Are contracts worth anything to the club?

gosplan · 08-08-2013 6:58pm #1

Like it says. Are contracts actually worth anything to a club.

It used to be one year and you had to sell, then it was two years because the price is so low in the final year. Now people are talking about players buying themselves out with two years remaining so it msy be 3 years in the future.

Are we, as fans, deluded to think that a long term contract has any value to the club?

Do they only exist to guarantee players a wage?

This is a general question btw, there's a Liverpool thread, an Arsenal thread, a Suarez thread and a transfer thread for all of that guff.

Gatling · 08-08-2013 7:04pm

Christian benteke comes to mind barely a year into a contract demanded a transfer from villa a few weeks back,

I'm suprised we don't have more free agents playing on yearly contracts

DM_7 · 08-08-2013 7:04pm

Did you not answer your own question by outlining the impact that the term remaining on a contract has on value?

A contract is what allows clubs to charge any fee for a players registration so yes it has significant value to the club.

CSF · 08-08-2013 7:24pm

They command big transfer fees...

CSF · 08-08-2013 7:26pm

Gatling wrote: »

Christian benteke comes to mind barely a year into a contract demanded a transfer from villa a few weeks back,

I'm suprised we don't have more free agents playing on yearly contracts

Not good for the player in terms of security. One bad season, an injury or even just a new manager could set the players earnings way down.

Owen_S · 08-08-2013 7:31pm

Clubs no longer have power, it is all in the hands of the players and agents. Clubs feel obliged to sell a player who refuses to sign a new contract with a year to go on his existing deal, as they risk losing him to another club for nothing.

DM_7 · 08-08-2013 7:39pm

Owen_S wrote: »

Clubs no longer have power, it is all in the hands of the players and agents. Clubs feel obliged to sell a player who refuses to sign a new contract with a year to go on his existing deal, as they risk losing him to another club for nothing.

They have power, just not all the power like they used to have. Its been like that since the mid 90s though.

CSF · 08-08-2013 7:47pm

As long as clubs can demand fees in the region of what they can, they have the power. The players have just taken some of it back.

CSF · 08-08-2013 7:50pm

Also, contrary to what large sections of the general public seem to believe, it's not a horrible thing for a player to want to move clubs when under contract. The club will be equally ruthless to get him off that contract if he doesn't perform.

gosplan · 08-08-2013 8:00pm

If Fabregas signed a contract for Man U tomorrow, what length of cobtract would be best for the club and why?

That's maybe a better way of asking the question. BTW insert any young good player and any club for the two mentioned.

CSF · 08-08-2013 8:03pm

gosplan wrote: »

If Fabregas signed a contract for Man U tomorrow, what length of cobtract would be best for the club and why?

That's maybe a better way of asking the question. BTW insert any young good player and any club for the two mentioned.

There are too many variables for someone who hadnt been analysing the situation for months to accurately say.

COYVB · 08-08-2013 10:08pm

gosplan wrote: »

If Fabregas signed a contract for Man U tomorrow, what length of cobtract would be best for the club and why?

That's maybe a better way of asking the question. BTW insert any young good player and any club for the two mentioned.

3 years with club held option for a 4th is the optimal deal these days I reckon

PhlegmyMoses · 09-08-2013 12:17am

A long term contract provides the club with a bargaining position when it comes to selling a player. It's why everyone thinks Levy is a genius in the transfer market. He signs his younger players or bright talents onto 5 and 6 year deals early on so gets a fortune for them when it comes time to sell. His genius is that he gives himself leverage with long contracts.

KaiserGunner · 09-08-2013 12:23am

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

A long term contract provides the club with a bargaining position when it comes to selling a player. It's why everyone thinks Levy is a genius in the transfer market. He signs his younger players or bright talents onto 5 and 6 year deals early on so gets a fortune for them when it comes time to sell. His genius is that he gives himself leverage with long contracts.

The flip side to that though is (in Arsenals case) that you could end up with leaches like Bendtner on long term contracts that you cant get rid of.

PhlegmyMoses · 09-08-2013 12:38am

KaiserGunner wrote: »

The flip side to that though is (in Arsenals case) that you could end up with leaches like Bendtner on long term contracts that you cant get rid of.

Of course but Arsenal tended to give huge wages to these players. The likes of Diaby and Bendtner were on relatively huge money for what their talent at the time dictated. I think Diaby is on £75,000 a week, which is similar to what Modric was earning. Vidic at United is reportedly on around £95,000, to give it some perspective. The Arsenal wage bill was always huge relative to their spending.

When Levy was signing Modric and Bale to their respective 5 year contracts, it was just at the right time. He gets them in when they are on the rise and gives them more money but not a huge amount. It's a balancing act that when done right gives you a lot of power when the bigger, or should I say more cash-rich, clubs come sniffing.

Are contracts worth anything to the club?

Comments