|
Post by unknownquantity on Jun 15, 2019 7:02:10 GMT
Some people had reservations about issuing one year contracts, but I do not think they will prove to be a bad thing.
Last year we signed four players on one year contracts and all played a whole season for the club, which I expect is more than some players on longer term contracts achieved. One of these four has re-joined for next season and of the other three, two are now with clubs who will play in the football league next season which does not send out a bad message to potential recruits.
I think that the club has now got to work to a budget and lose its' reputation for issuing expensive long term contracts to personnel whose main motivation is the money.
I expect that Jason Bristow has been an important factor in two of the three most recent signings and looking at promising local players may be the way forward.
Although five of the players offered new contracts at the end of the season turned them down it is perhaps worth noting that of those two moved into the football league and one moved to a club much nearer home. The other two were offered two year contracts by other clubs in the division, but I think that one of these two players was I think it is fair to say not regarded as one of the star performers of the previous campaign.
|
|
|
Post by michaelefc on Jun 15, 2019 7:39:54 GMT
Yes agreed. Fact is we have to operate within the budget we have. What other clubs do or don't do is a matter for them and them alone. If we sign players on long contracts and they get injured, hit bad form or lose interest, we have to pay those players week after week, month after month, AND get someone in to replace them. We just can't afford to do this. What all this probably means, is that we are going to look for younger, less established players who can afford to take a lower wage and a shorter contract. It has always been the case that the long term future of this club is about developing younger players; which is why I have been banging on about the youth policy for so long.
If we get our recruitment and training right of footballers under 23/24, who are hungry to learn and fully committed, then everything else will fall into place.
|
|
|
Post by back4more on Jun 15, 2019 9:33:26 GMT
I can't agree michaelefc with the idea of the club's future being primarily about developing younger players. It's a good thing to do but can only be one part of the formula for success. I do agree with the use of one year contracts at this moment in time while the club has limited funds and investment. In the future though, and as soon as possible, things need to change. A reliance on "younger less established players who can afford to take a lower wage and a shorter contract", as proposed by Michael, would be fine if we had one stand plus a wooden hut and match attendances around 500. It would suit perfectly if we had no ambition beyond the league we are in. The reality is though that, thanks to investment by the previous owner, the club has facilities to rival many League 2 and some League 1 clubs and support has grown at least threefold in a few years. If the funds can't be generated by the club's current custodians, then it must be a fantastic takeover prospect for anyone who wants to develop a new league club. The ground already meets over 90% of the Football League requirements so there is relatively little more to spend in that respect. The football management and also the groundsmanship are in very capable and trusted hands. I would put both streets ahead of many League 2 clubs and most other Conference clubs. The local council have a very positive history of working and cooperating with sporting ventures - eg the Ageas Bowl and indeed the Silverlake until now. I have no criticism whatsoever for Kenny and his fellow directors who are doing a great job in doing what they can with what they have. It has to be said though that with the high quality ground facilities, the excellent people and the tremendous potential the club has in its densely populated very wide catchment area, it desperately needs that bit more investment to be able to capitalise on those fantastic assets and grow into the Football League club which Stewart always intended it to become. Developing youngsters is a brilliant thing to do but you can do it much better with a Football League youth development grant. In the meantime we need a strong balance of age, experience and skill levels.
|
|
|
Post by hantslondoner on Jun 15, 2019 10:36:00 GMT
From our recent signings it looks as if we are going for a mixture of youth and experience - some of the experienced players also look as if they have something to prove, so that sounds good.
I don't know our budget and I don't know what players on our radar are asking so I can't judge what proportion of experienced to young players we should have, but there's no doubt we should be looking to get more out of our youth setup (which I've also being going on about for a long time).
Getting back some of the players who did well for us and then were sold on could bring dividends (provided they're fit and haven't lost their confidence). If we get a young player who shows real promise, then we ought to consider offering a longer contract, and 'take a punt' that a FL team will come on and offer us a lot of money. I think we've missed out on that a few times in the past. P.S. I see Mikael Mandron's free at the moment - looks as if FL/SL clubs are interested in him, though. Would be a good replacement for McCallum, if we could afford him.
|
|
|
Post by thelake on Jun 15, 2019 21:51:25 GMT
I think we gotta look at longer contracts for some of the younger lads. If they do well you can get a good fee for them. If not you probably aren't looking at a massive wage payout
|
|
|
Post by blueandwhite on Jun 16, 2019 20:15:21 GMT
A pragmatic sensible approach with a mixture of 1/2 and even the odd 3 year contract makes sense
|
|
|
Post by slewmcg on Jun 16, 2019 22:54:32 GMT
One year contracts are good if we can attract the right player, which hopefully we have and can do so far. But I wonder if we tried to offer our stand out players an extension in January sort of time. Looks like we tied wynter down with some sort of extension clause why we didn’t do that with joey and hare not sure?!
|
|
|
Post by stew5018 on Jun 18, 2019 10:38:58 GMT
We were never going to compete with League Clubs and however it affects us players have the right to progress in their careers. They might have chosen short contracts at the outset for that very reason -not just our Club. Clubs and management get reputations. Preventing a young player progressing in his career so we could use them for another 6 months would be a factor in whether players chose to come to us in the first place. I would prefer to get players on one year contracts when they are fully focussed on highlighting their skills and giving 100%.This ultimately isn't about what the Club wants as players and Agents will always have the final say. The liaison we have now with Bournemouth, Bristol Rovers, Sunderland can only be good for the Club as they trust us to look after their players on loan. The loan market plays a huge part in this league. The nearer we get to kick off the more the loan market picks up. the Management have done us proud so far- no reason to think that won't continue.
|
|
|
Post by hantslondoner on Jun 18, 2019 11:03:21 GMT
Contracts are not just there to 'hold players' against their will (and if a big team came in for one of our players then I'm sure we'd never stand in their way - it's never been our policy).
They also offer security for a player (and can be a confidence boost if we're saying 'we think you're good enough to invest in you for longer than our usual year') and also should mean we get more of a transfer fee if the player does move to a bigger club.
And as I said above I think we should only extend a 1-year contract if that player shows sufficient promise and commitment.
I agree the loan market plays a large part in this league but we are also starting tom sign players from lower leagues who may turn out to be hidden gems.
|
|