Opinion: Port Vale need to think carefully about contract lengths…

Rob Fielding argues that the club have gambled unnecessarily with contract lengths in the summer, especially to injury-prone players. He says it shows an inconsistency in approach and also makes it difficult for the club to wheel and deal in the transfer window.

Rob Fielding writes…

There was a period under Darrell Clarke when the club would not publish the length of contract given to players. It was apparently a ploy to not give other clubs a hint that a Vale player was reaching the end of his current deal. I wonder if the club are regretting their decision to start publishing contract lengths again?

Why? It’s because I think there’s firstly an inconsistency to the lengths offers and secondly recent long-term deals have severely restricted the club’s ability to wheel and deal in the transfer market. Let’s take that second point first…

However, with a lot of the squad contracted well beyond the end of the season, it surely ties the club’s hands in who they can move on. After all, the players are under no obligation to move and any buying club may have to stump up a fee…

It’s widely expected that Vale will look to strengthen in January. However, it’s also expected that some players will need to move on to facilitate those new additions. However, with a lot of the squad contracted well beyond the end of the season, it surely ties the club’s hands in who they can move on. After all, the players are under no obligation to move and any buying club may have to stump up a fee.

However, arguably the bigger issue is the inconsistency to the deals offered. I have no problem with long-term deals for the likes of James Plant, who, at his tender years, has time to develop and could be a top player in years to come. However, I was surprised with some of the lengths of contracts offered in the summer. Jason Lowe is 32 and was offered a two-year deal. Even more surprisingly, Dan Jones and Conor Grant, both players who have suffered plenty of injuries in the past, were both handed two year deals. Now, I have no problem with fit and in-form Jones and Grant being assets for the club, but they can’t do that when they are on the treatment table. I know the club wants to look after its staff but it also has to put a commercial hat on. Surely the right deal for a player with an injury history is one where they prove their fitness to earn an extension? Just like, well, the deal for James Wilson!

So, it’s a bit odd that Wilson has to go down the “prove it” route (a short-term contract to the New Year which has now been extended to the end of the season)  while Jones and Grant get “free passes” and the security of longer-term deals…

Wilson is similar to Jones and Grant in that, his playing qualities aside, he has been ravaged by injuries over the years. So, it’s a bit odd that Wilson has to go down the “prove it” route (a short-term contract to the New Year which has now been extended to the end of the season)  while Jones and Grant get “free passes” and the security of longer-term deals. It’s not even like there’s a difference in the availability of the three – so far this season, Wilson has only played one League game less than Grant and ten more than Jones. So, why does he get the “prove your fitness” deal and the other two don’t?

There’s another reason why the longer term deals are odd. If a player is injured then he’s no use to your team and he’s not going to be very attractive to other sides. However, if he is on a short-term contract, he’s easier to dispose of (yes, sorry it’s a heartless phrase) without much of a pay-off. In theory, if Vale wanted to get rid of either Jones or Grant in the January window it would be a waste of money as they’d have to pretty much pay them 18 months salary to do so.

All this means Vale lose the flexibility to chop and change in transfer windows as players who are unavailable anyhow are tied to contracts and cannot realistically be moved on for players who are fit to play.  I fully understand that contract length are a key part of negotiations with players in order to attract them to the club. I can see that offering a shorter deal may not be as attractive to a player. However, I would doubt that any player with a “dodgy” fitness history will get a better, longer deal elsewhere, anyhow. Even if other clubs offer longer deals – is it in Vale’s best interests to follow suit? As I’ve already pointed out, it’s not much use having a good player on a long-term contract if he spends a significant part of that time on the treatment table rather than the pitch. If other clubs want to offer a Vale target with a dodgy playing record a long-term deal, I think the club should let them and start looking elsewhere.

I can appreciate that, on occasion, it’s worth taking a gamble on a player with a bad injury record in the hope that he may actually recover and be available long-term but in my years of watching Vale it’s extremely rare that an injury-prone player eventually becomes an regularly available player. We can all remember the false dawns of poor Michael Walsh or Lee Matthews. Both were talented players but were forever getting injured just after they’d returned. Or in more recent years the travails of Manny Oyeleke. Even if it is worth the gamble on one injury-prone talent, it surely isn’t worth multiple gambles as it was this summer.

The approach taken with Wilson was spot-on, I felt. It’s perhaps one that should also have been taken with other, similar players too.

Agree? Disagree? Your comments on this subject are welcome. Scroll down to add your thoughts.