The club offered 3. No way should we be giving 4 n half year deals to a bloke who's had a bad knee injury.
Is there a parallel with 2009/10 and us turning down 5 million for Hunt from relegation rivals Wolves? We turned it down then and Hunt got injured not long after - we went down and got considerably less in the summer. This time we're accepting the bid ... Snodgrass gets injured not long after - we stay up after getting considerably more for him in January than we would in the summer. This is the straw that I might cling to.
Signing a contract in January would take him to a summer. Normally I'd agree with you on point two but have you met Snoddy? He's really down to earth and seems to ignore all media training. It's not as though he was leaking Thursday's tactics or our transfer targets.
There's a lot of sense not giving long term contracts to some players What the club don't seem to be doing is consistently trying to improve the team by buying better players to put in the first team ahead of other players who are squad players and then moving them on at the right time We seem to sell players and then desperately try to fill the void I'm not saying it is easy but we seem to make it as hard as possible
If he wanted an extra 1.5 years it means either we offered him a contract until January or he asked for a contract til January. Think about it.
If one of our best players has two years left on his contract we should be offering him a small pay rise with an extra year on his contract instead what we do is keep his wages as low as possible and then panic as his contract runs down
I see both sides Ben but until that transfer window closes then we have to see how this unfolds. Some of the responses are laughable! There is a chance in all this that it's simply a case of MS doesn't want Snodgrass or Snodgrass could be forcing this! If he is then get rid as we don't need players who aren't up to the fight