Jack Tucker is having another good season IMHO, he will be 21 next Friday and a free agent next June. Does anyone else think it's time we offered him a new contract before he walks, I know we will get a tribunal fee either way, but would prefer us to have a long contract and force clubs to deal.
grumpygit, whilst I totally agree, I would add that we could do worse than extending the contract of Graham... So much of the positive side of our game revolves around him. He works hard - can demonstrate skill, produce several good crosses, as well as knows how to score.
Well - we just got almost another £17,000 for scraping past Woking ... ........that's next season's player budget sorted. A more serious answer is that Scally could decide to do nothing to extend the contract (( which would cost more )) - in the knowledge that if Tucker goes as a 'free' agent, Gills will still get 'some' money --- but-- despite the business acumen of Mr.Scally, he has often failed to understand that we'll get ripped off - with the loss of a larger transfer fee that can be obtained if Tucker is on a longer contract - than the measly money from a tribunal.
On the topic of Jack, I don't think we have the ability or resources to develop the lad. It's completely different to when you had the quality of players like Egan in the side. I would allow the lad to move on.
I do agree about offering Graham a new contract, the trouble is I don't think we could afford his new value. With Tucker we have to offer a new contract to trigger the tribunal fee regardless of whether he signs it or not.
We did well on Egan deal as he was only a Gills player for 2 seasons and we still got 10/20 % when he moved on to sheff Utd. In a ideal world we should give Tucker longer contract. But these are not normal circumstances
