Get it done... | Page 2 | Vital Football

Get it done...

alphabet_king said:
Let it too late? Would you really have offered him a new long term deal earlier? When exactly would you have offered him a deal? Are there any orher players youd offer a new deal now then? Just want to know so i can remind you that we would still be lumbered with their wages when we get rid because they tuen out to be no good. I find there's a lot of hindsight with football fans, and alot of fans who dont realise you cant just hand out new contra ts willy nilly and still operate at the same budget.
Click to expand...
Well I share the view of the Posh chairman. If you value a player you need to make a decision before the final year of their contact. Had we done so with Eaves and Holy they would have stayed almost certainly. As for a player like Tucker there is no doubt that other clubs will be sniffing around possibly a few weeks or months ago.He has handled the step up well .We simply have to be quicker .Yes there are risks .But if you reward those who deserve it .It is a call that in my view every bit as hard as picking new players .But getting it done after others are sniffing around costs more and you lose more talent.
 
chris who said:
Well I share the view of the Posh chairman. If you value a player you need to make a decision before the final year of their contact. Had we done so with Eaves and Holy they would have stayed almost certainly. As for a player like Tucker there is no doubt that other clubs will be sniffing around possibly a few weeks or months ago.He has handled the step up well .We simply have to be quicker .Yes there are risks .But if you reward those who deserve it .It is a call that in my view every bit as hard as picking new players .But getting it done after others are sniffing around costs more and you lose more talent.
Click to expand...

I make this spot on. These days, the only way you can keep a real talent or get anywhere near the value they are worth is to take a risk and get them signed up very early when you have an inkling that they're special, but still have doubts. We could have done that with Holy and Eaves in their first season with the risk being that we signed them up early and they flop after some promise. Understandably, we waited for the evidence that both of those players were top drawer before offering them a new deal into their second seasons when they were clearly quality and already attracting the attention of big clubs who we can't compete with.

For me, we're in that position with Hanlan and Tucker. Hanlan is in his second season for us, still very raw and probably not on the radar of bigger clubs yet as he misses so many chances, but there is no doubt he's a talent. I sense if he clicks, and he's starting to possibly, he'll be special as he has the pace, skill, strength and effort to play at a higher level. Tucker is different - he's a youngster literally just breaking through but similarly won't be on the radar of many bigger clubs yet as he's played so little, but we've seen enough of him to see that he's a huge prospect. Both these players are one game away from being on a bigger clubs radar - in the next few weeks, we are playing Sunderland, Pompey and West Ham on the box.

The cup run has netted us a good amount with more to come. I'd love to see us take a punt on securing some of the prospects we have.
 
SteveTreacle said:
I make this spot on. These days, the only way you can keep a real talent or get anywhere near the value they are worth is to take a risk and get them signed up very early when you have an inkling that they're special, but still have doubts. We could have done that with Holy and Eaves in their first season with the risk being that we signed them up early and they flop after some promise. Understandably, we waited for the evidence that both of those players were top drawer before offering them a new deal into their second seasons when they were clearly quality and already attracting the attention of big clubs who we can't compete with.

For me, we're in that position with Hanlan and Tucker. Hanlan is in his second season for us, still very raw and probably not on the radar of bigger clubs yet as he misses so many chances, but there is no doubt he's a talent. I sense if he clicks, and he's starting to possibly, he'll be special as he has the pace, skill, strength and effort to play at a higher level. Tucker is different - he's a youngster literally just breaking through but similarly won't be on the radar of many bigger clubs yet as he's played so little, but we've seen enough of him to see that he's a huge prospect. Both these players are one game away from being on a bigger clubs radar - in the next few weeks, we are playing Sunderland, Pompey and West Ham on the box.

The cup run has netted us a good amount with more to come. I'd love to see us take a punt on securing some of the prospects we have.
Click to expand...
Eaves should have been resigned after the first season with us.Given he was almost certainly on less money than others in the squad who were doing far less for the side.Even if he had been offered a deal that would have made him our top earning player that would not have been undeserved. I agree maybe Holy was not as much of a loss. However again he was probably on peanuts coming in as reserve keeper .We are starting to get the reputation for giving players a chance but keeping them on peanuts in league one terms to progress we simply have to offer successful players a new deal as early as practical. Scally does not do this.It has happened under a lot of managers so I don't believe it is a manager thing.
 
The problem with Eaves was there wasn’t the budget available to offer him a new deal on increased wages. You only have to listen to Pennock’s interview with KentOnline to realise how little money there was to spend on players. I think any spare money went on the Centre Plate case which did pay off in the end, but meant we had to be even more frugal than usual before the judgement came through.
 
Lark said:
The problem with Eaves was there wasn’t the budget available to offer him a new deal on increased wages. You only have to listen to Pennock’s interview with KentOnline to realise how little money there was to spend on players. I think any spare money went on the Centre Plate case which did pay off in the end, but meant we had to be even more frugal than usual before the judgement came through.
Click to expand...
Eaves wanted to play at a higher level. It wasn't just about money
 
'Eaves wanted to play at a higher level.'
So did Holy.
It was nothing to do with what PDPS could offer, they wanted 'upstairs' football!
 
Agree with Phil and Wansalarf.

I also thought we were on record as trying to sign both those guys to longer deals after their first season but they’d refused. Pretty sure that’s the case with Eaves anyway. I thought I read in the first month or 2 of his 2nd season (when he started well again) that we’d tried again to get him to resign I.e. not the first time we’d tried.
 
Wansalarf said:
'Eaves wanted to play at a higher level.'
So did Holy.
It was nothing to do with what PDPS could offer, they wanted 'upstairs' football!
Click to expand...
At the end of last season he did.But if we had moved on new deals six or so months earlier they may well have been a different result.
 
OneSirKeefy said:
Agree with Phil and Wansalarf.

I also thought we were on record as trying to sign both those guys to longer deals after their first season but they’d refused. Pretty sure that’s the case with Eaves anyway. I thought I read in the first month or 2 of his 2nd season (when he started well again) that we’d tried again to get him to resign I.e. not the first time we’d tried.
Click to expand...

Holy posted something like “don’t believe everything you read” in reference to a story about us having offered him a new contract when he was still at the club.

But at the end of the day we can’t compete on wages with clubs like Ipswich and Hull City.
 
Read my quoted post at the end of the "What is going on?" thread.Given the date it was written in think it proves that I felt Eaves deserved a new deal about a year before he was offered one.Given Tucker can't leave on a free it is likely that Scally will drag his feet again to save money .Even if it costs a larger fee later.
 
Last edited:
Lark said:
Holy posted something like “don’t believe everything you read” in reference to a story about us having offered him a new contract when he was still at the club.

But at the end of the day we can’t compete on wages with clubs like Ipswich and Hull City.
Click to expand...

True we can’t in the last season of a players contract - as I say in my post above, the key is taking a risk and offering those players a contract very early before they are on the radar of other teams - Tucker amen Hanlan are prime for that now.
 
Both tucker and more so hanlan are still some way from being solid league 1 players.

I hope they go on to do really well. And i think they even have some potential to do so (halnon less so).

But youre all talking as if they are sure things. I will look to remember this post in a year. Tucker i think will be a good player in time, but hanlon i have really not rated in many games this season.
 
alphabet_king said:
Both tucker and more so hanlan are still some way from being solid league 1 players.

I hope they go on to do really well. And i think they even have some potential to do so (halnon less so).

But youre all talking as if they are sure things. I will look to remember this post in a year. Tucker i think will be a good player in time, but hanlon i have really not rated in many games this season.
Click to expand...
Probably Scally's position. "Not a sure thing so let's keep Tucker on peanuts". Even if the manager wants to sign him on a longer deal .Now who is not backing the manager?
If Evans did not rated him he would not be playing. Ogilvie a few dodgy performances apart has done nothing wrong.
 
Last edited:
alphabet_king said:
Both tucker and more so hanlan are still some way from being solid league 1 players.

I hope they go on to do really well. And i think they even have some potential to do so (halnon less so).

But youre all talking as if they are sure things. I will look to remember this post in a year. Tucker i think will be a good player in time, but hanlon i have really not rated in many games this season.
Click to expand...

The problem the club face is being in a financial position to be able to offer the younger better prospects (that's all that Tucker is at the moment IMO) a lucrative and long enough deal for them to sign. I agree with SE that his development will be benefited by playing and learning at league 1 level rather than going to play at under 23 level at a higher club, but his agent might not agree, nor may Tucker himself, who knows.

Both Holy and Eaves were slightly different situations in that they were both over 24 so in the last year of their contract they knew they could go wherever at the end of their contract for free. Tucker is not in that situation. A club will still have to pay compensation (albeit probably not as much as if he were under contract) were he to leave Gills before turning 24.

The club in a lot of sense are in a no win situation to a certain degree if they can't afford (I don't believe for a second PS would not want to secure a valuable asset) to offer a lucrative enough deal for players to want to sign long term (four or five years in Tuckers case) but the player has to want to commit for that length too.

Despite any player being under 24 it doesn't stop him moving at the end of his contract if he doesn't sign a new one, its just means that any fee will be decided by a tribunal. All players agents when the enter the last year of a deal, no matter their age, will be putting out feelers to gauge interest in their player for other clubs purely to strengthen their negotiating ability with their current club for a new deal.
 
Last edited:
Captainreblue said:
The problem the club face is being in a financial position to be able to offer the younger better prospects (that's all that Tucker is at the moment IMO) a lucrative and long enough deal for them to sign. I agree with SE that his development will be benefited by playing and learning at league 1 level rather than going to play at under 23 level at a higher club, but his agent might not agree, nor may Tucker himself, who knows.

Both Holy and Eaves were slightly different situations in that they were both over 24 so in the last year of their contract they knew they could go wherever at the end of their contract for free. Tucker is not in that situation. A club will still have to pay compensation (albeit probably not as much as if he were under contract) were he to leave Gills before turning 24.

The club in a lot of sense are in a no win situation to a certain degree if they can't afford (I don't believe for a second PS would not want to secure a valuable asset) to offer a lucrative enough deal for players to want to sign long term (four or five years in Tuckers case) but the player has to want to commit for that length too.

Despite any player being under 24 it doesn't stop him moving at the end of his contract if he doesn't sign a new one, its just means that any fee will be decided by a tribunal. All players agents when the enter the last year of a deal, no matter their age, will be putting out feelers to gauge interest in their player for other clubs purely to strengthen their negotiating ability with their current club for a new deal.
Click to expand...
For me this is important, but so is also the point that you cant simply offer every young prospect a 5 year deal after they have a couple of decent (not amazing) games.

Tucker's shown his ability over half a season so now is probably the right time. Except people are still saying its potentially alreqdy too late to offer him a new deal. If it were up to them we'd still have players like oldaker stuck on a 4 year deal despite the fact his initial bright talent clearly never translated to any sort of form.

You cannot just sign all youngsters up for 5 years, unfortunately. We just cant afford it in the budget. If we still had a useless oldaker it means we have less budget to spend elsewhere.
 
Agree AK, ultimately it comes down to budget and how much of a risk/gamble you can afford to take within that budget. We are not in a position to do that. Posh (as an example) are, and have done quite well out of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.