Liverpool change player contracts

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/live...ry-and-avoid-expensive-flops-100252-32617808/

LIVERPOOL FC have adopted a new approach to players’ contracts with lower basic salaries and more performance-related bonuses.

The Reds have been stung in recent years by the kind of lucrative deals handed out to flops like Joe Cole and Alberto Aquilani.

Now contracts are being structured in a different way to ensure there is a greater incentive to be a success at Anfield.

MD Ian Ayre said: “The attitude I’m trying to put forward when we’re negotiating with agents is that we want to do a contract which is fair for both sides.

“Fair often means the right amount of reward for a player who delivers. Everyone we bring through the door we expect to perform and and do the best they can. As long as any player does that they should be rewarded for it.

“I’m not one of those who subscribes to the idea that players are necessarily overpaid. I think they make a huge contribution to the biggest league in the world.

“From the football club’s perspective, our view has to be that people are rewarded for contributing towards what we achieve. As long as contracts are structured in that way then everyone wins.

“If a player performs then he will be rewarded. That’s the philosophy of the contracts we are offering and signing.”

Ayre admits there is “a bit of a legacy” when it comes to negotiating deals now with clubs and agents knowing what kind of inflated figures Liverpool have previously been willing to pay.

“It’s a bit of a legacy we have to deal with as agents always seem to know what every player is earning and what every contract structure is,” he added.

“But it’s not something that’s causing us too many problems. It doesn’t matter what has gone before, it’s about what’s happening now.

“We have good relationships with the agents we are dealing with. I’ve found in the main most agents are prepared to listen and find the best solution for both sides.

“Like any negotiation, if you give someone the opportunity to have it all their own way then they will. That’s not going to be the case here.

"We are being open, honest and fair in making it clear that the real reward comes from performance.”

 

how contracts should always have been.

wonder if other clubs will adopt this approach.

 

Agreed.

However, how will transfer targets react? Imagine they receive two offers - one of from us offering a low basic with good bonuses, and another club offering a higher basic? My question is more to do with the attitude of the modern day player.

 

You may be right but I think it's worth a try, perhaps it will catch on as it seems to make more sense than the current system.

 

It makes sense with FFP coming in too, I'd imagine player bonus' are tangible so our figures on paper will always look good. Surely players will see the benefit of this? if everyone is on the same type of deal it's more of an insentive to work as a team and reach your goals rather than just taking the money each week, it makes you and those around you better players and it provides a hunger for success

 

Performance based pay always leads to selfishness.

 

Been harping on about the need to go down this route with player contracts for ages..
More performance related pay, can't see the harm in that at all, and the quicker this becomes the norm (not just at LFC) the better!
Paying some like Cole 90K to do sod all is just obsence!

 

Not if more incentive is put todays the "teams" results rather than your own personall performance.
For example, soce a goal, 5K, setup a goal, 2.5K, keep a clean sheet 5K, team wins 7.5K!

 

I agree that this is how contracts should be but also think consideration needs to be considered to how the game is nowadays. Clubs have big squads and players are rotated whether they are playing well or not. Then there is the situation of a player performing well but is unable to get in the side because there are two or three others in their position doing better. I don't think it is as black and white as it first seems

 

I reckon they should give Downing a contract of 50K PW but deduct 5K every time he loses the ball and 1k every time he gets the ball and turns back towards his own goal. Then he would be paying the club to pay.

 

Always felt that if your perusing a career as a footballer a contract should be done like this.

In a real job, you get standard pay and then if you get bonuses for doing good in the job then even better, and football should be the same.

For example, Daniel Agger. His standard could be 70k, any clean sheet he gets he will receive 5k on top of that, this would lead a player to perform well.

If you don't wanna play with enough heart for the club, they'll play for money.

 

I think it's a good idea if managed correctly and I think some other clubs already do it.

If not managed correctly it could create friction in the squad. A good player will be pissed off at missing out on his bonus if it's due to other players being ****

 

True, but again if it focuses more on team performances for bonuses you can negate some of this. So an appearance % requirement for a player to qualify for team reward bonuses: so being genuinely rotated shouldn't effect you, being lazy will. as our team is at the minute we aren't going to have 4 world class strikers competing for one or two spots whereas United will but then United are more likely to last in all competitions, which means more games which means more rotation and all performing strikers get their percentage. As we progress (hopefully) then the increase in matches should coincide with the need of a larger high quality squad.

Obviuosly Agents will stick in clauses to protect the likes of Lucas for example with long term injury & recovery etc.

(this bit isnt at you Gerrez) With our limited funds we can't keep using the wrong structure just because Chelsea or City do, we'll not survive that and sorry regarding attracting players, I didnt see us attracting world class talent because we were throwing 100k a week around. We attracted lazy has beens and little fish with big opinions of themselves: all average that contributed nothing to our team performances. Well for once i agreee with FSG; If we do average at least pay an average price for it.

Obviously I hope its a stimulus to team improvement rather than just paying average for average long into the future lol

 

We don't have four top strikers but then, this idea isn't just for the now either. Plus, I was thinking more about the midfield. For example, IMO Henderson should be playing ahead of Allen but isn't.

I think bonuses should be team related rather than individuals, especially when it comes to goals/assists, bonuses for these can make players greedy and not a team player

 

You're here the are you? Ever since you became a MOD, you've virtually disappeared, lazy twat

 

FFS...

Ps...I posted that last comment whilst, well, you know... And yes, there is a thread for this "****"

 

2 things:

If every other club structured their pay accordingly, it would work; based on team position in league/cups versus a goal. However, if e.g. Spurs, offered a player that we also wanted a straight pay out versus an incentive based contract, then we will lose out. Period.

Secondly, once you create the structure; the second that you break it for a big name signing, will lead to unrest amongst the ranks......especially if they don't perform (e.g. as per Downing).

Unfortunately, we've made our own bed here so will have to suck it up for a couple of seasons.....or at least until the agents (or owners of other teams - see thread on Ince), realise that we won't be financially pillaged anymore.

Part of me is happy that financial common sense is prevailing, part of me is sad in realising that we will never compete for world class signings again.

 

As long as it doesnt lead to things like arguments over who takes free kicks in possible goal scoring positions because players want bonuses.

 

Seems like a good idea to me and would compliment the moneyball philosophy.

We are discussing it like one team would offer a player "X" amount of £'s and WE would offer less up front with a performance bonus to make it up to the "X".

This is not how it should be structured or it won't work. You offer less on the basic but put in place bonuses that will take the player beyond the "X" if they perform well and more importantly the team are successful.

By making the team bonus (It is meant to be a team game after all) the bigger element than the personal bonus, but making the total of those two bonuses plus the lower basic worth more than another team would offer "up front" you successfully incentivise but keep control of expenditure if you don't do well.

Its Been done for years in some industries, personal objectives, departmental objectives, its not perfect and can be subjective but seems to work.

Players would obviously have the choice whether to join the club or not but that will be down to the market at the time and how much they are prepared to back their own abilities; and give us a better quality of player hopefully.

 

I've always wanted us to go down this route. Its the way it should be....however its a policy that can be tough on a manager. The better players won't be shy in asking for a move if their manager is buying in ****e to play alongside them and they aren't getting their bonus. Ultimately though it is a good way to motivate the modern player because the rewards are so big.

As well as team bonuses I can think of a few individual ones I'd write in:

A bonus for Gerrard if he ever finds a man from a corner.

A bonus for Sturridge for getting a better goal celebration...this is Anfield lad not the Grafton.

A bonus for Downing every time he phones in sick.

One for Agger if he get's Y.N.W.A. tattooed on his knob.

Bonuses for all players who pass forward more than they pass sideways.


And finally...a daily bonus for Lucas just for being sound