Mark Woodard
Recently, we have heard many concerned comments relating to our transfer-policy and the annoyingly large number of player-contracts being allowed to run into their final year. The case of Bac is now being quoted, as his contract will run into the final year at the beginning of next season. Will we learn from the past, with players leaving on a reduced transfer-fee or a free?
Clearly, the last question shouldn’t even need to be asked. It’s not a case of learning, as we keep repeating, and as it’s happened so often now, it can only be deemed to be an actual policy decision.
Call me a cynic, but given our track-record with “sustainability”, or sweating an asset as I now prefer to see it, this would be just another way of keeping player-costs down, irrespective of the potential damage to the long-term sustainability of the team’s competitiveness. Surely, when taken in the context of today’s track-record, someone high up has decided - well, a contract’s a contract, and why negotiate early and pay more (irrespective of the known consequences if we don’t), the logic being that, if A.N. Other has a contract of say £100K per week for four years, it equates to an expected (and hence budgeted) outlay of 4 x 52 = 208 weeks x £100K = £20.8 million over the length of the contract.
If we renegotiate this (as is the norm in many cases at other clubs) at the beginning of year three, to say £120K per week, it then increases the total outlay by 104 weeks x £20K or a little over £2 million, an increase of 9.6%. By holding on and not negotiating, we keep that cost down, or alternatively we come up with an offer that is obviously unacceptable to the player (no matter what we in the real word may think of the sums involved).
The only time this “policy” seems to be reversed is in the case of the absolute gems of our younger players - who, by Premier League standards anyway, are on the “poorer money” compared to the rest of the first team, the Ox being a current example, and Wilshere a few years ago. The calculation here is that the increase on a lower weekly amount is worth investing in, as the player’s replacement would have to be top quality and hence incur potentially both a transfer-fee and a higher salary.
That’s not to say we shouldn’t hold players to contracts, but we all know that in today’s world we can’t, the result being that the club gets a double boost, i.e. they keep the wages at the same level for year three, and then sell and still be in profit before year four starts. Occasionally, this has gone wrong and a player has left on a free. However, what’s the betting that, this time next year, Bac is plying his trade elsewhere, having seen out year three on his original terms whilst bringing in a transfer-fee and showing a trading profit to the club. Does anyone know if AW has terms in his contract for a bonus award on the basis of a percentage of the club’s transfer/trading profit? Like I said, please don’t call me a cynic…
