Opinion: have Port Vale not learnt the lesson of lengthy contracts?

Rob Fielding says that lengthy contracts could hinder Vale’s transfer business for a second summer in a row as he asks – have the club not learnt the lessons of the Flitcroft era?

Rob Fielding writes…

One of the issues facing Darren Moore in the summer was removing players who were no longer needed at the club but who were on lengthy deals. It followed a string of unsuccessful additions by director of football David Flitcroft all on two-year or longer contracts.

Looking at the contract lengths handed out over the summer and the size of the squad, it seems Vale may not have learnt their lesson…

Vale are by no means favourites to go up this campaign but maintain a chance of doing so. Should they move into League One there’s a strong possibility they would like to upgrade their squad. Should they stay in League Two then the same may apply. However, looking at the contract lengths handed out over the summer and the size of the squad, a chance to do so may be limited by the number of players under contract through to next season. Could it be that Vale have not have learnt their lesson?

There are several players who will be likely to leave at the end of the season as their contracts expire. That list includes Dan Jones, Diamond Edwards, Jason Lowe and possibly Rakeem Harper, Jesse Debrah and Tom Sang too.

However, some of the (arguably) key players at the squad – Ben Garrity, Nathan Smith, Mitch Clark and (the unsung) Kyle John are also out of contract at the end of the season. Vale will not doubt want to keep them. However, is the same true of those players still under contract?

According to my sums, fifteen players are contracted beyond the summer. Even Funso Ojo, currently out on loan, is contracted to 2026. Several of those under contract (Tolaj, Byers, Paton and Curtis) have three year deals. If you add keeping Smith, Garrity, Clark and John (as I’ve just mentioned) then that’s a whopping nineteen players under contract.

Will Vale really want to keep all of these if the club does win promotion? It could be a costly process to remove some of them if other clubs don’t come in for them. Having so many under contract potentially limits the club’s ability to make significant changes in the summer.

I guess it’s only fair to make the counter argument at this time. The club will probably say the contracts handed out were one with the best intentions (but then the same could be said of the Flitcroft signings).  Arguably long-term deals can also produce squad stability and tie-in some significant players to long-term deals. Certainly long deals for the likes of Shorrock and Stockley make sense while (at the time) long deals for Paton and Tolaj (presuming the pair have potential but may take time to acclimatise) were also logical.

But look at some of the others… it seems odd that Ben Amos, then brought in as back-up to Connor Ripley got a two-year deal at 34. Similarly, Ben Heneghan and Connor Hall, who would both be 32 and playing in League One next season if the club were to get promotion, were given two-year deals.

Vale are overstocked in some positions. Take wingbacks… even if Clark and John don’t agree to stay, Vale would have Sam Hart, Jaheim Headley, Jack Shorrock and James Plant (not adverse to the right wingback position) all under contract. Add Clark and John to the mix and Vale would have six players under contract but only two positions to play them in. There’s potential for player dissatisfaction let alone little opportunity to freshen it up with new additions.

However, we don’t want to go in the opposite direction and have the majority of players out of contract, leading to a potential mass exodus. I think the club needs to work out carefully who gets what length of contract. A highly promising youngster like Shorrock certainly needs a long-term deal. As should three or four of the key players at the club – let’s say for argument’s sake, Smith, Croasdale, Garrity and Stockley, who could form the spine of the side. Then it’s down to the rest – the squad players. This is where I think the problem lies as too many have been handed a two-year contract as a matter of course. I think the club need to be certain the player has long-term potential before doing so and think about one-year deals for those whose future isn’t guaranteed.

For me, this summer that would have meant one-year deals for the likes of Amos, Heneghan, Hart and even perhaps the returning (with potential, but still much to prove) Walters.

This balance would have kept key players at the club but allowed Vale more flexibility in other positions as players’ contracts expire. I would imagine the club would argue that some players would not sign without the reassurance of a long-term deal but surely there are contingencies. For instance, if there was a clause allowed extension talks to kick in after a certain number of appearances.

For a youngster like Walters then the incentivised route seems a more logical step as in – you’ve been out for a long time, here’s a year’s deal. If you work hard, show your worth and play enough games, then there’s an extension you can sign. Isn’t there a danger that long contracts can breed complacency? In football, players are used to short-term deals and Vale aren’t a charity. A three and a half year deal for a 19 year-old with five League starts seems pretty generous.

I feel there is a balance to be had with players’ contracts and at the moment, Vale have not learnt previous lessons to try and get that balance right. It could lead to Groundhog Day when the summer of 2025 arrives.

What do you think of this piece? Agree or disagree? Post your comments at the end of this article.