Gradel
Sky Sports News reported yesterday that Max has suspended his calls for a new contract after the club have failed to make him an offer. The article is today "not available" for some reason and I didn't understand it when I read it. It stated that Leeds were keen to offer Max a new deal, unsurprising given him taking to the Championship like a duck to water, and being a standout player this season. In the next sentence it told us that Leeds had not made an offer and Gradel had decided to suspend any talks:
"Skysports.com understands that rising star Max Gradel has put contract talks with Leeds United on hold until the summer.
Gradel had hoped to have his long-term future at Elland Road resolved this month so that he could focus his efforts on the pitch.
However, while Leeds were keen to offer fresh terms, an offer failed to arrive and now Gradel has put talks on hold."
"Skysports.com understands that rising star Max Gradel has put contract talks with Leeds United on hold until the summer.
Gradel had hoped to have his long-term future at Elland Road resolved this month so that he could focus his efforts on the pitch.
However, while Leeds were keen to offer fresh terms, an offer failed to arrive and now Gradel has put talks on hold."
If this is indeed the case it is baffling. If Max has suspended the talks because of us not making an offer and not because of any offer being no where near good enough then I don't know what to make of our contract policy. Have we not learned from Beckford, Becchio, Johnson, Kilkenny? When someone is clearly of the ability to play at this level why not even attempt to extend his contract - which I believe runs out in June 2012.
There is an argument that Gradel should be offered a new contract when we know what league we're in, and this is a fair point and one I'd largely agree with. The Sky Sports article in this case is redundant. There's always a risk the later we leave it though that his agent will be shopping around and seeing what could be on offer if anyone decided to make a move for Gradel in the summer, by which time an improved contract from us may not be able to match what may be available elsewhere.
Our record of sorting contracts out in the summer has of late also let us down. We got promoted last season and were told and expected the club to deal with players as we knew we could offer better terms in a higher league. We didn't deal with anyone until November and that was Somma. We finally then tied down Becchio but Kilkenny is hovering about in limbo regarding a contract and it would seem Johnson's agent is aware of (or is holding out for) higher wages elsewhere, as he had rejected our final offer, which was evidently not good enough.
There is an argument that Gradel should be offered a new contract when we know what league we're in, and this is a fair point and one I'd largely agree with. The Sky Sports article in this case is redundant. There's always a risk the later we leave it though that his agent will be shopping around and seeing what could be on offer if anyone decided to make a move for Gradel in the summer, by which time an improved contract from us may not be able to match what may be available elsewhere.
Our record of sorting contracts out in the summer has of late also let us down. We got promoted last season and were told and expected the club to deal with players as we knew we could offer better terms in a higher league. We didn't deal with anyone until November and that was Somma. We finally then tied down Becchio but Kilkenny is hovering about in limbo regarding a contract and it would seem Johnson's agent is aware of (or is holding out for) higher wages elsewhere, as he had rejected our final offer, which was evidently not good enough.
Of course this is alleged and credibility to this rumour isn't helped by the article now being unavailable - but on past records of the clubs contract negotiations it's not all that unbelievable.
Snoddy
Leeds find themselves in a similar, if not even more pressing situation with Robert Snodgrass - although his contract is up in the summer of 2013. He's arguably our most prized of assets. Surely its worth our while to offer improved terms? He has previously stated his desire to stay at the club for the long term, and with Scottish club legends Gray and Lorimer still involved, he has persuasive voices to convince him his place is here. Not that he seems to need it. He said this past Monday:
“They gave me my chance down here."
“If the club ever wanted to get rid of me then that would be up to them but I’ve got a contract here and I’m staying put”
We can't run any risk of him leaving, however. He is pivotal to our successes and has been for a while. A player of such ability is a necessary component to make the step from our current league towards the top division. There are teams around us and teams that have gone up with players that are similarly pivotal - Charlie Adam was at Blackpool, Dorrans at West Brom for example and the likes of Bothroyd at Cardiff and McGugan at Forest. An article in today's YEP sees Dom Matteo stating that he's seen Liverpool and Manchester United scouts, among others at Elland Road on multiple occasions this season. If Snoddy remains without the draw of a higher paid contract, and without Premier League football at the end of this season, we could be struggling to retain him, and that really is worrying for us.
His performances internationally, in the league and most impressively against Premier League defenders in the cup have surely merited a step up in his earnings, it can't be argued against really. It would be devastating for the club not to retain him on a better contract and they should strike while the iron's hot and call Snoddy up on his public display of loyalty, putting to rest the risk of anybody coming in for him if we don't make the grade and go up. This way, if the worst happens, we'll get large compensation in the form of a transfer fee if a club does wish to make a raid and it would be harder to try and pry him away from an already handsomely paid contract. I'd echo what Dom Matteo has said:
"In my head, I can see clubs piling in if Leeds aren’t a Premier League side by the end of May. Promotion is their best defence against outside interest. Failing that, they must make sure their most vital players are contracted to the hilt. Every footballer has his price. In certain cases, that price should be set ridiculously high."
The presence of our club legends could be vital in keeping hold of one of the club's most talented players in recent years. Snodgrass said in 2009:
“This club doesn’t forget the legends who played here – they stick by their traditions."
“Eddie [Gray] and Peter [Lorimer] are still in and around Elland Road and I chat to them all the time."
“Gary [McAllister] was also great and told me all about the city and club. It feels great that I’m now part of that history at Leeds."
“That’s why I’m determined to help them get out of League One and back to the Premiership. We have stability now and the club is going in the right direction.”
Hopeful Snodgrass is a rare breed of loyal footballer, someone who genuinely feels indebted to the club and intent on leaving his mark.
Bradley Johnson
We can't run any risk of him leaving, however. He is pivotal to our successes and has been for a while. A player of such ability is a necessary component to make the step from our current league towards the top division. There are teams around us and teams that have gone up with players that are similarly pivotal - Charlie Adam was at Blackpool, Dorrans at West Brom for example and the likes of Bothroyd at Cardiff and McGugan at Forest. An article in today's YEP sees Dom Matteo stating that he's seen Liverpool and Manchester United scouts, among others at Elland Road on multiple occasions this season. If Snoddy remains without the draw of a higher paid contract, and without Premier League football at the end of this season, we could be struggling to retain him, and that really is worrying for us.
His performances internationally, in the league and most impressively against Premier League defenders in the cup have surely merited a step up in his earnings, it can't be argued against really. It would be devastating for the club not to retain him on a better contract and they should strike while the iron's hot and call Snoddy up on his public display of loyalty, putting to rest the risk of anybody coming in for him if we don't make the grade and go up. This way, if the worst happens, we'll get large compensation in the form of a transfer fee if a club does wish to make a raid and it would be harder to try and pry him away from an already handsomely paid contract. I'd echo what Dom Matteo has said:
"In my head, I can see clubs piling in if Leeds aren’t a Premier League side by the end of May. Promotion is their best defence against outside interest. Failing that, they must make sure their most vital players are contracted to the hilt. Every footballer has his price. In certain cases, that price should be set ridiculously high."
The presence of our club legends could be vital in keeping hold of one of the club's most talented players in recent years. Snodgrass said in 2009:
“This club doesn’t forget the legends who played here – they stick by their traditions."
“Eddie [Gray] and Peter [Lorimer] are still in and around Elland Road and I chat to them all the time."
“Gary [McAllister] was also great and told me all about the city and club. It feels great that I’m now part of that history at Leeds."
“That’s why I’m determined to help them get out of League One and back to the Premiership. We have stability now and the club is going in the right direction.”
Hopeful Snodgrass is a rare breed of loyal footballer, someone who genuinely feels indebted to the club and intent on leaving his mark.
Bradley Johnson
Ever since the beginning of his current contract saga with the club, and slight fall out with Bates, Johnson has proved his worth to the club in a position we could be thin on in the summer should he and Kilkenny leave. It baffles me if the club still deem he hasn't earned a raise (if his demands are within reason, obviously). I was not a Johnson fan in particular, but he has been worth his weight in gold since dropping into a deeper battling role in our 4-5-1 formation. Surely it would be cheaper and safer to offer Johnson new terms than source a replacement, who may or may not have Johnson's ability?
Sky Sports News is again reporting he has a few suitors when his contract is up. We know the club rejected a swap deal from Hull in January as well as at least one more offer that wasn't good enough. Now, West Brom and Forest have his card marked, following supposed interest from Stoke, Wigan and Bolton in the transfer window. All of the above are surely enticing to him as current bastions of footballing prowess... hopefully the sarcasm in that sentence shines through.
Bates and his long termism
Ken has come out on a few occasions stating his vision for Leeds United, which is a slow, measured building process on and off the pitch - very sensible and can't be argued against. Surely part of this however, is a continuity of our best assets on the pitch though? At the very least from a business sense, signing our prized assets onto long term, higher paying (where deserved) contracts, although at a short term increased cost, will yield greater rewards should they be bought, and if they stay, we're ensured quality on the field with the retention of our best players and thus there's no need to outlay anything to bring in replacements.
It makes no sense to me why the club lets our some of our key players run so close to leaving for nothing (Johnson, Kilkenny, Beckford, Becchio most notably) or run risk of teams possibly coming in and giving one of our players wind of what wage could be had elsewhere. Snodgrass is on a contract drawn up in League One, though no doubt with a clause for improvement of wage upon our Championship return. By the time summer comes Snodgrass or most likely his agent may not want to renegotiate if teams come sniffing around. Even the most loyal players (again, with heavy agent involvement) would have to consider a better offer if they got wind of it being available elsewhere - such is modern football.
The only explanation I can see for our tendency is if these players and their agents are awaiting an offer from the Premier League, to play at a higher level, for a fair bit more money - thus in our current situation we can't compete. Not even making an offer to a keen, highly talented player, however - as the Sky Sports News article on Gradel suggested is surely suicide in a business and a footballing sense?
A truly long termist view would see us try to retain at least those who are of a level of quality that is amongst the best in our current league and leaving talks until the summer may be too late. If a player at say Manchester United is on form, and deserving of improved terms, he is offered what he deserves - and usually on a very long term deal. This ensures that if they do come to have to sell, they get at least a good price. It is not often you see such a club let a key player willingly run within a year of his contract's end date. It is plausible that we can't afford such policy at this current time, though.
Obviously none of us know the ins and outs of how the club considers contracts but to me, from the outside, we seem to have a risky policy.
Bates and his long termism
Ken has come out on a few occasions stating his vision for Leeds United, which is a slow, measured building process on and off the pitch - very sensible and can't be argued against. Surely part of this however, is a continuity of our best assets on the pitch though? At the very least from a business sense, signing our prized assets onto long term, higher paying (where deserved) contracts, although at a short term increased cost, will yield greater rewards should they be bought, and if they stay, we're ensured quality on the field with the retention of our best players and thus there's no need to outlay anything to bring in replacements.
It makes no sense to me why the club lets our some of our key players run so close to leaving for nothing (Johnson, Kilkenny, Beckford, Becchio most notably) or run risk of teams possibly coming in and giving one of our players wind of what wage could be had elsewhere. Snodgrass is on a contract drawn up in League One, though no doubt with a clause for improvement of wage upon our Championship return. By the time summer comes Snodgrass or most likely his agent may not want to renegotiate if teams come sniffing around. Even the most loyal players (again, with heavy agent involvement) would have to consider a better offer if they got wind of it being available elsewhere - such is modern football.
The only explanation I can see for our tendency is if these players and their agents are awaiting an offer from the Premier League, to play at a higher level, for a fair bit more money - thus in our current situation we can't compete. Not even making an offer to a keen, highly talented player, however - as the Sky Sports News article on Gradel suggested is surely suicide in a business and a footballing sense?
A truly long termist view would see us try to retain at least those who are of a level of quality that is amongst the best in our current league and leaving talks until the summer may be too late. If a player at say Manchester United is on form, and deserving of improved terms, he is offered what he deserves - and usually on a very long term deal. This ensures that if they do come to have to sell, they get at least a good price. It is not often you see such a club let a key player willingly run within a year of his contract's end date. It is plausible that we can't afford such policy at this current time, though.
Obviously none of us know the ins and outs of how the club considers contracts but to me, from the outside, we seem to have a risky policy.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment