Why don't we sign players on longer contracts?

Just seen what we will receive for Clyne deal up front which is in large part because he was entering the last year of his contract.

We seem to have signed all of our recent players on 4 year deals (clyne, wanyama, rodriguez, morgan, cedric, Juanmi) which tends to put pressure on us pretty rapidly.

 

Wanyama who has been at the club 2 years now will have one year left on his deal next summer and i can already foresee selling him at a lower price if he doesn t sign a new contract.

 

Other teams don t seem to have this issue as they tend to sign players on 5-6 years contracts (most recently Nexcastle and West Ham).

 

Should we not be doing the same?

Just seen what we will receive for Clyne deal up front which is in large part because he was entering the last year of his contract.

We seem to have signed all of our recent players on 4 year deals (clyne, wanyama, rodriguez, morgan, cedric, Juanmi) which tends to put pressure on us pretty rapidly.

 

Wanyama who has been at the club 2 years now will have one year left on his deal next summer and i can already foresee selling him at a lower price if he doesn t sign a new contract.

 

Other teams don t seem to have this issue as they tend to sign players on 5-6 years contracts (most recently Nexcastle and West Ham).

 

Should we not be doing the same?

 

I thought 5 years was the maximum length for a "CDD" for footballers in the UK

For every good player signed on a four year deal, there is an Osvaldo. A four year deal is in effect a two year deal, as a club should be reopening contract negotiations with a player as they enter the last 24 months of their deal.

 

Five years feels like a good max to offer a young player we already know, with four years offered to new signings.

Just seen what we will receive for Clyne deal up front which is in large part because he was entering the last year of his contract.

We seem to have signed all of our recent players on 4 year deals (clyne, wanyama, rodriguez, morgan, cedric, Juanmi) which tends to put pressure on us pretty rapidly.

 

Wanyama who has been at the club 2 years now will have one year left on his deal next summer and i can already foresee selling him at a lower price if he doesn t sign a new contract.

 

Other teams don t seem to have this issue as they tend to sign players on 5-6 years contracts (most recently Nexcastle and West Ham).

 

Should we not be doing the same?

3- 4 years seems typical for most deals at most clubs. Saints don't want to be tied to a player on high wages that has failed and often players don't want to be tied to a club for too long. 3 to 4 years is a good chunk of a player's career and a reasonable compromise.

Just seen what we will receive for Clyne deal up front which is in large part because he was entering the last year of his contract.

We seem to have signed all of our recent players on 4 year deals (clyne, wanyama, rodriguez, morgan, cedric, Juanmi) which tends to put pressure on us pretty rapidly.

 

Wanyama who has been at the club 2 years now will have one year left on his deal next summer and i can already foresee selling him at a lower price if he doesn t sign a new contract.

 

Other teams don t seem to have this issue as they tend to sign players on 5-6 years contracts (most recently Nexcastle and West Ham).

 

Should we not be doing the same?

 

5 and especially 6 year contracts are pretty rare. They also require a player agreeing to it and if they think they are capable of getting a big transfer in the future they may not want to potentially restrict themselves 2 or 3 years later. Also from Saints point of view, if a signing doesn't work out and he is on a 6 year contract thats a huge financial commitment and may make him hard to shift out of the club.

We gave Mayuka and Forecast 5 year deals for some bizarre reason. I'd say 4 years for a player under 27 is pretty reasonable and typical for most clubs. You have to be pretty special to justify a longer contract than that.

David Moyes got a 6 year contract at United, so not always a great idea.

David Moyes got a 6 year contract at United, so not always a great idea.

 

and how long did Pardew get at Newcastle

and how long did Pardew get at Newcastle

 

Until judgement day cometh, raptures the worthy and wreaks a terrible plague upon the sinners. I believe the exact date is written in Mayan scripture.

I think that we should just write in to a players contract that the contract end is "whenever you retire, or when you die; whichever comes first"

 

We'd have no problem with squad depth then.

The reason is Tommy forecast

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The reason is Tommy forecast

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Osvaldo/Ramirez

Clyne was unproven at PL level. 4 years was probably excessive. I've always been a fan of 3 years with the club having the right to extend that to 5 at anytime with the first 2 seasons. Would help a lot, especially with some of the aforementioned names

and how long did Pardew get at Newcastle

 

his renewed contract was for (wait for it )....8 years, and I think he left after 3.

Our main issue is that either we are slow off the mark in looking to extend the contracts, or, more likely, the players move to us with the thought of playing a couple of years every week in a decent PL side knowing they will get offers if they play well.

 

If we asked them to sign 5 year deals at the start some might refuse as it gives them far less control of their situation.

SFC started talking to Clyne's agent (before he was banned) around October of last year. Even going back say to 2013 he clearly would have stuck to type and turned down any contract offer. Its in his interests financially to do that a bit like Cork.

his renewed contract was for (wait for it )....8 years, and I think he left after 3.

 

Yeah and had they held on to him that long they'd have been a stable Prem club for a long time. The fact that they stayed up by the width of the skidmark in their knickers was testament to how good a job he was doing there before being hounded out.

4 years is pretty standard, usually they come with clauses that if you reach a certain amount of games there's an optional extension to sign etc (I think Jay triggered that a season or so ago, and then got injured).

 

I think 5/6 year contracts are pretty rare, the financial outlay is huge for a club like ourselves. A massive gamble really.

 

And people saying we leave it too late, how do you know what goes on behind the scenes? I'm pretty sure we'd have been on top of Clyne's/Morgan's contracts a while back, probably coinciding with all the crappy instability of last pre-season which didn't help. But it's pure folly to think the club just left it to the last minute to negotiate a deal.

I think that we should just write in to a players contract that the contract end is "whenever you retire, or when you die; whichever comes first"

 

We'd have no problem with squad depth then.

 

At least we would find out which players were dying to get out of Southampton.

Radically, ban all contracts. Let players come and go as they please, and play for the fun of the game.

 

(Just a dream,ok)

So how much we getting upfront????............anyone really know or just newspaper/sky bs.

So how much we getting upfront????............anyone really know or just newspaper/sky bs.

 

About £8m apparentley

About £8m apparentley

 

Thanks ...........so they really have to sell Sterling to finance this summers transfer failings!!!