|
|
Post by zigiiiiiiiiiiiic on May 13, 2009 20:08:51 GMT
longer contract at Stoke and is happy on a 1 year rolling contract.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich Haynes on May 15, 2009 3:41:09 GMT
best for the club tbh. means if we do want to get rid of him it costs less to buy him out of the contract. not that we gonna  |
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on May 15, 2009 6:46:48 GMT
Is this the same 'rolling contract' that was supposed to be coming to an end on the other thread? |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on May 15, 2009 6:59:45 GMT
I wish Kitson was on a 12 month rolling contract!  |
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on May 15, 2009 7:05:11 GMT
I've never really understood why players are not on rolling contracts. Surely this would mean that they always have a transfer value that does not diminish over time, but only by age or ability/injury.
|
|
|
|
Post by citytillidie08 on May 15, 2009 7:21:52 GMT
The only problem is if players were on that they would never have to leave for example pericard he would stay at Stoke for years and just collect his wage.
|
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on May 15, 2009 7:32:05 GMT
You can still end a rolling contract, it just rolls out to a close over whatever the term is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tubes on May 15, 2009 9:35:34 GMT
I've never really understood why players are not on rolling contracts. Surely this would mean that they always have a transfer value that does not diminish over time, but only by age or ability/injury. The main problem as I see it is that good players naturally want their contracts to end so they can renegotiate. Put a great player on a 3 year rolling contract and he'd be stupid not to exercise it immediately. That way when it's up, he can invite offers to better his contract from other teams, or more likely, when it starts to get near to the time it runs out, his club will be falling over themselves trying to better it. For a talented footballer, the most lucrative part of his contract is the point where it's nearly done, and he can start negotiating on a new one. For the less talented footballers, it's probably the other way round. Imagine Kitson on a three year rolling contract. It hasn't worked out for the club, and we're stuck with the lanky bastard for three years from the point when we realise he's crap. Also any players who we have when promoted from the championship will also have full contracts to run. As a club, you want the option to reassess your players on a regular basis to cull dead wood, which is extremely hard if they all have full contracts ahead of them. Certainly different for a manager, because they can quit or be sacked (which just doesn't happen to footballers) and therefore want some form of compensation. |
|
