3.5 Year Contracts Being Dished Out

[Crumpy Gunt]

To players who've yet to prove they can do it in the top flight. Seems a strange way for Ashley to be doing business.

[Dokko]

Dog years don't worry.

 

 

[Guest firetotheworks]

I dont understand the .5 part.

[Stifler]

It means that if they fail next year we have a decent length contract to get money out of sales to other clubs for them, but we arn't stuck with them for 5-6 years.

[Guest Stephen927]

I dont understand the .5 part.

 

It's so the deal runs out at the end of a season, instead of midway through a season.

[Guest Roger Kint]

I dont understand the .5 part.

 

[cp40]

.5 usually means half.

 

therefore 3.5 years, is equal to 3 and a half years.

 

hope this helps, cant put it any simpler.

[Teasy]

They're on moderate to small wages.  No point in signing these players on short deals which mean we have no time to sell them on if they're not good enough.  Also I suppose for accounting purposes it spreads the fee out more.

[Pilko]

Christ on a bike, we've just made two signings, on the verge of a third. Why are you always so fucking negative, Crumpy?

[Guest firetotheworks]

.5 usually means half.

 

therefore 3.5 years, is equal to 3 and a half years.

 

hope this helps, cant put it any simpler.

 

What's football?

[Heron]

There's only one Michael Ashley.

[HongKongMag]

They're on moderate to small wages.  No point in signing these players on short deals which mean we have no time to sell them on if they're not good enough.  Also I suppose for accounting purposes it spreads the fee out more.

 

Pretty much what you said I assume. As far as the accounting lot are concerned you can spread your outlay over a 3.5 year period even if we pay the whole sum up front... bloody accounts are the devil when it comes to paperwork.

[Crumpy Gunt]

Christ on a bike, we've just made two signings, on the verge of a third. Why are you always so fucking negative, Crumpy?

 

I'm not negative just pointing out that handing out this type of contract to this type of player is likely going to fill the squad with players who MIGHT not ever cut it in the top flight. I think 2.5 yr contracts should be the order of the day. Help us up. Earn a new contract by end of next season or be moved on.

[Guest guinness_fiend]

To players who've yet to prove they can do it in the top flight. Seems a strange way for Ashley to be doing business.

 

1.  The player will be tied down on set wages for that period (subject to bonuses etc.)

2.  The fees paid have reportedly been nominal

3.  Building a squad of decent (youngish) players is hardly a bad thing, even if they become back-up in the Premiership

4.  Tying a player down for three and a half years means that we're more likely to recoup the amount that we paid if they perform in the top flight or another club comes sniffing (i.e. no Bosman issues, or whatever it is called nowadays).  Even if we get promoted and a Championship side makes an offer, it would have to be realistic, rather than a speculative punt on the basis that "he'll be gone in the summer for nowt..."  Plus, we have the option of loaning them out plus being able to recall them if we're short.

 

Sensible business, as far as I'm concerned.

[Pilko]

Christ on a bike, we've just made two signings, on the verge of a third. Why are you always so fucking negative, Crumpy?

 

I'm not negative just pointing out that handing out this type of contract to this type of player is likely going to fill the squad with players who MIGHT not ever cut it in the top flight. I think 2.5 yr contracts should be the order of the day. Help us up. Earn a new contract by end of next season or be moved on.

 

I think the contracts make sense tbh. Simpson will be about 25/6 and Routledge 29/30 when they expire. I'd be more concerned if we gave this length of contract to someone aged 29+ in all honesty.

[WarrenBartonCentrePartin]

Christ on a bike, we've just made two signings, on the verge of a third. Why are you always so f***ing negative, Crumpy?

 

I'm not negative just pointing out that handing out this type of contract to this type of player is likely going to fill the squad with players who MIGHT not ever cut it in the top flight. I think 2.5 yr contracts should be the order of the day. Help us up. Earn a new contract by end of next season or be moved on.

isn't that an 18 month contract then?

[LoveItIfWeBeatU]

Until recently Newcastle would sign up untested players (e.g. Xisco) on huge weekly wages and long contracts (apparently Xisco's runs until 06/2013). Simpson, Routledge and Williamson (if he signs) will in total cost less than the fee for Xisco and their combined wages are less than Xisco's. That makes Simpson, Routledge and Williamson very low risk by Newcastle standards. If things don't work out we'll be able to get most of our money back on them if not make a profit.

[Guest geordienorway]

Christ on a bike, we've just made two signings, on the verge of a third. Why are you always so fucking negative, Crumpy?

 

This. Routledge, Williamsom and Simpson are all in the right age, and will definitely improve. Would much rather sign young players on long term-contracts than over the top-players who are here for the pay-check. Fair play to the board for giving us a pleasant surprise.

[cp40]

Until recently Newcastle would sign up untested players (Xisco) on huge weekly wages and long contracts (apparently Xisco's runs until 06/2013). Simpson, Routledge and Williamson (if he signs) will in total cost less than the fee for Xisco and their combined wages are less than Xisco's. That makes Simpson, Routledge and Williamson very low risk by Newcastle standards. If things don't work out we'll be able to get most of our money back on them if not make a profit.

 

 

it may be the only way forward for the club, given the financial climate. Its a diffrent market now.

[Crumpy Gunt]

Christ on a bike, we've just made two signings, on the verge of a third. Why are you always so f***ing negative, Crumpy?

 

I'm not negative just pointing out that handing out this type of contract to this type of player is likely going to fill the squad with players who MIGHT not ever cut it in the top flight. I think 2.5 yr contracts should be the order of the day. Help us up. Earn a new contract by end of next season or be moved on.

isn't that an 18 month contract then?

 

They'd have 12 months remaining which if we sell should get some sort of fee.

[HongKongMag]

Until recently Newcastle would sign up untested players (Xisco) on huge weekly wages and long contracts (apparently Xisco's runs until 06/2013). Simpson, Routledge and Williamson (if he signs) will in total cost less than the fee for Xisco and their combined wages are less than Xisco's. That makes Simpson, Routledge and Williamson very low risk by Newcastle standards. If things don't work out we'll be able to get most of our money back on them if not make a profit.

 

Call me mad, but maybe theres a bit of thought going into it these days as opposed to fat freds old habit of chucking his wallet in the general direction of a transfer target!

 

 

 

it may be the only way forward for the club, given the financial climate. Its a diffrent market now.

[LoveItIfWeBeatU]

Until recently Newcastle would sign up untested players (Xisco) on huge weekly wages and long contracts (apparently Xisco's runs until 06/2013). Simpson, Routledge and Williamson (if he signs) will in total cost less than the fee for Xisco and their combined wages are less than Xisco's. That makes Simpson, Routledge and Williamson very low risk by Newcastle standards. If things don't work out we'll be able to get most of our money back on them if not make a profit.

 

I think people are misunderstanding my post. I'm not complaining about Newcastle not gambling on expensive, untested players! My example is demonstrating how the Simpson, Routledge and Williamson deals are a hell of a lot more sensible than the likes of the Xisco deal. Especially given the current state of Newcastle, football and world finances.

[LiquidAK]

Until recently Newcastle would sign up untested players (Xisco) on huge weekly wages and long contracts (apparently Xisco's runs until 06/2013). Simpson, Routledge and Williamson (if he signs) will in total cost less than the fee for Xisco and their combined wages are less than Xisco's. That makes Simpson, Routledge and Williamson very low risk by Newcastle standards. If things don't work out we'll be able to get most of our money back on them if not make a profit.

 

 

it may be the only way forward for the club, given the financial climate. Its a diffrent market now.

 

Things actually seem to be coming together a bit now, Ashley's penny pinching completely fucked us up, but I think I'd prefer that than us being in a West Ham or Portsmouth situation like we may have been had Sheppard continued his borrowing.

 

The way I see it:

 

Ashley's an idiot, and has gone about pretty much everything the wrong way. Weirdly enough, despite royally cocking up the short term future of the club, it may have saved our long term future.

 

Imagine what we could have done had we had a competent owner.

[Guest Stephen927]

Christ on a bike, we've just made two signings, on the verge of a third. Why are you always so f***ing negative, Crumpy?

 

I'm not negative just pointing out that handing out this type of contract to this type of player is likely going to fill the squad with players who MIGHT not ever cut it in the top flight. I think 2.5 yr contracts should be the order of the day. Help us up. Earn a new contract by end of next season or be moved on.

 

Agree with that.

[madras]

Until recently Newcastle would sign up untested players (Xisco) on huge weekly wages and long contracts (apparently Xisco's runs until 06/2013). Simpson, Routledge and Williamson (if he signs) will in total cost less than the fee for Xisco and their combined wages are less than Xisco's. That makes Simpson, Routledge and Williamson very low risk by Newcastle standards. If things don't work out we'll be able to get most of our money back on them if not make a profit.

 

 

it may be the only way forward for the club, given the financial climate. Its a diffrent market now.

 

Things actually seem to be coming together a bit now, Ashley's penny pinching completely f***ed us up, but I think I'd prefer that than us being in a West Ham or Portsmouth situation like we may have been had Sheppard continued his borrowing.

 

The way I see it:

 

Ashley's an idiot, and has gone about pretty much everything the wrong way. Weirdly enough, despite royally cocking up the short term future of the club, it may have saved our long term future.

 

Imagine what we could have done had we had a competent owner.

does that mean you think we really had to cut costs and quickly ?