners would want CP to fully utilise this conveyor belt as aspiring graduates are both cheap and will accept shorter contracts.
Post FPP the world is rapidly changing.j
I'm not suggesting its black and white either. I'm just casting around for what the 'white' might be. I am trying to think of one good reason why we have so far failed to give Chris Solly a new contract, and cannot. Surely you are not suggesting that it is to save £10k or so by giving it to him in October rather than August?
In the late 90's Richard Murray regularly used the more intimate fans meetings and the Supporters Director to explain some of the financial inner workings and the strategy that the Club were pursuing as a result. He knew that this understanding would spread out through the fanbase. So generally there was very little criticism of how we handled our existing talent, or even of the modest budgets they gave to Curbs. The Trust can play a similar role, if only the current owners chose to use it as a vehicle to explain the business strategy. Until they do, we are reduced to fretting on here.
And at the risk of veering off into football matters I think your assertion that we have "potentially, a better squad than last season" is contentious. As you say, we will have to see. Are Church and Sordell going to be better over a season than Haynes and Fuller were last season? Big question. But far from the only one. Kermorgant and Jackson, the two talismen of Chris Powell's success, are both the wrong side of 30 now. Yet the only midfield addition is even older. And Stephens shows no sign of justifying Jiminez' faith in him as a monetary asset. Green and Wilson seem to be failing to step up to the plate. The only other development potential in the squad I can see is if the youngsters come good. Delighted if they do, but a big ask, and I wonder how measured a decision that is, to rely on them. It may work out but you appear to be piling on the pressure on Chris Powell to 'deliver'; me, I question whether he has been given adequate tools to deliver.
However people keep waving FFP around as a generalised explanation. What has FFP got to do with the failure to protect your best assets (arguably Solly, Wiggins, Hamer and Kermogant) by offering them longer contracts. I can see why you want short contracts and lower salaries for people like Green and Wilson, but the aforementioned four are coveted and have options.
I would love to see our better players contracted for longer, but I, personally, have big doubts that any of our players are good enough for the Premier League. With that in mind the increase they can get elsewhere will be modest (still a Championship club) and any transfer fee is also going to be modest.
Add to that the consequences of the atmosphere in the dressing room if three players get new contracts and the rest don't.
I'm not justifying what they are doing, but I can, to some degree, understand it.
I used the word "potentially" (when talking about this season's squad compared to last season's) quite deliberately though!! However, don't forget that whilst they were very effective at times, neither Haynes (12 starts, 8 subs) nor Fuller (20, 11) played regularly last season. Even Kermorgant missed one third of our League games (28, 4).
You're right that we can't rely on youngsters, but I have to say that Cousins looked very assured on Saturday. He had a real presence and I woudn't be surprised if he plays a significant part this season. Pigott may be a little further behind, but he also looked the part against Oxford. These two could be very good players.
Injuries will again be important; Wiggins only made 19 starts last season.
So, "potentially", we may be in better shape squad wise than last year. I guess only time will tell.
I am quite sure that Solly, Wiggins and possibly Hamer would be targets for PL clubs albeit those at the bottom. And Kermo is allegedly still of interest to Celtic. In which case all your salary assumptions go flying out of the window.
Given the lack of logic in letting our saleable assets potentially flounce off to another club where they feel more appreciated, I suspect that we are simply potless.
If they do have a cunning plan to replace the entire squad like a couple of years ago, then they are running a very real risk that we will be back in the division below in May - a squad full of players either uncertain of their futures or believing that they are not valued is a recipe for disaster. It would be a very big gamble indeed.
Others have mentioned that they are in discussions with a consortium with whom they have had previous dialogue (I have no clue if true or false) and they are betting on black that they can complete the deal.
I suppose if your stake is £7m per annum you would move heaven and earth to do the deal and if the man wants minimal contractual liability then you give him minimal contractual liability and keep your fingers and toes crossed that the manager (possibly outgoing) can sufficiently motivate his squad to ensure that the club is not too far adrift by completion of the contract and the January window.
But if the silver ball lands on red then you shrug your shoulders accept you've dropped a packet put the club into Administration and look for a better deal.
Reports say that CP looks glum at his press conferences and maybe he understands the writing on the wall but his devotion to duty stops him from walking away from a game he can't win.
Yep you're right we all use FPP as the reason for financial austerity whereas in this instance it's all down to a gamble, a speculation of financial locusts who have zero regard to the longstanding well being of 108 years of history and well being.
Don't suppose in 1905 those lads could have ever imagined such a state of affairs.
That is a very good point.
I have no idea why he's not been offered a new deal nor whether he's demotivated by it, but I do sense (though I don't know) that this situation is being over generalised and that this, in turn, is creating a great deal of concern. I don't want to appear flippant, but you need to think positively and it's not unreasonable to expect the players to get on with it.
What this player gets is grossly unfair by that standard and the situation would, I think, demoralise anyone in his position, especially (and this bit is pure speculation) if he'd been promised the unfairness would be addressed by now.
There is, as it happens, an explanation for the contract situation in the leaked document. It says the situation is advantageous because the players generally have a clause meaning they would get rises on promotion and having them all expire in 2014 means that if we get promoted they can all be released at no cost.
I think that's called putting the cart before the horse.
Some players will inevitably be released next summer so worry about the rest if you will...But if you are looking for certainty or waiting for a detailed explanation on commercially sensitive matters you will be in for a long wait! Let me see now... I've been following Charlton for 40 years
Definition of corporate insanity - same people, same attitudes but you expect a different outcome! The sentence isn't very precise(not you Airman but the phrase)... contracts expire - players get released? Simples! But it appears to bring us back to the scenario that Shooters Hill Guru shared - next summer is a clean slate.... some players will indeed be "released at no cost". Back in May or whenever that document was prepared that makes sense given a fairly successful round of contract negotiations.
But now, three months later with the same owners, it looks high risk and assumes both that the best players can be retained and that a better squad can be reassembled - whatever division we are in!
Back then perhaps the owners thought they would be long gone and a new board might have addressed concerns raised here/ be pushing on for the play-offs with the three / four new signings that everyone hoped for.