opinions4u Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Long term deals when the market is at something of a low? Perhaps now is exactly the time to be tying people down for a little longer. TTA don't speculate to accumulate. They've done a holding job for almost a decade. Knock down a pub here, a stand there, scrap a reserve team etc. Nothing around the infrastructure of the football club has been improved. But a handful of 2 and 3 year deals is in order. We won't see many though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcmetty Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 The turnover of players/managers isn't the problem. The lack of investment from the top is. For things to improve we need new owners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted May 7, 2012 Author Share Posted May 7, 2012 (edited) Obviously missed the whole point the point is we've brought in nigh on 170 players in 8 years under the present regime, where's it got us and as for dead wood, yeah we've got rid like we did in last year, the year before and the year before that, yadda, yadda, yadda. Time to build something on or off the pitch or lets pack up and go home....time to end the short term ism that is killing the club and the fanbase. Wobble..... Edited May 7, 2012 by oafcprozac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted May 7, 2012 Author Share Posted May 7, 2012 I'm not looking for long term deals but having options that are in clubs favour could have avoided a whole lot of :censored: storms. Lee and Taylor in particular.... - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Long term deals when the market is at something of a low? Perhaps now is exactly the time to be tying people down for a little longer. Assuming the market is at the bottom - I don't believe for a second that it is. So even if a signing works out well you might be paying a player, say, £1500 a week in three years time when there are players of a similar standard willing to work for board and rent. The advantage to be had as a buyer is in the offer of security for the player, but will many players or agents go for that, and is it worth the risk to us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Assuming the market is at the bottom - I don't believe for a second that it is. So even if a signing works out well you might be paying a player, say, £1500 a week in three years time when there are players of a similar standard willing to work for board and rent. The advantage to be had as a buyer is in the offer of security for the player, but will many players or agents go for that, and is it worth the risk to us? Defining when the market is at or near the bottom is, of course, quite important to the point I made. I suppose Corney's doesn't want to be the one to catch a falling knife if he thinks it's got further to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobOAFC Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Obviously missed the whole point the point is we've brought in nigh on 170 players in 8 years under the present regime, where's it got us and as for dead wood, yeah we've got rid like we did in last year, the year before and the year before that, yadda, yadda, yadda. Time to build something on or off the pitch or lets pack up and go home....time to end the short term ism that is killing the club and the fanbase. Wobble..... The present regime don't identify and the sign the players then release though. The managers sign the players, and then deem them not good enough and let them go. The present regime back the managers, trusting that the manager knows what he is doing. Time to build something on or off the pitch.. We can't afford to build on the pitch. Not many clubs can afford to build on the pitch. Finances dictate. So unless you own a company and is willing to offer up massive amounts of money in sponsorship to the club, nothing much is going to change. Off the pitch we're slowly getting our arse into gear by building up the side commercial side of things through Jenny and David, and whatever is happening with regards to new/redevolopemnt of stadium with OMBC. Your constantly bashing the present regime. Corney is doing what he can. He backs the manager as much as he possibly can. He does what the club finances enable him to, plus what he puts into the club. Blitz and Gazal lost interest after Penney and who can blame them? We're having to cut our budget each year, especially now we have a reduction in TV income or whatever it is. Short termism? What would you plan for long term? How do you know that stuff isn't being planned for the long term? Is trying to sort out a new stadium or re-development of BP to provide 7 day a week income for the club to try make it self-sufficient not long-term? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 (edited) For the love of god why do people carry on this pretence that the 2 amigo's just upped and left the lot to Corney? jesus mary and joseph! Edited May 7, 2012 by Lags Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted May 8, 2012 Author Share Posted May 8, 2012 (edited) The present regime don't identify and the sign the players then release though. No but they dictate the length of a contract and whether paying a fee can be justified. Another year or so on certain players could have earned us a fortune and given us scope to build a squad. Instead we have this revolving door policy. The clubs that keep their squads together are the ones that achieve. There's plenty of examples in our division and they're not all big spenders. The managers sign the players, and then deem them not good enough and let them go. That's true, but then the board should be questioning en masse a manager that has allowed 18 players to come out of contract, despite entering his third year. They can't all be total :censored:e! The present regime back the managers, trusting that the manager knows what he is doing. Your definition of backing and mine are different, if triallists, 6 month deals and none contract forms constitutes backing the manager, then whoopee doo! Time to build something on or off the pitch.. We can't afford to build on the pitch. Not many clubs can afford to build on the pitch. Finances dictate. So unless you own a company and is willing to offer up massive amounts of money in sponsorship to the club, nothing much is going to change. Off the pitch we're slowly getting our arse into gear by building up the side commercial side of things through Jenny and David, and whatever is happening with regards to new/redevolopemnt of stadium with OMBC. In that case sell the club/bring in directors in that CAN move the club forward. Rotherham's a :censored:-hole NEW GROUND, Chesterfield's a dump NEW GROUND. Hull is the arse end of the earth NEW GROUND, etc, etc…. instead of creaming themselves over what Corney and co, could, should and would have done. What about taking them to task for what they have done? Namely running the club into the ground. As for OMBC it's too easy to blame the council, the owners had a muddied vision that involved everyone but themselves putting their hands in their pockets after initial land purchase. No wonder it hasn't come to fruition! Still, they have two pieces of prime real estate now, both with planning permission, so its not all bad. As for the marketing, yeah right. I've seen very little of this marketing revolution you mention. Look at the debacle over the new kit launch, talk about missed opportunity. Your constantly bashing the present regime. Corney is doing what he can. He backs the manager as much as he possibly can. He does what the club finances enable him to, plus what he puts into the club. Blitz and Gazal lost interest after Penney and who can blame them? We're having to cut our budget each year, especially now we have a reduction in TV income or whatever it is. FFS, wake up and smell the coffee, the manger's been 'backed' as you say with short-term deals, cheap loanees etc… most of that will have been covered by the income brought in from Stephens, TV and LIverpool. We constantly hear about losses yet never hear about income. Short termism? What would you plan for long term? How do you know that stuff isn't being planned for the long term? Is trying to sort out a new stadium or re-development of BP to provide 7 day a week income for the club to try make it self-sufficient not long-term? Yet we're no further down the line than we were 8 years ago, the goalposts have been moved so far that they are no longer on Boundary Park. Yet Corney and the other two landlords blame anyone and everybody but themselves. Failsworth could feasibly been underway now, instead nothing. No lease on BP signed, no land deal signed at Failsworth. The silence is deafening. At the end of the day Rob, if you want to believe that this club is moving forward, then fair enough. I don't and believe we will move only in one direction under the present hierachy. If you're happy to see a new team EVERY year, a team that we struggle to identify with then fair enough. I'm not and i'll carry on moaning like :censored: until I see the club moving forward, on the pitch would be nice but off it is imperative we see some movement and soon... Edited May 8, 2012 by oafcprozac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancy lad Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 At the end of the day Rob, if you want to believe that this club is moving forward, then fair enough. I don't and believe we will move only in one direction under the present hierachy. If you're happy to see a new team EVERY year, a team that we struggle to identify with then fair enough. I'm not and i'll carry on moaning like :censored: until I see the club moving forward, on the pitch would be nice but off it is imperative we see some movement and soon... I understand where you are coming from but believe me, it could be a lot worse than it is! I work in Stockport, ask them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 We're skint. We need to get by on short-term deals and loanees and by taking the odd risk that might not work out (i.e. Marsh-Brown). No one would disagree that continuity would help us progress. That starts with the manager, against whom the tide has started to turn a little. It's much more difficult to have continuity with players in the modern environment and nigh on impossible if you change manager every few years or more. As for releasing nine players this season, we were pretty crap as a team and clearly need to improve in key areas. This involves bringing in new faces. When you consider the first choice eleven, we are looking to keep Cisak, Lee (who will leave but we can't do anything about that), M'voto, Tarky, Diallo, Morais, Wes, Furman, Taylor (see Lee), Kuqi(?), Simpson. And you can add M'changama, Bouzanis and Millar to that list. Also, I suspect we'll be looking to bring back Brown and Tounkara as signings or season-longers. Overall, that's not too shabby for continuity for a club on our budget at a time when short-term deals are the norm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 I understand where you are coming from but believe me, it could be a lot worse than it is! I work in Stockport, ask them! This is not a personal dig at you Lancy, so please don't take it that way. But it seems to me that there are many members of this forum and in the wider Oldham Athletic community who are happy we are not a Stockport or a Darlington or a Chester or a Boston United and that in 2004 we were saved and we nearly didn't have a club to support. Now too many supporters are happy in a falling apart stadium watching average football with no drive forward or future planning. But that's ok because at least we have a club to support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 For the love of god why do people carry on this pretence that the 2 amigo's just upped and left the lot to Corney? jesus mary and joseph! Bang on, Lags. People are kidding themselves if they don't think Corney's reason for still being here is to protect (insofar as possible) their investment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancy lad Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 This is not a personal dig at you Lancy, so please don't take it that way. But it seems to me that there are many members of this forum and in the wider Oldham Athletic community who are happy we are not a Stockport or a Darlington or a Chester or a Boston United and that in 2004 we were saved and we nearly didn't have a club to support. Now too many supporters are happy in a falling apart stadium watching average football with no drive forward or future planning. But that's ok because at least we have a club to support. Not taken as a dig at all mate. There are also plenty of Latics fans with their heads up the arses thinking we still belong in the 2 divisions above us and based on support size and other factors, the are wrongly mistaken! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oh Heck C-Beck Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Out of the 9 players released how many of them have been regular first team players? When I saw the list it was mainly made up of crocks and youth players that havent made it, no big deal. Of course we may not hang on to all our best players but that is out of our hands, we cant afford to offer big long term deals at the moment. With more fans/richer owners I am sure we would be in a different situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigfatjoe1 Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 If we have one player on a three year contract or three, or more, on short term contracts covering the same three year period then it will cost basically the same. How can you build a team, develop any kind of understanding, if you're constantly chopping and changing en masse? You can't. It hasn't worked and it won't work. I can't see how it's financially much cheaper, if at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oh Heck C-Beck Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 (edited) If we have one player on a three year contract or three, or more, on short term contracts covering the same three year period then it will cost basically the same. How can you build a team, develop any kind of understanding, if you're constantly chopping and changing en masse? You can't. It hasn't worked and it won't work. I can't see how it's financially much cheaper, if at all. IMO they do it because when you are bringing in lots of new players it often doesnt work out so if you have people on 3 year deals and after 1 or 2 years they are not featuring you have to pay them off the rest of their contract, so you have paid someone 1 or 2 years pay for doing :censored: all, then you have to bring in replacements, so essentially potentially doubling the wage bill for certain positions/players. I think they would rather gamble with 1 or 2 year contracts and hope that if someone is good we offer them a new deal and they accept rather than give 8 new players 3 or 4 year deals and have to pay half of them off after one year because they are crap. Of course if you have money to burn like Hudds this doesnt matter, you are splashing money on a big squad trying to buy promotion, deals not working out will be factored in, but when you are on a smaller budget you dont have this luxury. This isn't a dig at you btw but I dont see what there isnt to get about the short term deals in our current situation. Doesnt mean I like it, but there is little we can do until we can afford to have deadwood on the books and still bring in new players. Edited May 8, 2012 by Oh Heck C-Beck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeroyboy Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 (edited) While it is perfectly clear what owners and management do, it is not so clear knowing what they think and the difficulty they face in signing and keeping good players. I think the players themselves should shoulder their fair share of the blame (if that’s what we are looking for) or responsibility if not. There is little loyalty anymore, compounded by the influx of overseas players and the commission driven culture of players agents. Most, if not all, of us wouldn’t know the average turnover of players for other clubs, but I would guess, the lower down the food chain you are the shorter the contract offered and the more dependant you become on loanee’s. As long as there are well supported big fish dropping into our pool through their own incompetence and with the luxury of a clean financial slate I don’t see it improving anytime soon. Unless that is, we are LUCKY with an investor, manager, and a group of journeymen players, or a combination thereof. Edited May 8, 2012 by mikeroyboy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_mighty_bosh Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 I'd like us to build a team over 3 or 4 seasons that gels brilliantly and brings us sustained success. It is possible even on a small budget, Exeter did it for 5 years under Tisdale as many of the squad that took them to 8th last season played for the club when they were in the Conference. But the best example that I can think of for us having longer term contracts is 04/05. A side that had Killen, Appleby, Holden and Beharall coming to the end of their long-term deals and with the mighty Danny Boshell being our longest-serving player was not much fun to watch. In our current situation short term, while not being perfect, is the way to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 When we were relegated into this division my Rochdale supporting brother in law said that the major difference we would notice is the high turnover of players, he has been proved correct on this. This has been compounded by the collapse of ITV Digital, the full effect of Bosman, the transfer window, declining attendances throughout the lower leagues, The Greatest League Ever! rising player wages, cuts in TV money, advertising spend collapsing, City doing well, 3 failed ground upgrades/moves and the ebb and flow of attendances in a lower league club. I'm going to add in that going to the football has stopping being fun for many people, some people take it too seriously, for some people it as become a solitary activity as their gang of mates have stopped going for many reasons, childcare, mortgage, moving away, nagging wife, change in priorities, banning orders or lack of cash. Going to the footie isn't as simple as it used to be and I don't think that the game at the lower end has changed sufficiently to the world that has changed around it. Every club is crying out for a moneybags chairman to come in and pump the cash in, sign players that are better than decent, keep faith with a manager and get to the champions league in 7 years (results may vary). The surest way to make a small fortune in football is to start out with a large one, we've seen Huddersfield repeatedly fail at this, Leeds, Wednesday, Sheff U, Bradford, Norwich all throw money at it and then end up having to come to Boundary Park in the 3rd division, some clubs have even had to drop further as a result of their choices. Maybe I've had the optimism beaten out of me but I think the furthest this club can go is clinging on desperately to the slot about relegation in the Championship, even this would be a massive achievement. We're operating on an uneven playing field financially to those in the Premier League 2, we could also argue that we are over achieving by finishing where we did this season. As for solutions or ways to achieve my version of success, I'm not so sure, short of the mad sugar daddy I can not see how it is going to happen. I can arrive at BP on a Saturday, park at 2:55, stroll into the ground, take my seat, leave at 4:51 and be out of the car park at 4:56 and this is in a car park with one exit! We do not get enough bums on seats for the club to be viable, even when it was £2 we couldn't fill the ground. Regardless of how uninteresting the opposition in those £2 games were there is cock all else in Oldham that could have been seen as a competing attraction, I don't know what was on at the Theatre those days but I get it wasn't sold out either? This morning I've given them my £300, I still want to go and watch Oldham Athletic get the result that will be read out on the Classified Football Results, I just hope that a few more fools people do the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slystallone Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 We're skint. We need to get by on short-term deals and loanees and by taking the odd risk that might not work out (i.e. Marsh-Brown). No one would disagree that continuity would help us progress. That starts with the manager, against whom the tide has started to turn a little. It's much more difficult to have continuity with players in the modern environment and nigh on impossible if you change manager every few years or more. As for releasing nine players this season, we were pretty crap as a team and clearly need to improve in key areas. This involves bringing in new faces. When you consider the first choice eleven, we are looking to keep Cisak, Lee (who will leave but we can't do anything about that), M'voto, Tarky, Diallo, Morais, Wes, Furman, Taylor (see Lee), Kuqi(?), Simpson. And you can add M'changama, Bouzanis and Millar to that list. Also, I suspect we'll be looking to bring back Brown and Tounkara as signings or season-longers. Overall, that's not too shabby for continuity for a club on our budget at a time when short-term deals are the norm. That's it for me Stevie. As I've said earlier in the thread, We are a typical example of a lower league club; and how the signing of players and transfer policy is now operated from the boardroom down to the manager. It is slightly short term; 6month or 1 year deals - but that said; we do offer longer contracts where necessary - and I think people are forgetting that. Dean Furman will now be going into his 4th season with us; after we paid a fee for him and signed him on a 3 year deal (that also had a hidden 4th year option). We paid out a fee for Alex Cisak and as a result of that; we gave a 2 year deal. After the Furman contract information; it would not surprise me if there was a hidden 3rd year option in there also. We also managed to sign Big Jean-Yves up too; and he was also given a 2 year deal. Where it is merited, and where the club has spent a little bit of cash on the player; the club has committed to longer deals. It wasn't too long ago that Tom Eaves was given a 4 or 5 year deal was it? We then sold him for a tidy sum; because we had the foresight to get him signed up. That was the boardroom & that was this club. The club does offer longer contracts where they see fit. Should we have offered KMB a 2 or 3 year deal when we brought him in? It was very short term of the club after all only offering him a 6 month deal wasn't it? Boo - short-termism again from the top down. Or - did the 6 month deal offer the club a chance to have a good look at the player and make a judgement call on then whether to offer a longer deal? If we had offered a longer deal, we'd be saddled with a player who it seems has some off the field issues and who on the pitch; whilst has potential, hasn't delivered a massive amount. It'd be another settlement & another pay-off. The same for M'Changama really - more than happy to see a short term deal offered initially - then if it works; going back in with a longer contract offer (as we appear to be doing with Youssef). I'd imagine that if we were somehow able to sign up Reece Brown full time, he'd be treated just the same as Furman, Cisak & JYM - a 2 year deal would be on the table no doubt. Now, A N Other free transfer signing; Mr New Striker; say a 28 year old who has a 'past' and has been a journeyman somewhat - I'm more than fine in a 1 year deal with a further 1 year option being offered (as we do); so we don't get burnt but we also have the option to extend should we wish. Short termism? Revolving door policy? Or - being sensible and prudent with the transfer dealings? Depends how you see the glass I guess - I usually land on the half full side myself; but can understand those who see it as empty………it just grates that some choice to post just how empty the glass is so frigging much; day in day out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancy lad Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 The top and bottom of it is, the players released yesterday were not good enough. Retaining them would not have helped our situation! Simple as! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 That's it for me Stevie. As I've said earlier in the thread, We are a typical example of a lower league club; and how the signing of players and transfer policy is now operated from the boardroom down to the manager. It is slightly short term; 6month or 1 year deals - but that said; we do offer longer contracts where necessary - and I think people are forgetting that. Dean Furman will now be going into his 4th season with us; after we paid a fee for him and signed him on a 3 year deal (that also had a hidden 4th year option). We paid out a fee for Alex Cisak and as a result of that; we gave a 2 year deal. After the Furman contract information; it would not surprise me if there was a hidden 3rd year option in there also. We also managed to sign Big Jean-Yves up too; and he was also given a 2 year deal. Where it is merited, and where the club has spent a little bit of cash on the player; the club has committed to longer deals. It wasn't too long ago that Tom Eaves was given a 4 or 5 year deal was it? We then sold him for a tidy sum; because we had the foresight to get him signed up. That was the boardroom & that was this club. The club does offer longer contracts where they see fit. Should we have offered KMB a 2 or 3 year deal when we brought him in? It was very short term of the club after all only offering him a 6 month deal wasn't it? Boo - short-termism again from the top down. Or - did the 6 month deal offer the club a chance to have a good look at the player and make a judgement call on then whether to offer a longer deal? If we had offered a longer deal, we'd be saddled with a player who it seems has some off the field issues and who on the pitch; whilst has potential, hasn't delivered a massive amount. It'd be another settlement & another pay-off. The same for M'Changama really - more than happy to see a short term deal offered initially - then if it works; going back in with a longer contract offer (as we appear to be doing with Youssef). I'd imagine that if we were somehow able to sign up Reece Brown full time, he'd be treated just the same as Furman, Cisak & JYM - a 2 year deal would be on the table no doubt. Now, A N Other free transfer signing; Mr New Striker; say a 28 year old who has a 'past' and has been a journeyman somewhat - I'm more than fine in a 1 year deal with a further 1 year option being offered (as we do); so we don't get burnt but we also have the option to extend should we wish. Short termism? Revolving door policy? Or - being sensible and prudent with the transfer dealings? Depends how you see the glass I guess - I usually land on the half full side myself; but can understand those who see it as empty………it just grates that some choice to post just how empty the glass is so frigging much; day in day out. I don't post much these days - but wanted to say "well said, sir" to you as that's one of the most reasoned and sensible things I've seen on here for years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Short termism? Revolving door policy? Or - being sensible and prudent with the transfer dealings? Definitely the latter for me given our circumstances. I believe (and it seems so does the club) that the amount we will lose by signing up multiple generously paid gambles on longer term deals and then having to pay them off, outweighs any extra transfer revenue this kind of contract policy would bring in. I don't know if it's been brought up by anyone or not, but this is the first close season I can remember in which there has been no highly paid dead wood still contracted to our club. This is a huge bonus to our squad building plans. On the flip side it looks as if we might lose Taylor and Lee on Bosmans, but those two players will have been offered deals a while back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsslatic Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 I usually land on the half full side myself; but can understand those who see it as empty………it just grates that some choice to post just how empty the glass is so frigging much; day in day out. Boom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.