Contract expiry

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I hope that doesn't end up with us not playing half the team because we don't want to offer a further season. Especially if we're limited with squad numbers and still stuck with the useless stump up front.

No I don't think so. A set amount of appearances merely triggers an option. We don't have to take it up, do we? Does this option work both ways, do we know?

Sometimes it automatically triggers an extension.

[Hoboh]

I hope that doesn't end up with us not playing half the team because we don't want to offer a further season. Especially if we're limited with squad numbers and still stuck with the useless stump up front.

No I don't think so. A set amount of appearances merely triggers an option. We don't have to take it up, do we? Does this option work both ways, do we know?

Sometimes it automatically triggers an extension.

Meeting Cara Delevingne could trigger an automatic extension too, probably won't happen though

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I hope that doesn't end up with us not playing half the team because we don't want to offer a further season. Especially if we're limited with squad numbers and still stuck with the useless stump up front.

The thought did cross my mind, as it's a problem in that contract style, but I think we may be jumping at shadows a little. I know we lost Spearing for the last month of 2015/16 but that was due to a clause owing Liverpool, not the player.

It's perhaps a backhanded compliment but I would "trust Ken" to structure a contract favourable to himself. You'd assume the extension-triggering bar is fairly high, for instance at least 30 league games in the player's final season (with a caveat for ALF if his second season is in the Premier League) ie two-thirds of games. You'd also imagine it's limited to starts, otherwise it restricts Parky's freedom to bring players off the bench.

Running through simulations, you'd have to pass through a fair few if-gates to make it unpalatable. For instance, say Dervite is out of favour (which means we have better players or think we can get them) but an injury crisis means we have to draft him back in for the last month of the season. So you'd need
(1) a player to have been picked regularly but
(2) Parky not want to extend him - bit weird
(3) Some other thing (injury/suspension) which forces us to pick him anyway.

And even then, if we really didn't want to extend, I'd back Ken to negotiate a pay-off favourable to us. These extension contracts are important to ageing players: by the time these "unextended" contracts elapse, Karacan will be 29, Dervite a month off 30, Wheater 31, while Morais and ALF (the following summer) will be nearer their 33rd birthday than their 32nd. I've no doubt they all asked for that extra year straight away – full-on two-year contracts, three for ALF – so if the promise of more jam tomorrow helped them sign on now, on shorter-term performance-related contracts, I'm all for it.

Also gives us a lot more flexibility if the manager changes...

The other scenario is the one where the manager develops an irrational blind spot with a player. All managers develop them to some extent, though to be fair Parky is one I trust to not get too caught up in it. It wouldn't have been a surprise if Coyle was not playing Muamba due to some clause despite him and Stu being first names on the sheet in a sensible world. If we take last season and fan favourite Gary Madine. He was generally the only viable or sensible option for much of the season, but what if Parky didn't want him next season? Does he screw up our only chance of functioning up front, or does he play him and get stuck with a player he doesn't really want?

Given our situation we are likely going to make do in most areas which may mean the best current option is not one we want sticking around longer than necessary. Like you I think Ken is savvy in these areas and it was probably necessary to get some of the deals over the line. I just hope there aren't too many more deals with automatic triggers.

[Bruce Rioja]

I hope that doesn't end up with us not playing half the team because we don't want to offer a further season. Especially if we're limited with squad numbers and still stuck with the useless stump up front.

No I don't think so. A set amount of appearances merely triggers an option. We don't have to take it up, do we? Does this option work both ways, do we know?

Sometimes it automatically triggers an extension.

That's an automatic extension then, not an option.

[BWFC_Insane]

Appearance based options are good are they not? Motivate a player to perform and earn his place in the side. Means we have flexibility come season end.

[Prufrock]

I hope that doesn't end up with us not playing half the team because we don't want to offer a further season. Especially if we're limited with squad numbers and still stuck with the useless stump up front.

No I don't think so. A set amount of appearances merely triggers an option. We don't have to take it up, do we? Does this option work both ways, do we know?

Sometimes it automatically triggers an extension.

That's an automatic extension then, not an option.

An "option" is usually held by one party, and the othe rparty has no choice (if neither had the choice, it would be an automatic extension, if both had the choice it would be pointless as they are obviously free to negotiate another year on the same terms without any "option").

So eg. Alf has an option if he plays 30 games in his last year. If he plays 30 games he has the option to extend for another year and the club has no choice. It's an option because Alf doesn't have to take it (say he'd scored 30 goals and was being courted by a better side with more money, he could let his two-year deal run out).

On the other hand e.g. the club has an option for another year with Wheater. Before 31 May they can extend his contract by another year on the same terms. If they do, Wheater has no choice, the contract is extended, but the club can choose not to take up the option and his contract expires after one.

(I've made those up as examples, I'm not ITK).

[Prufrock]

Appearance based options are good are they not? Motivate a player to perform and earn his place in the side. Means we have flexibility come season end.

I think broadly so but you run the risk of an Elmander type situation where they play well in their final year angling for a move and you can't keep them (I think appearance-based options tend to be in the player's favour i.e. their "option" rather than the club's; club's tend to want to just have the freedom to take it or not. That being said I could see someone like perenniel bench-sitter Alf insisting any club option is only available if he's made X starts).

I think the sensible approach is to only risk long-term contracts on likley assets you don't want to lose the cash value of (probably only Vela at the moment, or if Ameobi signs and does well his next one). The rest one and two years and either try to get options or hope to renogotiate the ones you end up wanting to keep.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

...so we're still not clear about these options. But all will be revealed in about 10 and 22 months (unless triggered before).

[BWFC_Insane]

Appearance based options are good are they not? Motivate a player to perform and earn his place in the side. Means we have flexibility come season end.

I think broadly so but you run the risk of an Elmander type situation where they play well in their final year angling for a move and you can't keep them (I think appearance-based options tend to be in the player's favour i.e. their "option" rather than the club's; club's tend to want to just have the freedom to take it or not. That being said I could see someone like perenniel bench-sitter Alf insisting any club option is only available if he's made X starts).

I think the sensible approach is to only risk long-term contracts on likley assets you don't want to lose the cash value of (probably only Vela at the moment, or if Ameobi signs and does well his next one). The rest one and two years and either try to get options or hope to renogotiate the ones you end up wanting to keep.

Indeed. 31 year old Morais is one where we might want an option. A young promising potentially sellable asset is one we want to tie down as tightly as possible.

[Bruce Rioja]

I hope that doesn't end up with us not playing half the team because we don't want to offer a further season. Especially if we're limited with squad numbers and still stuck with the useless stump up front.

No I don't think so. A set amount of appearances merely triggers an option. We don't have to take it up, do we? Does this option work both ways, do we know?

Sometimes it automatically triggers an extension.

That's an automatic extension then, not an option.

An "option" is usually held by one party, and the othe rparty has no choice (if neither had the choice, it would be an automatic extension, if both had the choice it would be pointless as they are obviously free to negotiate another year on the same terms without any "option").

So eg. Alf has an option if he plays 30 games in his last year. If he plays 30 games he has the option to extend for another year and the club has no choice. It's an option because Alf doesn't have to take it (say he'd scored 30 goals and was being courted by a better side with more money, he could let his two-year deal run out).

On the other hand e.g. the club has an option for another year with Wheater. Before 31 May they can extend his contract by another year on the same terms. If they do, Wheater has no choice, the contract is extended, but the club can choose not to take up the option and his contract expires after one.

(I've made those up as examples, I'm not ITK).

See, my understanding is that it's the club who hold the option, not the player. I could, of course, be wrong, but I seem to recall other cases in which clubs have chosen to / not exercise their option.

[Athertonian]

As it currently stands were a tad thin on playing personnel. Parkinson must have a few irons in the fire regarding additions. I wouldn't rule out a pay as you play for Mark Davies should no club place a risk in him. A similar situation occurred with Wheater.

[LeverEnd]

As it currently stands were a tad thin on playing personnel. Parkinson must have a few irons in the fire regarding additions. I wouldn't rule out a pay as you play for Mark Davies should no club place a risk in him. A similar situation occurred with Wheater.

I think I read somewhere that Davies is unlikely to play professionally again. Hope it's not true but the fact that Iles and the club went very quiet on the subject reminds me if the Tierney situation. A great shame.

[Prufrock]

Aye sounds like he's in big trouble. Noises seemed to be that even if he did ever get back it isn't going to be anytime soon.

[BWFC_Insane]

The Mark Davies injury was far more serious than ever officially reported according to Iles. We have no timescale, but the hint is he's a long way off, if ever, making it back. Certainly don't think he will even be in full training for the start of the season. He's not even started rehab training yet.

[Bruce Rioja]

The Mark Davies injury was far more serious than ever officially reported according to Iles. We have no timescale, but the hint is he's a long way off, if ever, making it back. Certainly don't think he will even be in full training for the start of the season. He's not even started rehab training yet.

A Golf buddy who's also big buddies with Tierney told me months before it was announced that his career was over and that the delay was sorting out his insurance pay off. Maybe something similar here?

[Rjs37]

Going back to that option/extension discussion, I think if it's appearance based, then it'll just be an automatic extension.

I've never heard of an option (in football terms) being tied to any other criteria. The club usually just has the choice of whether or not to initiate the option. Though there's nothing stopping that from happening or from even being an informal agreement. I can't see us initiating an option if a player hasn't really featured for us.

Football Manager also matches up with the above. The choices are automatic extension after number of appearances, or an optional extension that can be initiated by the club at any time.

Some players could technically have both clauses on their contract, though unlikely.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

The Mark Davies injury was far more serious than ever officially reported according to Iles. We have no timescale, but the hint is he's a long way off, if ever, making it back. Certainly don't think he will even be in full training for the start of the season. He's not even started rehab training yet.

A Golf buddy who's also big buddies with Tierney told me months before it was announced that his career was over and that the delay was sorting out his insurance pay off. Maybe something similar here?

Maybe. But there are also differences. Tierney was still under contract, whereas Davies isn't. I don't know whether he has personal livelihood insurance, but I would imagine the club's – if it even exists, which might be prohibited by the premiums - covers beyond the terms of the contract.

Also, we don't yet know if Davies has reached the stage Tierney did where it has become medically obvious that his career has ended; he could be desperately trying to get back - trapped in the Holden loop, if you like.

[Bruce Rioja]

The Mark Davies injury was far more serious than ever officially reported according to Iles. We have no timescale, but the hint is he's a long way off, if ever, making it back. Certainly don't think he will even be in full training for the start of the season. He's not even started rehab training yet.

A Golf buddy who's also big buddies with Tierney told me months before it was announced that his career was over and that the delay was sorting out his insurance pay off. Maybe something similar here?

Maybe. But there are also differences. Tierney was still under contract, whereas Davies isn't. I don't know whether he has personal livelihood insurance, but I would imagine the club's – if it even exists, which might be prohibited by the premiums - covers beyond the terms of the contract.

Also, we don't yet know if Davies has reached the stage Tierney did where it has become medically obvious that his career has ended; he could be desperately trying to get back - trapped in the Holden loop, if you like.

All the very same thoughts that are spinning round in my head, Barnetto. There's also a consideration as to what are the ramifications of him ever actually playing again at some level.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

There's also a consideration as to what are the ramifications of him ever actually playing again at some level.

Physical, fiscal or both. It's not as bad as it used to be but it's not impossible that trying to play on with knee-knack could send him toward permanent, life-changing damage. As for the finances, I'm thinking of Mike Marsh: five years after THAT game at Anfield in which David Lee gave him twisted blood, a rather more serious knee injury at age 28 forced him to retire and collect an insurance payout. But the insurance simply said he couldn't play league football and he was well enough to play non-league, which he did for five years, helping Kidderminster, Boston and Accrington into a Football League he couldn't play in.

[Billbob]

I think J spearing has gone to be honest, I think maybe pastures new money is not going to be enough for him at bwfc. The captain of Australia looks a good bet.