|
Post by jezzascfc on Oct 28, 2015 12:32:15 GMT
Closer to the end of the season we will offer him two more years and he will sign. We keep within our policy and he gets what he wants (he wanted 3 years from last summer, so it is the same thing!).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2015 12:36:14 GMT
Without knowing what the nature of the discrepancy between the two sides on contract talks is, any comment is literally window-licking mental. We don't have the facts. We know quite a lot though don't we? - Stoke don't want to give Walters a contract through to 2018 in case he's sat in the stands for the final year - and will only give him that final year if he hits a certain amount of appearances. - Walters wants a Premier League contract until 2018, and can (currently) get one elsewhere if that's not at Stoke. Both sides are trying to protect themselves - but I think Walters deserves Stoke to take a leap of faith and give him the extra year that's on offer, without the conditions.
|
|
|
Post by johnnysoul60 on Oct 28, 2015 12:36:32 GMT
As you say we dont know the details but they gave Crouch a 2 year deal and he is a couple of years older at least isnt he?
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Oct 28, 2015 12:40:24 GMT
We'd all love Walters to sign a new deal, if it's the right deal. We can't give him 3 additional years it'd be madness Palacios, Arismendi spring to mind regarding contracts that could be described as "madness". There are probably many more since promotion.
|
|
|
Walters
Oct 28, 2015 12:40:59 GMT
via mobile
Post by StatesideStokie on Oct 28, 2015 12:40:59 GMT
First team wages for a first ten player who has more than proved his value time and again. Age is somewhat irrelevant if it's not impacting his ability to do his job effectively and I've seen nothing that would suggest Walters is anything but a valuable player that we need to keep at the club. He's certainly got another two years in him, and probably a third. His reward for his service to the club should b that we take the risk on that third year. Like you said, anything can happen in the time he's got left and the club needs to give him the security of knowing he's going to be taken care of for commiting the rest of his career to a club he's helped transform.
|
|
|
Post by pez75 on Oct 28, 2015 12:44:06 GMT
No - don't listen to the fans. If he did half the squad would be given two year extensions one week and sacked the next. Too bloody right!
|
|
|
Post by johnnysoul60 on Oct 28, 2015 12:49:52 GMT
It was really positive midfield play from Whelan and a ball played perfectly into him and a fine shot .
As for Cahill , Walters must be a real pain for him after Wembley but he looked slow there
|
|
|
Post by Bick on Oct 28, 2015 12:54:00 GMT
I genuinely don't understand why we haven't resolved his contract situation yet.
|
|
|
Post by jeycov on Oct 28, 2015 13:08:49 GMT
Certainly we mustn't let him go in the January transfer window!
Get something sorted before then, please
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 28, 2015 13:12:43 GMT
3 years would be stupid, he's too old. 2 years would be about right. Sorry mate, can't take your opinions seriously anymore. You spewed your nonsense over an entire thread after last nights game talking about how half our team are not good enough and shouldn't be playing for the club. As far as I'm concerned, you know the square root of fuck all about fuck all and it's pointless anyone trying to have a reasoned conversation with you. You mean the Charlie Adam thread that is backed up by stats? That one? No player over 30 should be offered 3 years, it's bad business.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 28, 2015 13:13:52 GMT
Why would it be madness?. Even if the amount he played in the 3rd year was reduced the income the club will be generating from the PL in coming seasons would make the outlay totally insignificant. Too important to be messing around like this. Absolutely. He's earned a long contract, his injury record is very good and shows no signs of losing his sharpness and energy. A bit like Crouch then who's 2 year extension is looking more ridiculous by the game.
|
|
|
Walters
Oct 28, 2015 13:19:26 GMT
via mobile
Post by foxysgloves on Oct 28, 2015 13:19:26 GMT
Absolutely. He's earned a long contract, his injury record is very good and shows no signs of losing his sharpness and energy. A bit like Crouch then who's 2 year extension is looking more ridiculous by the game. Completely different players. And for what its worth I'd take Crouch over Joselu for the target man role any day of the week.
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Oct 28, 2015 13:19:42 GMT
They want to give him 12 months with the option of another 12 months based on appearances all he wants is the 2 years after all with Affelay,Shaq and Arnie as well as him all vying for the two wing spots as well who says he'll get the number required.
I don't see issue giving him the 2 year extension after all he keeps himself extremely fit and is always an option off the bench.
He's been a great servant and helped up to get we are at now.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Oct 28, 2015 13:25:33 GMT
First team wages for a first ten player who has more than proved his value time and again. Age is somewhat irrelevant if it's not impacting his ability to do his job effectively and I've seen nothing that would suggest Walters is anything but a valuable player that we need to keep at the club. He's certainly got another two years in him, and probably a third. His reward for his service to the club should b that we take the risk on that third year. Like you said, anything can happen in the time he's got left and the club needs to give him the security of knowing he's going to be taken care of for commiting the rest of his career to a club he's helped transform. You have made the clubs point for them entirely. Hence the two year deal with an option on a third. Its an absolutely reasonable position I would suggest. There is only one reason SJ would not snap the clubs hand off for that. He has clearly had an approach from somewhere giving him more. If the CE starts operating on the basis of an auction rather than reality then we can start asking questions, surely?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 28, 2015 13:28:43 GMT
A bit like Crouch then who's 2 year extension is looking more ridiculous by the game. Completely different players. And for what its worth I'd take Crouch over Joselu for the target man role any day of the week. Yeah one could probably play on at a decent level until he's 40. The other relies on energy and as he gets older that is liable to deteriorate and make him less effective. We need two target men who are subs....
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Oct 28, 2015 13:32:02 GMT
3 years would be stupid, he's too old. 2 years would be about right. Sorry mate, can't take your opinions seriously anymore. You spewed your nonsense over an entire thread after last nights game talking about how half our team are not good enough and shouldn't be playing for the club. As far as I'm concerned, you know the square root of fuck all about fuck all and it's pointless anyone trying to have a reasoned conversation with you. Well you should because he's right on this.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Oct 28, 2015 13:33:56 GMT
First team wages for a first ten player who has more than proved his value time and again. Age is somewhat irrelevant if it's not impacting his ability to do his job effectively and I've seen nothing that would suggest Walters is anything but a valuable player that we need to keep at the club. He's certainly got another two years in him, and probably a third. His reward for his service to the club should b that we take the risk on that third year. Like you said, anything can happen in the time he's got left and the club needs to give him the security of knowing he's going to be taken care of for commiting the rest of his career to a club he's helped transform. No its not, and who knows how it will impact him in a year or two, never mind three.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2015 14:09:04 GMT
First team wages for a first ten player who has more than proved his value time and again. Age is somewhat irrelevant if it's not impacting his ability to do his job effectively and I've seen nothing that would suggest Walters is anything but a valuable player that we need to keep at the club. He's certainly got another two years in him, and probably a third. His reward for his service to the club should b that we take the risk on that third year. Like you said, anything can happen in the time he's got left and the club needs to give him the security of knowing he's going to be taken care of for commiting the rest of his career to a club he's helped transform. You have made the clubs point for them entirely. Hence the two year deal with an option on a third. Its an absolutely reasonable position I would suggest. There is only one reason SJ would not snap the clubs hand off for that. He has clearly had an approach from somewhere giving him more. If the CE starts operating on the basis of an auction rather than reality then we can start asking questions, surely? It's reasonable to offer two years with an option of a third, but I'd also say in these specific circumstance it's reasonable for Walters to expect a contract without conditions. Walters has been a virtual ever present since signing, and his knee is showing signs of wear and tear for it. Stoke are probably nervous of this, but if Walters finally succumbs to injury in his 'appearance trigger' season, that's him gone.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Oct 28, 2015 14:11:34 GMT
You have made the clubs point for them entirely. Hence the two year deal with an option on a third. Its an absolutely reasonable position I would suggest. There is only one reason SJ would not snap the clubs hand off for that. He has clearly had an approach from somewhere giving him more. If the CE starts operating on the basis of an auction rather than reality then we can start asking questions, surely? It's reasonable to offer two years with an option of a third, but I'd also say in these specific circumstance it's reasonable for Walters to expect a contract without conditions. Walters has been a virtual ever present since signing, and his knee is showing wear and tear for it. Stoke are probably nervous of this, but if Walters finally succumbs to injury in his 'appearance trigger' season, that's him gone. Wouldn't we all like a contract without conditions!!!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2015 14:14:12 GMT
Sorry mate, can't take your opinions seriously anymore. You spewed your nonsense over an entire thread after last nights game talking about how half our team are not good enough and shouldn't be playing for the club. As far as I'm concerned, you know the square root of fuck all about fuck all and it's pointless anyone trying to have a reasoned conversation with you. You mean the Charlie Adam thread that is backed up by stats? That one? No player over 30 should be offered 3 years, it's bad business. It's a tricky game to play if you're sticking rigidly to self imposed rules though, isn't it? Surely we wouldn't offer a 30 year old Shawcross 2 years, for example? Players should be judged on a case by case basis. No need to tie ourselves in knots and risk losing players.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2015 14:17:12 GMT
It's reasonable to offer two years with an option of a third, but I'd also say in these specific circumstance it's reasonable for Walters to expect a contract without conditions. Walters has been a virtual ever present since signing, and his knee is showing wear and tear for it. Stoke are probably nervous of this, but if Walters finally succumbs to injury in his 'appearance trigger' season, that's him gone. Wouldn't we all like a contract without conditions!!! We would. But you get the point. If the club, and the manager, want Walters for a further 2 seasons after this one (which the offer suggests) - then they probably have to offer it without strings. Otherwise Walters might start sitting out games when he's not fully fit, to fulfil the terms of his contract. (Or, a player the club want to keep will probably move to another club in a couple of months time )
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2015 14:23:03 GMT
The case in point...
How long Ryan's next contract, when he's 30 years old. Or do we stick rigidly to a 2 year offer because he's got a history of back problems as a result of his service to Stoke?
Skipper signs long-term contract at the Club
We're delighted that Ryan has agreed this new deal" Tony Scholes STOKE CITY are delighted to announce that captain Ryan Shawcross has signed a new five-and-a-half year contract with the Club.
The 25-year-old has committed his long-term future to the Potters following weeks of speculation, news that provides the Club with a huge boost as they enter the second half of the season.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 28, 2015 14:24:14 GMT
Doesn't the fact that he has other irons in the fire strengthen his bargaining position. It proves him as a very effective Premier league asset that the club will have to move a bit on if they want to keep him.
|
|
|
Walters
Oct 28, 2015 14:47:30 GMT
via mobile
Post by foxysgloves on Oct 28, 2015 14:47:30 GMT
Completely different players. And for what its worth I'd take Crouch over Joselu for the target man role any day of the week. Yeah one could probably play on at a decent level until he's 40. The other relies on energy and as he gets older that is liable to deteriorate and make him less effective. We need two target men who are subs.... I'd back SJW to carry on proving people wrong and play at the top level well into his mid 30s. Proving people wrong is just what he does.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Oct 28, 2015 14:47:39 GMT
Doesn't the fact that he has other irons in the fire strengthen his bargaining position. It proves him as a very effective Premier league asset that the club will have to move a bit on if they want to keep him. It does. But the club has to decide if the price is worth paying.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 28, 2015 14:58:29 GMT
You mean the Charlie Adam thread that is backed up by stats? That one? No player over 30 should be offered 3 years, it's bad business. It's a tricky game to play if you're sticking rigidly to self imposed rules though, isn't it? Surely we wouldn't offer a 30 year old Shawcross 2 years, for example? Players should be judged on a case by case basis. No need to tie ourselves in knots and risk losing players. Possibly but a 2 year deal should be enough. See the two Glen's.
|
|
|
Walters
Oct 28, 2015 14:59:51 GMT
via mobile
Post by StatesideStokie on Oct 28, 2015 14:59:51 GMT
Doesn't the fact that he has other irons in the fire strengthen his bargaining position. It proves him as a very effective Premier league asset that the club will have to move a bit on if they want to keep him. It does. But the club has to decide if the price is worth paying. Equally, they need to consider the cost of trying to replace him. An extra year on his contract is a relatively small price to pay when you consider the kind of fee and wages required to bring in somebody with the qualities Walters posseses, and thats assuming whoever comes in actually delivers. Weve got a player with proven quality that bleeds for the cause everytime he plays, is a leader who gets his head down and gets on with it regardless of the situation and has been an intregal part of everything good about our club since the daybhe arrived.its not easy (or cheap) to find that kind of player and the extra year of guarantted wages is a relatively smallnprice to pay for me. And thats assuming he's not still going strong in his third year of the extension, which i wouldnt put past him.
|
|
|
Post by block23 on Oct 28, 2015 15:16:39 GMT
Not sure if I am missing something because different posters are saying different things e.g., would give him two years but not the third. My understanding is he has been offered a one year contract, next season, with an option of a second, the season after, based on appearances? Why would we not just give him the two years, I.e., roughly two and a half seasons from now? If he is out of the team in two seasons time, a loan deal or even transfer would still be an option and I cannot see this is breaking the bank. Apologies if I have misunderstood the contract situation
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2015 15:19:20 GMT
It's a tricky game to play if you're sticking rigidly to self imposed rules though, isn't it? Surely we wouldn't offer a 30 year old Shawcross 2 years, for example? Players should be judged on a case by case basis. No need to tie ourselves in knots and risk losing players. Possibly but a 2 year deal should be enough. See the two Glen's. In the vast majority of cases, true. In an ideal world I'd say Stoke's offer to Walters was fair and correct; but I'd also say that Walters isn't asking for anything unreasonable and we should probably match an offer made by Norwich, if the alternative is losing a player everyone wants to keep. Pound for pound I doubt there are many who give better value than Walters in our squad. His replacement, even if he's a squad filler, might cost us a whole lot more and give a whole lot less.
|
|
|
Walters
Oct 28, 2015 15:29:33 GMT
via mobile
Post by followyoudown on Oct 28, 2015 15:29:33 GMT
I don't have a problem if Walters stays but I wouldn't be giving him the contract he wants, he had a great game last night and scored a special goal but when all said and done he averages a goal every 5 games even though he often takes penalties, if we are moving or trying to move to the next sooner rather than later that simply isn't going to be good enough.
|
|