The big thing about brining Ahadme in, is the length of contract. Why was it not 9ne year for options on both sides to extend if applicable, for the club fitness and number of games available would have been one measure.
The big thing about brining Ahadme in, is the length of contract. Why was it not 9ne year for options on both sides to extend if applicable, for the club fitness and number of games available would have been one measure.
You would have thought a lesson would have been learned with the Chuk's deal. Everybody be it a footballer or us ordinary joe's are looking for long term security and a four year deal is as long term as you can get in the pro football world. Where I think it creates an issue is what does this length of deal do to the players mentality, 'I'm secure for four years even if I get injured or play like a dog' . I might be wrong but have we seen Chuk's make more appearances this season even though it has been from the bench ?
Hopefully someone on here can knock up a YouTube compilation of all his best bits for us and you never know a championship or league one team will come in and take him off our hands.
Just need a little bit of AI to make Roots Hall look like Anfield.
You would have thought a lesson would have been learned with the Chuk's deal. Everybody be it a footballer or us ordinary joe's are looking for long term security and a four year deal is as long term as you can get in the pro football world. Where I think it creates an issue is what does this length of deal do to the players mentality, 'I'm secure for four years even if I get injured or play like a dog' . I might be wrong but have we seen Chuk's make more appearances this season even though it has been from the bench ?
Works both ways though, there’s plenty we’ve signed on shorter deals and then in hindsight been annoyed we didn’t give them a longer deal
You would have thought a lesson would have been learned with the Chuk's deal. Everybody be it a footballer or us ordinary joe's are looking for long term security and a four year deal is as long term as you can get in the pro football world. Where I think it creates an issue is what does this length of deal do to the players mentality, 'I'm secure for four years even if I get injured or play like a dog' . I might be wrong but have we seen Chuk's make more appearances this season even though it has been from the bench ?
The thing is any contract is always a gamble whether it's short or long. You know what would have been really great? Giving Lyle Taylor 4 years, or at least 3. We would have stayed in the Championship if we'd given him 3, but instead Roland didn't like to take the risk in case the signing failed and one good season from a player puts them in the shop window. Imagine if instead of signing Thierry Small on a short term deal we'd offered him 2.5 years. Josh Edwards also signed on a 4 year deal this year, from a Scottish Championship side; we're pretty chuffed about that though aren't we? We signed Coventry on a 3.5 year deal. Thank god for that. I don't think anyone would fault them for effort on the pitch either. The reality is that Ahadme was signed with the hope and the expectation that he would be good; if you pay a decent fee for a player then you are an idiot if you don't make the contract length long enough to protect your investment. If Ahadme had done what we'd hoped, been a good target man and been part of our push for promotion we would be fending off interest protected by a further 3 years on his deal, meaning that at the very least we'd get a good fee.
As it is the signing hasn't worked out but if you get it wrong and offer too short a deal you end up in a situation where a player like Taylor, Ricky Holmes, CBT, or very nearly Lloyd Jones can be ripped out of your squad without you being able to do much of anything about it. Under Roland every contract was short so the good left quickly with the bad, under Sandgaard we somehow gave the better players 2 year deals and the likes of Kirk and Aneke longer deals, but we've got it mostly right so far under the current ownership. Not every transfer is going to work out but I'd rather have the investment protected on the expectation that it will work than get our best players nicked on the cheap like we used to every season under Roland.
There must be something in his numbers that's promising as that's two upwardly mobile clubs (us and Ipswich) who have taken a punt on him, it just doesn't translate onto the pitch where he doesn't look up to it really
Ipswich’s scouting was just as bad as ours evidently , given the dross we’ve acquired from them over recent years .
What I’d give for Ipswich’s dross scouting over the last 3 years that’s lead to them climbing to the premier league.
Indeed, indeed. But they’ve given us 5 duds, of which Fraser was the best, which says it all . Admittedly they gave us Bent and Hreidarsson .
He wont be at the club next season,one way or the other hes out imo. We either take a hit on him and put him up for sale or more likely,loan him out with an option to buy🤞
You would have thought a lesson would have been learned with the Chuk's deal. Everybody be it a footballer or us ordinary joe's are looking for long term security and a four year deal is as long term as you can get in the pro football world. Where I think it creates an issue is what does this length of deal do to the players mentality, 'I'm secure for four years even if I get injured or play like a dog' . I might be wrong but have we seen Chuk's make more appearances this season even though it has been from the bench ?
The thing is any contract is always a gamble whether it's short or long. You know what would have been really great? Giving Lyle Taylor 4 years, or at least 3. We would have stayed in the Championship if we'd given him 3, but instead Roland didn't like to take the risk in case the signing failed and one good season from a player puts them in the shop window. Imagine if instead of signing Thierry Small on a short term deal we'd offered him 2.5 years. Josh Edwards also signed on a 4 year deal this year, from a Scottish Championship side; we're pretty chuffed about that though aren't we? We signed Coventry on a 3.5 year deal. Thank god for that. I don't think anyone would fault them for effort on the pitch either. The reality is that Ahadme was signed with the hope and the expectation that he would be good; if you pay a decent fee for a player then you are an idiot if you don't make the contract length long enough to protect your investment. If Ahadme had done what we'd hoped, been a good target man and been part of our push for promotion we would be fending off interest protected by a further 3 years on his deal, meaning that at the very least we'd get a good fee.
As it is the signing hasn't worked out but if you get it wrong and offer too short a deal you end up in a situation where a player like Taylor, Ricky Holmes, CBT, or very nearly Lloyd Jones can be ripped out of your squad without you being able to do much of anything about it. Under Roland every contract was short so the good left quickly with the bad, under Sandgaard we somehow gave the better players 2 year deals and the likes of Kirk and Aneke longer deals, but we've got it mostly right so far under the current ownership. Not every transfer is going to work out but I'd rather have the investment protected on the expectation that it will work than get our best players nicked on the cheap like we used to every season under Roland.
I agree with most of that Gary but both Ahadme and Chuks came with a history of games missed long term, I also think, considering both players were dropping from the championship into league one, the term of four years was a condition of their signing. I get what you are saying about Edwards and Coventry and I agree that those contracts are in favour of both club and player, I just think that when dealing with the length of contract a certain amount of diligence has to go into a players history.
Does anyone seriously think he will be here next season ? Unfortunately we will end up paying his contract off and he will be off
Might be the eventual outcome but first we will subsidise some of his wages and ship him out on loan next season, in hope that if he scores a few goals again someone might take him off our hands
You would have thought a lesson would have been learned with the Chuk's deal. Everybody be it a footballer or us ordinary joe's are looking for long term security and a four year deal is as long term as you can get in the pro football world. Where I think it creates an issue is what does this length of deal do to the players mentality, 'I'm secure for four years even if I get injured or play like a dog' . I might be wrong but have we seen Chuk's make more appearances this season even though it has been from the bench ?
The thing is any contract is always a gamble whether it's short or long. You know what would have been really great? Giving Lyle Taylor 4 years, or at least 3. We would have stayed in the Championship if we'd given him 3, but instead Roland didn't like to take the risk in case the signing failed and one good season from a player puts them in the shop window. Imagine if instead of signing Thierry Small on a short term deal we'd offered him 2.5 years. Josh Edwards also signed on a 4 year deal this year, from a Scottish Championship side; we're pretty chuffed about that though aren't we? We signed Coventry on a 3.5 year deal. Thank god for that. I don't think anyone would fault them for effort on the pitch either. The reality is that Ahadme was signed with the hope and the expectation that he would be good; if you pay a decent fee for a player then you are an idiot if you don't make the contract length long enough to protect your investment. If Ahadme had done what we'd hoped, been a good target man and been part of our push for promotion we would be fending off interest protected by a further 3 years on his deal, meaning that at the very least we'd get a good fee.
As it is the signing hasn't worked out but if you get it wrong and offer too short a deal you end up in a situation where a player like Taylor, Ricky Holmes, CBT, or very nearly Lloyd Jones can be ripped out of your squad without you being able to do much of anything about it. Under Roland every contract was short so the good left quickly with the bad, under Sandgaard we somehow gave the better players 2 year deals and the likes of Kirk and Aneke longer deals, but we've got it mostly right so far under the current ownership. Not every transfer is going to work out but I'd rather have the investment protected on the expectation that it will work than get our best players nicked on the cheap like we used to every season under Roland.
the point is they signed knowing his recent injury issue, also he only ever had one half decent season.
Does anyone seriously think he will be here next season ? Unfortunately we will end up paying his contract off and he will be off
I think we have to accept we are going to take a hit whatever happens.
He either goes out on loan and we pay a % of the wages, or we flog him for considerably less than what we paid for him( I happen to think it was a maximum of 500k).
I doubt he is on that much money albeit he may not get the same elsewhere. Depends how much he values a short football career. He is still young. If he backs himself he is better off leaving and starting fresh even on less money than rotting in the reserves here. If he doesn't back himself he will sit around on his contract with us like Kirk and Fraser did.
I doubt he is on that much money albeit he may not get the same elsewhere. Depends how much he values a short football career. He is still young. If he backs himself he is better off leaving and starting fresh even on less money than rotting in the reserves here. If he doesn't back himself he will sit around on his contract with us like Kirk and Fraser did.
A cracking post and a fair shout. What is Kirk doing nowadays?
Comments
A cracking post and a fair shout. What is Kirk doing nowadays?