Renewing Players Contracts.

[Crumpy Gunt]

At what stage should it be done?

 

Both Barton and Enrique now into the final 18 months of 5 year contracts. Should contract negotiations have been started with 2 years remaining on their contracts? Not just these two but more of a general question when the quality of the player suggests they are worth keeping.

 

With both Barton and Enrique the ball is now moving further and further into their favour. If it gets to 12 months you even lose the value of the player because he can then sit it out or be sold for a derisory amount. They could both leave this summer if they reject their offers for no more than a million or three between them. S Taylor will go for nowt or no more than peanuts when two years ago you would think realistically north of £4/5m.

Bad business to let it get less than 24 months without negotiations beginning.

[Dave]

I can understand why they waited on Barton, but IMO we should have tied Enrique down by now. Pretty sure that one will be done though. I expect Barton will see out his contract but nothing more.

 

Obviously we know Ashley is very cautious when it comes to wages these days - he seemingly doesn't mind giving out long contracts but only where the wages make it a low risk. The contracts of our best senior players worry me, because I think they will be able to get better packages elsewhere than we offer in renewal terms.

[Thespence]

Wenger  said recently you have to renegotiate players contracts every 2 years to stay ahead of the game, he then went on said Arsenal have people at the club who are constantly re-negotiating player deals.

[Fenham Mag]

Never in Alan Smiths case.

[Benwell Lad]

It's very,very difficult for clubs to renegociate contracts nowadays and since the Bosman ruling it's the player and his agent who call the shots.

It's so risky to have to offer an equal deal to the last one and all clubs will end up winning some and losing some.

I think wage structures are both necessary and advantageous to the game in general, but when you have the ridiculous Man City model it makes it very difficult for others not to follow suit. A rule to only spend a certain amount of turnover on wages can't come fast enough.

Fortunately, despite some of the drivel we hear and read, we seem to be tying our best players down on longer contracts quite early and although it doesn't answer your question about at what stage it should be done, I'd say each individual case must be dealt with on it's own merits. I certainly know it's not a job I'd want and it's certainly not a job for a manager to do alone.

We are going to run into problems eventually as the stock of players like Carroll, Barton, Enrique etc rises, if we don't pay the going rate we'll lose them. We'll need a structure with some flexibility - but maybe that wouldn't be a structure in that case. A real tough one.

[timeEd32]

I can understand why they waited on Barton, but IMO we should have tied Enrique down by now. Pretty sure that one will be done though. I expect Barton will see out his contract but nothing more.

 

Obviously we know Ashley is very cautious when it comes to wages these days - he seemingly doesn't mind giving out long contracts but only where the wages make it a low risk. The contracts of our best senior players worry me, because I think they will be able to get better packages elsewhere than we offer in renewal terms.

 

Agree with all of this. We've done well extending some of the younger/cheaper players - Carroll, Ranger, Krul, Forster, Williamson...The problem for players like Enrique, Barton, and Coloccini is they would need to be convinced to sign a contract that pays less.

 

I'd like to see extensions for Vuckic and Kadar. In those cases though it could be the player that wants to wait. See if they get a chance here and/or waiting to impress enough that they can sign a bigger contract.

[Cronky]

 

The problem for players like Enrique, Barton, and Coloccini is they would need to be convinced to sign a contract that pays less.

 

 

I think this is the heart of the problem. Those players (and Taylor may be a similar example) signed contracts at a level that the club no longer feels it can afford. I don't think this is a matter of Ashley being stingy - many other clubs are now risk-averse, having seen what can happen to the likes of Portsmouth and Leeds.

 

There's no simple answer, because the message - 'We'd like to keep you, now here's a pay cut' - is a mixed one. It may be an idea to offer the same contract, but with a significant amount being subject to performane-related bonuses. Then see if another club comes up with something better.

 

Either way, the player has nothing to lose by hanging on until the last minute.

[binnsy]

i would say if you let any player go past 18 month left on their contract then you are entering dangerous ground and can be in danger of losing players. 

 

Tricky thing for NUFC and probably a few other clubs will be in a similar position they are starting negotiations with players who are on big money and with clubs tightening their belts will be offering newer deals with less money!  If players want to be greedy, they will not sign the new contract and leave on a bosman and that will probably mean they can keep the bigger wages as the new club won't be forking out a transfer fee.

[Dokko]

At what stage should it be done?

 

Both Barton and Enrique now into the final 18 months of 5 year contracts. Should contract negotiations have been started with 2 years remaining on their contracts? Not just these two but more of a general question when the quality of the player suggests they are worth keeping.

 

With both Barton and Enrique the ball is now moving further and further into their favour. If it gets to 12 months you even lose the value of the player because he can then sit it out or be sold for a derisory amount. They could both leave this summer if they reject their offers for no more than a million or three between them. S Taylor will go for nowt or no more than peanuts when two years ago you would think realistically north of £4/5m.

Bad business to let it get less than 24 months without negotiations beginning.

 

I think 18 months is really the cut off time and if left so late aggressive negotiations should be used so by the time the summer comes and 12 months left the deal is done or the player is being sold to the highest bidder.

 

The club had the option to sign Taylor with 2 years left, he asked for the deal, they refused to talk, they are paying for messing him about.

[Benwell Lad]

At what stage should it be done?

 

Both Barton and Enrique now into the final 18 months of 5 year contracts. Should contract negotiations have been started with 2 years remaining on their contracts? Not just these two but more of a general question when the quality of the player suggests they are worth keeping.

 

With both Barton and Enrique the ball is now moving further and further into their favour. If it gets to 12 months you even lose the value of the player because he can then sit it out or be sold for a derisory amount. They could both leave this summer if they reject their offers for no more than a million or three between them. S Taylor will go for nowt or no more than peanuts when two years ago you would think realistically north of £4/5m.

Bad business to let it get less than 24 months without negotiations beginning.

 

I think 18 months is really the cut off time and if left so late aggressive negotiations should be used so by the time the summer comes and 12 months left the deal is done or the player is being sold to the highest bidder.

 

The club had the option to sign Taylor with 2 years left, he asked for the deal, they refused to talk, they are paying for messing him about.

 

Not sure they are.

If he stays it will be on some sort of compromise deal, so both parties may consider they got the deal they wanted.

If he doesn't stay they could most probably pick up someone better or as good for the kind of money he's demanding.

[Dokko]

At what stage should it be done?

 

Both Barton and Enrique now into the final 18 months of 5 year contracts. Should contract negotiations have been started with 2 years remaining on their contracts? Not just these two but more of a general question when the quality of the player suggests they are worth keeping.

 

With both Barton and Enrique the ball is now moving further and further into their favour. If it gets to 12 months you even lose the value of the player because he can then sit it out or be sold for a derisory amount. They could both leave this summer if they reject their offers for no more than a million or three between them. S Taylor will go for nowt or no more than peanuts when two years ago you would think realistically north of £4/5m.

Bad business to let it get less than 24 months without negotiations beginning.

 

I think 18 months is really the cut off time and if left so late aggressive negotiations should be used so by the time the summer comes and 12 months left the deal is done or the player is being sold to the highest bidder.

 

The club had the option to sign Taylor with 2 years left, he asked for the deal, they refused to talk, they are paying for messing him about.

 

Not sure they are.

If he stays it will be on some sort of compromise deal, so both parties may consider they got the deal they wanted.

If he doesn't stay they could most probably pick up someone better or as good for the kind of money he's demanding.

 

Plus about £5m in transfer fees unless were lucky like Williamson, which i doubt will happen again.

 

 

[Benwell Lad]

With the exception of Man City and Chelsea type set ups, all clubs are in a fairly similar situation and will have to cut their cloth acording to their means from now on.

So if you lose a player on a Bosman you will be able to pick up another club's former player in the same way and so it will go on and on.

 

There is no doubt that this dealing will be a huge factor in a club's success/failure and good scouts and negociators will be very important people to have at your club. Making your club more attractive than the next one will help enormously and Newcastle's fan base, stadium and the city itself will give it an advantage over many other clubs.

[Thespence]

Chelsea are trimming back more than most tbf.

 

Out: Wilko, Deco, Belletti, Carvalho, Ballack, J.Cole,  Stoch, Sinclair & Di Santo

 

Net spend watchers I am aware that Chelsea still spent more than they got back but it is nailed on there wage bill has been slashed quite a bit. Will the incoming players be on more than Ballack & I mean all them added up together.

[Benwell Lad]

Chelsea are trimming back more than most tbf.

 

Out: Wilko, Deco, Belletti, Carvalho, Ballack, J.Cole,  Stoch, Sinclair & Di Santo

 

Net spend watchers I am aware that Chelsea still spent more than they got back but it is nailed on there wage bill has been slashed quite a bit. Will the incoming players be on more than Ballack & I mean all them added up together.

 

Fat Russian basstad.  Sack the board !

[bealios]

As soon as they justify it.

 

NUFC's problem has always been signing players on massive wages initially who have looked good in the past at other clubs, or who are unproven in the Premier League.

 

No problem with Ashley's policy of low wages for new signings, seems perfectly sensible until they have proven they are an asset to the team, and can cope with playing in front of 50,000 fans at home in the Premier League.

 

If they start to show promise, and consistent quality, then renew/improve straight-away, even if after 1 year of a 4 year deal. Man Utd and other clubs do this all of the time with their players - they reward the player with a better contract if they deserve it, and it keeps them happy and focused, and stops the agents trying to manufacture moves.

 

If Barton, Colo, Enrique go through this season and are vital parts of a first team squad that keeps us up, or even in the top 12, they should have their contracts renewed, at the current level, no questions. A club with the turnover and financial resources of NUFC should be able to offer a small selection of its most important first team players a £60K per week contract. It is when they start offering all of the average players who don't play regularly similar or better contracts when the problems start.

 

 

[Thespence]

I think Chelsea are gearing up for UEFA rule changes. I also think Man City are but in different way have zillions of players & then flog them to boost income.

[ChrisMcQuillan]

As soon as they justify it.

 

NUFC's problem has always been signing players on massive wages initially who have looked good in the past at other clubs, or who are unproven in the Premier League.

 

No problem with Ashley's policy of low wages for new signings, seems perfectly sensible until they have proven they are an asset to the team, and can cope with playing in front of 50,000 fans at home in the Premier League.

 

If they start to show promise, and consistent quality, then renew/improve straight-away, even if after 1 year of a 4 year deal. Man Utd and other clubs do this all of the time with their players - they reward the player with a better contract if they deserve it, and it keeps them happy and focused, and stops the agents trying to manufacture moves.

 

If Barton, Colo, Enrique go through this season and are vital parts of a first team squad that keeps us up, or even in the top 12, they should have their contracts renewed, at the current level, no questions. A club with the turnover and financial resources of NUFC should be able to offer a small selection of its most important first team players a £60K per week contract. It is when they start offering all of the average players who don't play regularly similar or better contracts when the problems start.

 

 

 

Wise words.

[James]

As soon as they justify it.

 

NUFC's problem has always been signing players on massive wages initially who have looked good in the past at other clubs, or who are unproven in the Premier League.

 

No problem with Ashley's policy of low wages for new signings, seems perfectly sensible until they have proven they are an asset to the team, and can cope with playing in front of 50,000 fans at home in the Premier League.

 

If they start to show promise, and consistent quality, then renew/improve straight-away, even if after 1 year of a 4 year deal. Man Utd and other clubs do this all of the time with their players - they reward the player with a better contract if they deserve it, and it keeps them happy and focused, and stops the agents trying to manufacture moves.

 

If Barton, Colo, Enrique go through this season and are vital parts of a first team squad that keeps us up, or even in the top 12, they should have their contracts renewed, at the current level, no questions. A club with the turnover and financial resources of NUFC should be able to offer a small selection of its most important first team players a £60K per week contract. It is when they start offering all of the average players who don't play regularly similar or better contracts when the problems start.

 

 

 

Best post I've read for some time.

[Fried Chicken]

Never in Alan Smiths case.

 

 

[Stifler]

It depends on each individual contract, but at the moment I'm fairly happy at how well we are doing. As far as I know we have the likes of Carrol, Krul, and Ranger have recently signed new contracts and they are promising players for the future. If today's news is to be believed and comes off it also shows that the club are willing to sit down with players who are for now aswell. I don't for one minute think that the large amounts of money is being thrown around, infact we can take that for a fact, but also we are at the moment atleast showing that we are being competitive and not everything is done on the cheap. What we also have to bear in mind is that all these news deals will include some sort of clause for if the club are relegated, so in future if we do have a terrible season again and end up relegated then we should still be able to keep players who could get us back up, and still afford it.

[OzzieMandias]

I've been thinking about this issue recently on the level of what happens if the club are expecting either to move on our highest earners or attempt to get them to sign for lower wages. If it's the former, then they'll just let the contract run down. And if they're aiming to do the latter, there's not much point renegotiating before then anyway. If any player is going to accept lower wages, they're certainly not going to do so two years before the more lucrative contract runs out.