Mike Williamson (now managing MK Dons)

[Guest BlacknWhiteArmy]

5 years?

 

I think he's steady enough and all that, he's a decent player, seems a bit long a contract however

[TaylorJ_01]

5 and a half years!? Crikey. Good news he is tied down but that's a bit excessive.

[Dokko]

Seems a bit long, but glad were tying down players like Mike for the foreseeable.

 

He's been really good so far, wouldn't have looked wrong if we spent £5m on him and with his best yet to come its a comforting move for us to know he's here long term. Sort out Taylor and really CB wise this is the strongest competition we've ever had in the prem imo. Just wish Colo wasn't on such a stupid figure while being in his late 20's.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Stephen927]

It's a lengthy contract but I can't see him being on much more than £30,000 a week. There'll no doubt be a good deal of interest in him from his showings so far, makes sense really to protect the interests of the club.

[TheGuv]

Meh ok i suppose

[ponsaelius]

He'll be on low wages, with not too many assurances in terms of starting places.

 

Good news.

[Minhosa]

It's a lengthy contract but I can't see him being on much more than £30,000 a week. There'll no doubt be a good deal of interest in him from his showings so far, makes sense really to protect the interests of the club.

 

He'll be on nowhere near that imho.

[lovejoy]

good news.

[Canuck]

Sure the reported fee was more around £1 million. Which is a total steal tbh.

 

For someone who couldn't get a game for Portsmouth? Wake up.

You really are clued out.

 

How can you expect to be taken seriously when you know so little.

 

Unless you are a WUM - in which case, well done.

 

I know loads.

 

I know you got me! 

[Canuck]

You really should work the "couldn't get a game for Pompey" into a song.

 

Tried to get a game for Pompey

and they said No, No, No

[hakka]

A contract til he's 32, that's not that bad really. I suspect he will become a backup player in 2 years time, but I don't expect us to be challenging for Europe seriously for another 2 or 3 years either, assuming the club keeps moving forward during that time.  And to have him as a squad player for a further 3 years isn't that bad. He's not about pace so it's not as if he's going to lose much before becoming 32, and with players like Campbell and Colo around he may improve a little still.

 

What is odd that they hand him a 5 and half year deal now, but they won't give Hughton an extension yet? Hughton has been here longer and done better within his job in comparison imo.

[LooneyToonArmy]

3 or 4 years would have been sufficient but fairly happy we have him here longer. A decent steady defender/backup.

[Decky]

I dont understand these kind of contracts being given to players who, if we wanted to keep them, we could. 3 years seems more reasonable.

[hakka]

Why are people thinking 3 or 4 years would be the right amount? if he can hack it at this level, then why not keep him til 32? It's probably after that when it gets very hard to say if he will be playing at the same standard or not.  If he plays first team for another 2 years, then sits on the bench for another 3 years as back up is that really a bad thing? If he wants to leave in 3 years we can claim a little bit of cash for him, and we didn't pay much for him either.

[Guest ObiChrisKenobi]

You really should work the "couldn't get a game for Pompey" into a song.

 

Tried to get a game for Pompey

and they said No, No, No

 

[Yorkie]

Good news and perfect length tbh. Good centre-backs are still doing alright at 32, and i think he'll improve. Bit of a late bloomer really, Williamson.

[hakka]

Good news and perfect length tbh. Good centre-backs are still doing alright at 32, and i think he'll improve. Bit of a late bloomer really, Williamson.

 

 

Agree.

 

Not sure why people think we should only contract him til 30 or 31.

[JH]

Good news and perfect length tbh. Good centre-backs are still doing alright at 32, and i think he'll improve. Bit of a late bloomer really, Williamson.

 

 

Agree.

 

Not sure why people think we should only contract him til 30 or 31.

 

 

For the wages that he's likely to be on, what is the real difference between a couple of years? It's not like we've just contracted Smith to a 5 year deal at 50k a week.

[Decky]

I just think if he isnt a key player, like Carroll, Tiote or Ben Arfa, then theres no need for a long contract like that. He could well fall down the pecking order here, even as close as right now if Campbell and Taylor play well. Of course Campbell is off at the end of the season but we will probably sign another couple of centre backs in the next year or 2.  If he falls down the pecking order he could well be in a position where he isnt or is barely getting a game. If that did happen and we couldnt find a buyer for him then he is stuck here for ages and isnt even playing. Of course there are a lot of "ifs" there, but thats why a 3 year deal is better imo. If in 2 and a half years he is playing regularly then fair enough, extend his contract, if he isnt playing then he can move on.

 

Ultimately though, it really doesnt matter

[QBG]

Both extensions fit the Ashley mould. Build the team around (young in Ranger's case) cheap, English players. Ranger is in only 19 and has plenty of time to improve, Williamson is 26 so we get him for his prime years. They will each be on reasonable contract and with the way football is going at the minute they are smart moves.

[Ronaldo]

Williamson is 27.

[QBG]

Fair enough still should be entering his prime.

[Guest Mantis]

No complaints here

[Dr.Spaceman]

Williamson is good enough for us like.  Really like the guy and hope he becomes an important player for us over those 5 years.

[Ronaldo]

He does come across very well on the pitch and in interviews. He certainly seems very happy to be where he's at.