Who to sign for next season?

[philmpv]

It is a performance clause, if the player has met the conditions so he is entitled to exercise the clause. If the alternative was not to play him and be relegated, he has earned the option of an extra season even if he is not in the squad.

It's not really based on performance though is it? It's purely number of appearances. All I'm saying is that, if at all possible, we should try to get away from this as standard in ageing players contracts. It's done us few favours

[Fosse69]

It's not really based on performance though is it? It's purely number of appearances. All I'm saying is that, if at all possible, we should try to get away from this as standard in ageing players contracts. It's done us few favours

If his performance was not good enough he would not be selected, what other way would you use. If you only offer a one year deal you would not get the player. Decent players will hold out for a 2 year contract, the performance option is a compromise, question of economics.

[philmpv]

That's not true though is it? Brown has been bad for a lot of this season but wasn't dropped. Same goes for Smith, Joyce and even Conlon for a spell.

I wouldn't have the clause at all. If we miss out on a player because of that, then there's plenty more out there at this level.

If his performance was not good enough he would not be selected, what other way would you use. If you only offer a one year deal you would not get the player. Decent players will hold out for a 2 year contract, the performance option is a compromise, question of economics.

[Jacko51]

3 hours ago, The man in the pub said:

Interesting to hear Clarke talk on strikers and quoting Cambridge where their top striker scored 8

That's only true if you ignore Mullin's 31 goals and Ironside's 14!!  It was Cheltenham he was on about.

[philmpv]

School is in session

That's only true if you ignore Mullin's 31 goals and Ironside's 14!!  It was Cheltenham he was on about.

[ELDERBEZZA]

1 hour ago, philmpv said:

One thing I most definitely want - no appearance based extension clause in the contract of any player over 30. We seem to have handed these out like sweets over the past few years, such that we were lumbered with Joyce again for this season, and seemingly Legge for next. Pretty sure Pugh and Tonge exercised similar clauses, though I could be wrong? Can't see the benefit of these to the club. If they were quality players, fair enough, but at this level I wouldn't be arsed as a manager if I lost a player because we wouldn't agree to this type of clause

Spot on,Tonge played very few games after he exercised his clause,as he mainly coached .

[philmpv]

"feed the tshiimanga and he will score? dunna sound right to me! 

Phil Sproson would have a stroke just looking at that name

[Playa Amodores]

It could be, but initially it’s in the clubs hands, but it’s still could be the cheapest option for the club. If it’s in the contract and the club don’t want the player the following season, then don’t play them. 

[philmpv]

Easier said than done with squad limits, unfortunately, which is why I think we should try to move away from it if possible. Yes they can be sidelined, but then you have the potential unrest issue, as well as a waste of a wage in the budget.

It could be, but initially it’s in the clubs hands, but it’s still could be the cheapest option for the club. If it’s in the contract and the club don’t want the player the following season, then don’t play them. 

[wotsyobeef]

Easier said than done with squad limits, unfortunately, which is why I think we should try to move away from it if possible. Yes they can be sidelined, but then you have the potential unrest issue, as well as a waste of a wage in the budget.

Would a 1 year deal with an appearance based extension have been more beneficial than the 2 year deal we gave Robinson.

Sometimes you benefit from deals like that other times you don't.

What I'm not keen on is when a player is given an appearance based contract and then you don't pick them to avoid triggering it. They have taken the contract in good faith that if they are good enough they will play and get the extra year. I think it is dishonorable of clubs to then not play them.

[JRC]

1 hour ago, Fosse69 said:

1 hour ago, philmpv said:

It's not really based on performance though is it? It's purely number of appearances. All I'm saying is that, if at all possible, we should try to get away from this as standard in ageing players contracts. It's done us few favours

If his performance was not good enough he would not be selected, what other way would you use. If you only offer a one year deal you would not get the player. Decent players will hold out for a 2 year contract, the performance option is a compromise, question of economics.

The reality is you are correct. Better players get offers from a number of clubs. Better players also get offers from higher clubs. That's just the way it is. There will be a reasonable core of available players most clubs will be looking at, including us. Within reason their agents can set the terms. Ironically Mullin is out of contract because he refused to sign a 2 year deal. Effectively he took a pay cut for 12 months to put himself in the shop window. The holy grail of transfers is finding players just about to be hot before everyone picks up on them. Sodje clearly stood out as an example. The problem is it isn't easy to do. Largely that is Flitcroft's job. There always are players in that category but more flop than come off.

[darren1810]

12 minutes ago, wotsyobeef said:

Would a 1 year deal with an appearance based extension have been more beneficial than the 2 year deal we gave Robinson.

Sometimes you benefit from deals like that other times you don't.

What I'm not keen on is when a player is given an appearance based contract and then you don't pick them to avoid triggering it. They have taken the contract in good faith that if they are good enough they will play and get the extra year. I think it is dishonorable of clubs to then not play them.

Ipswich have just released a player who played 29 games, needed 30 to trigger a new deal 

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/56998531

A lot of clubs fall into this trap 

[JRC]

6 minutes ago, wotsyobeef said:

Would a 1 year deal with an appearance based extension have been more beneficial than the 2 year deal we gave Robinson.

Sometimes you benefit from deals like that other times you don't.

What I'm not keen on is when a player is given an appearance based contract and then you don't pick them to avoid triggering it. They have taken the contract in good faith that if they are good enough they will play and get the extra year. I think it is dishonorable of clubs to then not play them.

Robinson was never our first choice. We went for Maynard for too long then had to get a recognised striker in quickly when he was the only one available, due to the Tom Pope suspension. We hijacked a deal Grimsby were doing to sign him. He wouldn't have signed a one year deal because he was already sitting on a couple of 2 year ones.

Vale did not anticipate the Pope ban, I spoke to someone about it when the club first knew and there was genuine shock it was so long. If Pope had just got a couple of games I suspect they would have gone down a different route and taken someone less esperienced. As it was they were left with an injury prone Cullen and Rodney to start the season. Personally when Maynard started stalling for time I'd have bailed and gone for Ironside; who I thought looked and ideal player for Askey's system.

[Bald Eagle]

11 minutes ago, darren1810 said:

Ipswich have just released a player who played 29 games, needed 30 to trigger a new deal 

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/56998531

A lot of clubs fall into this trap 

Had some bad luck that lad - he even has 12 months with the Lardies on his CV!

[valefan16]

Robinson was never our first choice. We went for Maynard for too long then had to get a recognised striker in quickly when he was the only one available, due to the Tom Pope suspension. We hijacked a deal Grimsby were doing to sign him. He wouldn't have signed a one year deal because he was already sitting on a couple of 2 year ones.
Vale did not anticipate the Pope ban, I spoke to someone about it when the club first knew and there was genuine shock it was so long. If Pope had just got a couple of games I suspect they would have gone down a different route and taken someone less esperienced. As it was they were left with an injury prone Cullen and Rodney to start the season. Personally when Maynard started stalling for time I'd have bailed and gone for Ironside; who I thought looked and ideal player for Askey's system.

We had Jamille Matt waiting didnt we but held out too long for Maynard and Matt was gone by then.