Nor are we, I guess. Maybe we just think they're good extensions, and not bad ones. So it more of a "YES! ANOTHER GOOD EXTENSION!" reaction.
Unless you're running your squad foolishly and have an excessive number of players, then you would have to be paying somebody to fill that role. This is only a waste of money if you're paying above the salary value of a like for like replacement and even then you are dealing in less risk because you have a known quantity. Come on....contract length is a big factor on transfer income. So many examples at Saints alone over the last few seasons. You seem to think a players ability drops like a stone. As ever there is no one rule fits all on this. Different positions have different physical demands and the conditioning of players has massive variances. We didn't offer an extension to Pelle because of his pre-existing knee condition, but Steven Davis is regarded as one of the fittest players in the squad. Also you shouldn't dismiss the rising markets abroad in China & MLS amongst others who do value an experienced player and will pay a transfer fee to acquire them. Injuries can happen to anyone at anytime, so will never be a reason not to issue a contract. On the subject of Jay, on current evidence you would say the club were wrong to give him quite so many years after such an horrendous injury. However when there is hope a player of his ability could return to full fitness then I think they were correct to give him a chance to make a return.
Like you said, different positions have different physical demands. Steven Davis because of his role HAS to be one of the fittest and fastest players in the squad. And that's why players in positions like that tend to decline rapidly post-30. It's not that they lose all their ability, but that the they can ill-afford any drop off because the standards are so high and the competition is so strong. Look around. How many attacking or central midfielders do you see playing in the Premier League at the age of 33 or 34? The justification for Davis's extension lies in his off the pitch contributions. Even if he only rarely plays, he can be a leader in the clubhouse, mentor young players, possibly go into coaching, etc. Similar to SKD. The odds that he earns the contract solely by his contributions on the pitch are pretty slim.
Absolutely not. This is your opinion, so don't deliver it as fact. You have always made comments that are less than favourable about Davis on the pitch. That's fine that you don't rate him. I think you are so very wrong on that but your highlighted line above comes across as so matter of fact. To me the justification for Davis contract is about his importance to the team... As shown yesterday. So often when he doesn't click, we don't tick. I really do dislike the way you are dismissive of people like Davis for, what appear to me, to be wrong reasons. How the hell can you "know" what the justification for his new contract is?
You're hilarious. So Davis playing poorly yesterday and the team playing poorly as a result is a justification for extending him? That's some interesting logic right there.
Jeez. You do join up funny dots don't you and you know damn well that is not what I am saying... what was it you whined about earlier on here? Someone twisting your post unfairly? Careful where those stones land. Come on fella, you have always criticised Steven Davis on here. You don't rate him Would you like me to spell out my point again (though probably not worth it as so many people have tried to point a similar thing out to you on this subject, but you just don't get it). I actually think this may be because American sport views these things differently.
I don't rate him as highly as you do, but I like him. But the fact is that we'd already extended him through 2017-18. At which point he would be 33. We gave him another season, when he will be 33 or 34. It seems much more likely that we signed him to another year for his clubhouse presence and so he would retire a Saint. But you're right-- it's possible the team thinks he'll still be good when he is 34. If so, that seems to me like a rather foolish assumption.
Sorry, but that's daft. I wasn't talking about people who are obviously over the hill or who have zero value in the market and you know I wasn't, as I made it clear; I was talking about people worth money. The club isn't stupid. Just to clarify, my figures don't relate to one-legged dwarves who've ended up on the pitch either. And the increment is what matters. What you're already paying him contractually is a sunk cost. so for the periods in my example, what I've said is true. Apart from that , you're bang on the nail. Vin
In the years the club is already under obligation to them, the extra cost is simply the cost of the additional wages owed via the raise. But it's a raise AND an extension. If someone is signed only through 2018 then the sunk cost for 2019 is 0. So if you opt to extend them to 2019, then you added the full cost of their wages that year to the budget.
Well, I wrote a long and detailed response then realised you're not actually interested. I now agree, extending contracts is madness because players may get injured. Or old, unexpectedly. Or something. Vin
