|
Post by trigger on Oct 30, 2015 8:29:12 GMT
Couldn't we off set the 3rd season debate by disposing of a non playing member of staff, hmm let me think, Momo any ideas?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2015 8:37:05 GMT
I'm not sure who you mean though. Mysterious and sometimes anonymous and unfathomable extensions to minor players are thankfully a thing of the past. This on the other hand, is a massive contract issue with a massive player being played out in public. Not sure we've been here for ages, if at all, in the post 2008 era have we? Whelan bitched recently. Crouch imo got an unfathomable extension. And I'd ask questions over the Adam, Cameron, Wingie contracts too. Walters deserves no more than what we're offering. I think the club are doing this right and sticking to their guns. Crouch is quite an interesting case, as it was probably his previous contract that brought about Stoke's 2 year deals for over 30s policy. I'd argue that the contract that took Crouch from 30 - 34 years old worked out OK in the end. It must have, as we then offered him another contract from 34 - 36 years old. It has to be a sensible, case by case approach. 30 years old is hardly ancient for a footballer these days, if you find one who looks after himself properly, they can still play football beyond 32 years old. I'm boring myself with the Shawcross example , but we'll probably be negotiating a new contract with him when he's 29, and probably wanting him to sign a 4/5 year deal. If he turns 30 during negotiations do we take everything off the table and say it's 2 years or nothing? What if we get a special player who is 30 year old around the table, and he wants 3 years? It's a laudable stance but we can't cut our nose off to spite our face. It's a false economy if we have to replace current players with new signings, we risk losing good signings and valued members of the squad, and risk pissing off the manager. We can be sensible without tying our hands behind our backs. ...and when does 2 year deal become 3? Walters only wants a 2 3/4 year deal now, doesn't he? Deal done.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2015 8:39:48 GMT
Give him a three year deal and let's end this saga. So give a contract to a bloke until he'll virtually be 36................nah! Didn't he turn 32 last month? (according to Wiki) He'll turn 34 after the start of his final season, unless I've misunderstood everything and wasted my time on this thread.
|
|
|
Walters
Oct 30, 2015 8:40:06 GMT
via mobile
Post by nutterpotter on Oct 30, 2015 8:40:06 GMT
Just offer him a 2 year contract with an option for another year if he meets an appearance target.
Both parties satisfied.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Oct 30, 2015 8:43:00 GMT
Give him a three year deal and let's end this saga. So give a contract to a bloke until he'll virtually be 36................nah! I hear where you are coming from and agree Stoke have too many old players on the books. Klopp is putting out a very young Liverpool team, who may not be winning, but will come good in time. MH is on a journey and is investing in younger players for the future. But, we are talking about Jon Walters here. This is the club that played a man at 50. Times have changed but so have pitches, fitness regimes, diet, medical back-up, etc. I believe in Jon Walters case he could go on for a few more years where others couldn't.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 30, 2015 8:43:00 GMT
So give a contract to a bloke until he'll virtually be 36................nah! Didn't he turn 32 last month? (according to Wiki) He'll turn 34 at the start of his final year, unless I've misunderstood everything and wasted my time on this thread. I'm thinking 3 yr extension from June 2016....
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 30, 2015 8:44:20 GMT
So give a contract to a bloke until he'll virtually be 36................nah! I hear where you are coming from and agree Stoke have too many old players on the books. Klopp is putting out a very young Liverpool team, who may not be winning, but will come good in time. MH is on a journey and is investing in younger players for the future. But, we are talking about Jon Walters here. This is the club that played a man at 50. Times have changed but so have pitches, fitness regimes, diet, medical back-up, etc. I believe in Jon Walters case he could go on for a few more years where others couldn't. We are. That's why I don't get it, he's bang average!
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 30, 2015 8:46:01 GMT
Whelan bitched recently. Crouch imo got an unfathomable extension. And I'd ask questions over the Adam, Cameron, Wingie contracts too. Walters deserves no more than what we're offering. I think the club are doing this right and sticking to their guns. Crouch is quite an interesting case, as it was probably his previous contract that brought about Stoke's 2 year deals for over 30s policy. I'd argue that the contract that took Crouch from 30 - 34 years old worked out OK in the end. It must have, as we then offered him another contract from 34 - 36 years old. It has to be a sensible, case by case approach. 30 years old is hardly ancient for a footballer these days, if you find one who looks after himself properly, they can still play football beyond 32 years old. I'm boring myself with the Shawcross example , but we'll probably be negotiating a new contract with him when he's 29, and probably wanting him to sign a 4/5 year deal. If he turns 30 during negotiations do we take everything off the table and say it's 2 years or nothing? What if we get a special player who is 30 year old around the table, and he wants 3 years? It's a laudable stance but we can't cut our nose off to spite our face. It's a false economy if we have to replace current players with new signings, we risk losing good signings and valued members of the squad, and risk pissing off the manager. We can be sensible without tying our hands behind our backs. ...and when does 2 year deal become 3? Walters only wants a 2 3/4 year deal now, doesn't he? Deal done. You're talking to someone who would only really want to offer them a 1 yr extension!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2015 8:45:43 GMT
Just offer him a 2 year contract with an option for another year if he meets an appearance target. Both parties satisfied. That's the sticking point isn't it? Stoke offered an appearance based contract, and Walters wants the security of that extra year without strings (i.e. two seasons after this one) I suppose from Jon's point of view, if he gets his first long term injury of his Stoke career in that crucial season, he's gone.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2015 8:47:23 GMT
Didn't he turn 32 last month? (according to Wiki) He'll turn 34 at the start of his final year, unless I've misunderstood everything and wasted my time on this thread. I'm thinking 3 yr extension from June 2016.... Ahh. Not how I understood it, but I'm often wrong. I always thought he wanted a 3 year deal from last summer, i.e. this season is year one.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Oct 30, 2015 8:54:07 GMT
I hear where you are coming from and agree Stoke have too many old players on the books. Klopp is putting out a very young Liverpool team, who may not be winning, but will come good in time. MH is on a journey and is investing in younger players for the future. But, we are talking about Jon Walters here. This is the club that played a man at 50. Times have changed but so have pitches, fitness regimes, diet, medical back-up, etc. I believe in Jon Walters case he could go on for a few more years where others couldn't. We are. That's why I don't get it, he's bang average! Nice reply; I too have not even had Jon on the bench for my team selection 12 months ago. But facts are facts, Jon is not just a 110% effort man, he is a natural goal poacher and as he has pointed out himself, Stoke managers keep buying strikers but every year he is consistently our 2nd/3rd highest goal scorer even when a second choice player. If this average player can get 7 goals from 30 matches as a second choice player, surely there is room for him in the squad?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 30, 2015 8:55:32 GMT
I'm thinking 3 yr extension from June 2016.... Ahh. Not how I understood it, but I'm often wrong. I always thought he wanted a 3 year deal from last summer, i.e. this season is year one. No idea!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2015 8:57:53 GMT
Ahh. Not how I understood it, but I'm often wrong. I always thought he wanted a 3 year deal from last summer, i.e. this season is year one. No idea! It's what has been reported - but who knows. Stoke's Norwich transfer target Jonathan Walters set to be held to contract's final year 22:30, 23 AUG 2015 BY JAMES NURSEY The forward has 12 months to run on his deal, wants a two-year extension which the club are unwilling to offer and has seen a Canaries bid rejectedThat's why I understand where Walters is coming from. Stoke have basically offered a guaranteed one year extension, and an extra year if he plays a certain amount of games in that season. Understandable, but hardly screams "We value you, Jon" does it?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 30, 2015 9:00:20 GMT
We are. That's why I don't get it, he's bang average! Nice reply; I too have not even had Jon on the bench for my team selection 12 months ago. But facts are facts, Jon is not just a 110% effort man, he is a natural goal poacher and as he has pointed out himself, Stoke managers keep buying strikers but every year he is consistently our 2nd/3rd highest goal scorer even when a second choice player. If this average player can get 7 goals from 30 matches as a second choice player, surely there is room for him in the squad? He's useful for the squad (I haven't said he hasn't). I think Tuesday night summed him up nicely really. He was fucking awful until he scored. He was dominated by Terry but then made of the most of a bit of a mistake and his turn and strike were brilliant. It was instinctive, he didn't have to think and he just needed to wallop it. It gave him confidence and then he played much better, running at people and having a few more chances. But the chances he had he completely fucked up, why? Because he had time to think. The first he should have used his left to play the ball across to Shaq, that was never going to happen. The second he just leant back and some poor bloke in row z got it.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 30, 2015 9:01:29 GMT
It's what has been reported - but who knows. Stoke's Norwich transfer target Jonathan Walters set to be held to contract's final year 22:30, 23 AUG 2015 BY JAMES NURSEY The forward has 12 months to run on his deal, wants a two-year extension which the club are unwilling to offer and has seen a Canaries bid rejectedThat's why I understand where Walters is coming from. Stoke have basically offered a guaranteed one year extension, and an extra year if he plays a certain amount of games in that season. Understandable, but hardly screams "We value you, Jon" does it? I can see why at that tbh, like I said further up I would only offer 1 yr extensions for 30+ year olds.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2015 9:22:49 GMT
Perhaps we should add a clause in our over 30s policy that says ; "If you appear in over 95% of first team matches since signing for Stoke, you become exempt from policies designed to protect the club against the physical wear and tear suffered by footballers"
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 30, 2015 9:35:15 GMT
Nah.
Once 30 and contracts need to be extended it has to be a limited contract.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2015 9:54:09 GMT
Haha. A 2 year contract extension, taking him to 33 years old on the opening day of his final season, is bloody limited!
|
|
|
Walters
Oct 30, 2015 11:50:51 GMT
via mobile
Post by upthefud on Oct 30, 2015 11:50:51 GMT
Give him a three year deal and let's end this saga. So give a contract to a bloke until he'll virtually be 36................nah! He's not a pace player, Giggs was and look at his contract... We'd miss him if he left, his attributes are difficult to replace on the cheap.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 30, 2015 11:57:21 GMT
So give a contract to a bloke until he'll virtually be 36................nah! He's not a pace player, Giggs was and look at his contract... We'd miss him if he left, his attributes are difficult to replace on the cheap. Giggs is one of the best footballers of his generation who adapted his game. It's a daft comparison. We've got Diouf who does the same and more.....
|
|
|
Walters
Oct 30, 2015 11:58:45 GMT
via mobile
Post by upthefud on Oct 30, 2015 11:58:45 GMT
He's not a pace player, Giggs was and look at his contract... We'd miss him if he left, his attributes are difficult to replace on the cheap. Giggs is one of the best footballers of his generation who adapted his game. It's a daft comparison. We've got Diouf who does the same and more..... Not really. He was surrounded by players who were also among the best in their generation. Walters is less injury prone and just as important to us. You're a mug if you'd risk losing him for nothing
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 30, 2015 12:01:32 GMT
Giggs is one of the best footballers of his generation who adapted his game. It's a daft comparison. We've got Diouf who does the same and more..... Not really. He was surrounded by players who were also among the best in their generation. Walters is less injury prone and just as important to us. You're a mug if you'd risk losing him for nothing Yes it is. Giggs was a world class footballer who over time adapted to his limitations and almost made a second career at the very top. Walters should be a bench player for us, nothing more, nothing less.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Oct 30, 2015 12:02:40 GMT
Giggs is one of the best footballers of his generation who adapted his game. It's a daft comparison. We've got Diouf who does the same and more..... Not really. He was surrounded by players who were also among the best in their generation. Walters is less injury prone and just as important to us. You're a mug if you'd risk losing him for nothing What's happened to your adage about spending other peoples money?
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 30, 2015 12:04:50 GMT
Nah. Once 30 and contracts need to be extended it has to be a limited contract. If you dogmatically stick to a policy like that, then you will get bit on the arse. There are plenty of other clubs who wont operate such a rigid policy. Also as ever with our transfer dealings it seems to be all over the place. On deadline day did we not have a three year contract to a 31 year old midfielder from Palace on the table?
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Oct 30, 2015 12:05:32 GMT
All other supporters I know closely who support other teams all say the same thing, why haven't you signed up Walters yet. Got a P&D in today, a Citeh season ticket holder, first thing he said was 'cracking goal by Walters, sign him up before you regret it' I'd give him 2 more years
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 30, 2015 12:10:59 GMT
Nah. Once 30 and contracts need to be extended it has to be a limited contract. If you dogmatically stick to a policy like that, then you will get bit on the arse. There are plenty of other clubs who wont operate such a rigid policy. Also as ever with our transfer dealings it seems to be all over the place. On deadline day did we not have a three year contract to a 31 year old midfielder from Palace on the table? Not if you're strategic about it and get 28 year olds signed up on 3/4 year contracts etc. No idea but I agree it is shit. Bardsley's contract was always fucking daft for similar reasons. There's no rhyme nor reason to it. I think (and it is just me pondering) that Walters thinks he should be on 40/50k a week and we're not prepared to do that. Imo rightly so.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Oct 30, 2015 12:37:57 GMT
The whole money thing in The Premier League is daft though.
If you try to reconcile a players contract length and worth with say, his ability, you would go mad.
The reality is that the "going rate" for a Premier League player is about £40/50k per week. Walters may not be the most talented, but he brings a lot to the team. He's as fit as a Butcher's Dog and you take a risk with injury with all players.
There is no long or medium term strategy. It's all about the short term - survive and get the massive TV money. It's insane, but £50,000 per week over 2 years, approximately £5,000,000, is a relatively small investment compared to the vast rewards of being in this league.
The cost of replacing Super Jon would be at least that over the period, with no guarantee of such an effective result.
On that basis, it's a yes from me.
|
|
|
Post by Bick on Oct 30, 2015 12:56:11 GMT
Love to think the Chelsea fans were thinking 'Begovic will know all their moves, they'll never score past him'..... then this!...
|
|
|
Post by superheroantonius on Oct 30, 2015 13:59:38 GMT
Christiano Ronaldo is 30 and Phillip Lahm is 32.
In the unlikely event they wanted to come Stoke.
Would we really insist we don't want them unless they will accept a 2 year deal .
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2015 14:01:09 GMT
It's a bit of an odd stance to make by the club, I think the 2 year deal is a bit of a red herring - it could easily have been called a 2 year extension, as Crouch and Whelan's were - and Walters was 31 during negotiations, so the 32 year old limit reported below doesn't apply. There's no sniff of Walters wanting a pay rise. I wonder if Stoke are nervous about the long term affects of Jon's knee injury he played through last season. I don't feel entirely comfortable with that stance as he probably should be cut a little slack if he's been playing through injury for a prolonged period at the clubs request. Walters has another 10 months left on his current agreement with the club and wants a two-year deal on top of that until the summer of 2018.
He's seen Glenn Whelan and Peter Crouch offered two-year extensions earlier this year and sees no reason why he shouldn't be granted the same privilege.
The club is only willing to offer him a one-year extension guaranteed, however, with the second year dependent on how many games he plays in the previous season.
An identical deal was offered to Charlie Adam earlier this summer and duly accepted by the Scotsman.
But Walters, or at least his advisers, would argue that Adam was being rewarded for six superb weeks at the end of last season, while their man should be rewarded for five years of consistent service.
The club, for its part, is sticking to its guns and only topping up a contract to two years hence for any player aged 32 or over.Crouch and Whelan both got 2 year extensions in January this year, when their contracts were up the following summer. So I assume the clubs rules won't apply to Walters 2 months from now and he's entitled to get what he wants.
|
|