But it is because your suggesting the board should not have let us get into the position we're now in, but in order to avoid this they should have made got them on longer contracts some time ago. The issue is things change the club's position, the Murphy's development etc, etc. Really the scent of fear generated just because the media suggestion that a couple of teams have shown an interest in a couple of our younger players is crazy. Really a couple of goals games and suddenly the board is incompetent for not getting them on longer contracts and anyway how do you know we're not taking steps to keep them ?
I'm saying they should respond now, tomorrow, Monday, before the twins heads get turned by more lucrative offers some of which are already rumoured - and too many more performances / goals like we've seen and it can only get worse with even higher profile clubs alerted.
No, Come on read the original post. I think I've made my views quiet clear on many other threads that I didn't want us to keep either Whittaker or Turner, Indeed I argued against many on here that we should have had a much bigger clear out of our dead wood. I also argued in facour of our youth system and academy when many on here were saying it was a waste of money.
Agreed, But the original post was that the board was incompetent because they had let us get to the position we're now in and whilst the board may be incompetent I don't think they have been in this case.
I can't recall every post made by every contributor I'm afraid, but fair enough. But on this thread, or your last half dozen comments, you haven't appeared overly fussed whether they're contracted for 9 months or much longer. Other clubs are becoming very 'fussed' indeed, thinking they can pick them up (which they will unless something is sorted) for a relative pittance.
Well I'm certainly not getting carried away by a couple of good goals and some decent performances. I would like to think the board are talking to AN, the coaching staff and the Murphy's about a potential new contract. But really before signing them I would suggest we need to take a view on the following question 1) Are they going to make the difference between us getting promotion or not ? 2) Do we think they have the ability to become PL quality players ? If the answer to either question or both is Yes then we should be looking to sort out a new contract asap. If the answer to both is no then we need to consider if it makes financial sense to get them on a longer contract. For example if we think they are going to be quality Championship players and if we get promoted then we can sell them for more because they are on a longer contract. Personally I not convince that the answer to 1 & 2 above is yes, but if the right deal could be done then I'd get them on a longer contract because i think it makes financial sense. If I was advising the Murphy's though I would be advising them to take their time and drag things out.
Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing? When I suggested on a thread before the season started that I hoped our players aged under 23 got 50 starts between them during the season I was told to ' get real ' as they hadn't proved their worth - now the Board is being pilloried for not giving them long term contracts!! They might be trying now to negotiate new contracts - who knows? We have no right to know - but it takes both sides, including agents, to sort it out and that takes time. The positions of 3rd choice FB and 5th choice CB are for players at the end of their careers - like Whittaker and Turner - who are prepared to sit and wait in the wings for a season in case they are needed. These 2 were already at the Club and know the Club etc etc - who else would have been better and cheaper on a 1 year contract?
So are you saying that ALL the players from U23's downwards should be given long contracts on spec that they will all come good?
Seems to me that some people just need a stick to beat the club board with, there is no common sense in what they are saying!
Fully agree. Would be a bit more understandable if we weren't 2nd in the league and having our best Cup Run for years following an away win at the Club 2nd in the Premiership!!
Yes Dave - they're 'damned if they do and .....'. Had the Murphy twins been offered longer contracts last year and flopped, can you imagine what would have been said. I'm HOPING they might take a 'leaf out of Huckerby's book'and ignore their agent's advice.
No. And if you can show me where I said that I'd be obliged. That would have been as idiotic as saying we ought to have bid £50m for Britt Assombalonga I don't care about people disagreeing, that's what we're here to discuss, but I don't like being misquoted.
It was a question NOT a statement or quote! Tetchy aren't we? Go back and read your post again... The alternative point is that our (lacklustre) board need to be far more proactive, rather than wait for interest and then have to be reactive. All Im saying is, how can you be 'proactive' when you don't know the outcome of any given situation. As I posted previously it sort of indicates that you would want every player on the books given a long term contract to cover future possible situations. That would be proactive wouldn't it?
Because he's already here, and it's easier and cheaper than letting him go and sourcing a suitable (5th choice) CB replacement, I guess. See 1950's post #87 on this thread.
