zookeeper Posted June 4, 2005 Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 So far all of these players have said how happy and greatful they are to be joining a club of our stature. "Quality set up""Gaffer didn't need to sell it to me""Big club going places""Greatful to the new boss for faith in me""Turned down a one year contract at current club"All of these seem to said by all of the players and I suppose aren't uncommon from new players. I know every signing we make says how we are a big club.However the one bit that stands out is that they were all offered only one year contracts and that they were very pleased to have the security of a longer contract.Does this mean that we are opporating in a different way to most clubs at present? Not a negative because it has allowed us to sign them but slightly different to how we opporated last year when Smith and Brown signed for us on short term contracts. It must also mean that the board has a lot of faith in Tinmans judgement for players. 3 years is a long time for a contract these days. Is this going to lead to the players being complacent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jon Shaws Chrome Dome Posted June 4, 2005 Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 Swindon are only offering 1 year does cos as ever they are financially screwed. Shorter term contracts are more common but we are certainly not unique & bearing in mind there was competition for Smith & Heywood I doubt we would have got them without > 1 year deals. Of course the other way to look at it is that if you give someone a 1 year deal & they do really well, you are powerless to stop them walking away in 12 mths time.Russell was different in that having achieved League 1 footy he didn't want to drop back to League 2.With all 3 i expect our (relatively) close proximity to their current clubs also helped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zookeeper Posted June 4, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 Swindon are only offering 1 year does cos as ever they are financially screwed. Shorter term contracts are more common but we are certainly not unique & bearing in mind there was competition for Smith & Heywood I doubt we would have got them without > 1 year deals. Of course the other way to look at it is that if you give someone a 1 year deal & they do really well, you are powerless to stop them walking away in 12 mths time.Russell was different in that having achieved League 1 footy he didn't want to drop back to League 2.With all 3 i expect our (relatively) close proximity to their current clubs also helped.←I think that the last point was very important. None of them have to relocate and I imagine their signing on fees should reflect this.A lot of clubs seem to offer out of contract players a one year deal with the option of taking up another year if certain criteria are met. This way if they do really well then we won't lose them for free.How much competition was there for these players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jon Shaws Chrome Dome Posted June 4, 2005 Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 Difficult to say accurately as all paper talk but I heard that Rotherham were looking at both Smith & Heywood (plausible as Mick Harford would have seen a bit of them) & allegedly Tranmere also had an interest in Heywood. According to the EP 11 clubs were interested in Russell - probably a bit OTT but Cheaterfield were interested (Russell has played for McFarland before) & Russell himself said the final decision came down to us or Uddersfield.Its a bit of a hobsons choice - go for players early & you might pay a over the odds - go late & the better players may be snapped up. I am confident that our board manage our finances relatively sensibly & bearing in mind the transfer window I think we are right to get people in early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS3_RED Posted June 4, 2005 Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 I have to say that what has impressed me most, is how the new signings are all saying how Tinman has sold the club to them. That was something we were all concerned about last summer, whether Tinman would be able to sell the club to players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zookeeper Posted June 4, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 Difficult to say accurately as all paper talk but I heard that Rotherham were looking at both Smith & Heywood (plausible as Mick Harford would have seen a bit of them) & allegedly Tranmere also had an interest in Heywood. According to the EP 11 clubs were interested in Russell - probably a bit OTT but Cheaterfield were interested (Russell has played for McFarland before) & Russell himself said the final decision came down to us or Uddersfield.Its a bit of a hobsons choice - go for players early & you might pay a over the odds - go late & the better players may be snapped up. I am confident that our board manage our finances relatively sensibly & bearing in mind the transfer window I think we are right to get people in early.←I didn't realise there was that much competition for them.The last paragraph is very true and I suppose the only way to tell if these players are a success is to wait for the games next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solo1bc Posted June 4, 2005 Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 I thought Leeds were in for Smith? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest we8thegas Posted June 4, 2005 Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 I thought Leeds were in for Smith?←leeds were Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.