McLean new contract

[chicken 2,624]

On 28/11/2022 at 19:52, Kenny Foggo said:

Or taking up a wage and not being replaced by something better to improve a declining squad.

At this point, we can't sign anyone, if we decide to replace him, we get to decide the fee, if we want one at all. Rangers have just sacked their manager and it smelt of lazy journalism as it is. It's weird because the kind of people that are saying we should get rid of him are in that middle bit of a venn diagram who are also likely to say we should never have gotten rid of Mackay and Roberts upon promotion to the Premier League. Yet it's a pretty similar scenario. Players arguably past their best, very good Championship operators and what's the argument given? They would have been good for the changing room or the one or two occasions we might have needed them... 

I doubt McLean is one of our top earners. He is experienced in that he offers that experience to other players. It's clear to see that the players in the squad also value that.

It is also clear, that despite what many on here say, he isn't guaranteed to start anymore. Sara, Nunez, Hayden and Gibbs all genuine competitors for those positions now. Not the not-ready Gilmour or the more-of-an-AM Lees-Melou or even the emperors new clothes Normann. None were consistent, some offered the occasional game where they were clearly better, Normann couldn't keep it going, Lees-Melou looked a different player further forward, Gilmour... 

The other issue about wages is that even a freebie we could pick up would be wanting a signing on fee on top. What sort of player would be free and be better than McLean and want the same wages? Realistically very few if any. And you can bet we wouldn't be the only team in the hunt for them.

The only time when this argument therefore becomes valid, to me at least, is if say, Cantwell leaves after turning down a new contract saying it wasn't enough money. At which point there could be an argument that letting McLean go may have freed up more funds to keep Cantwell. But again, that would only really be an argument should the club he ends up at is a club playing at the same level as us next season. 

On 29/11/2022 at 06:51, Canaries north said:

I agree with most of what you have said but saying he has 2 years PL experience is not a selling point. He has 2 years of experience knowing he is out of his depth at that level. Yes a solid if uninspiring championship player in my opinion but if we get promoted he can't be a starter in my opinion if so then we are doomed to repeat again. For now it's the right thing to do to get he signed up. Little outlay for as said a solid if uninspiring player. 

He's clearly not being given a contract to be a regular starter in the premier league. I think it's more a case of he doesn't cost anything to keep and we get full control over what happens from then onwards. We don't give him a contract and he leaves for free in the summer.

If we don't gain promotion we'd be likely to lose Hayden, as it stands, though things can and do change. That would leave us with just Sorensen as the DM choice. We have Gibbs, Sara and Nunez who all have shown they can play at this level now - we just need that consistency from them. We don't need to be losing the only other experienced player in the middle - especially when all three of those could also be considered "assets" should we need to sell.

It's the nature of our model.

If we go up, and we feel we could replace him, then we can get in touch with Rangers and offer him on a loan with a view to a permanent. Or if even more confident that he's not needed, ask for a minimal fee or even on a free transfer - the same as we could do the following season - it puts us in the driving seat. It gives us security around future scenarios and makes sense.

IMHO, there are other areas of the pitch that need more attention and have worse issues than McLean. The width, for example. Cantwell, Hernandez, Sinani and Martin are all out of contract. That leaves Tzolis, Rashica, Rowe, Springett and Mumba who can all play there. Rashica is unlikely to stay now I think. Tzolis is probably a 60-40 to stay at this point, I think the decision was he needed a palette cleanser. None of the others offer a great deal of experience though Mumba is looking good, I still think he'll be favoured as an attacking full back rather than a winger. He reminds me a bit of Olsson.

Then you have the strikers - Pukki and Hugill are out of contract, Idah injury issues and Sargent. Idah needs an injury free season in him IMHO. Would we be happy with Sargent and him as our first choice two? I'd like to think we could add more experience to that.

And there in lies the problem. If we can spend money, it'll be on a tight budget again. If we want to keep Hayden next summer it'll cost us, and we can't afford, even if we go up again, for wholesale changes of the team. We don't have a Buendia or Godfrey to sell to try and spread the value over the team again. We'd be looking at £25-30m again without sales I reckon. 

[repman 635]

It sounds like Kenny was more than happy to stay, so I doubt we had to push the boat out in terms of what we offered him. The fact he's got 2 years after turning 30 is generous enough so I reckon he's probably earning similar to what he was already. With that all considered it seems like a sensible move from the club. 

[Canaries north 151]

13 hours ago, chicken said:

At this point, we can't sign anyone, if we decide to replace him, we get to decide the fee, if we want one at all. Rangers have just sacked their manager and it smelt of lazy journalism as it is. It's weird because the kind of people that are saying we should get rid of him are in that middle bit of a venn diagram who are also likely to say we should never have gotten rid of Mackay and Roberts upon promotion to the Premier League. Yet it's a pretty similar scenario. Players arguably past their best, very good Championship operators and what's the argument given? They would have been good for the changing room or the one or two occasions we might have needed them... 

I doubt McLean is one of our top earners. He is experienced in that he offers that experience to other players. It's clear to see that the players in the squad also value that.

It is also clear, that despite what many on here say, he isn't guaranteed to start anymore. Sara, Nunez, Hayden and Gibbs all genuine competitors for those positions now. Not the not-ready Gilmour or the more-of-an-AM Lees-Melou or even the emperors new clothes Normann. None were consistent, some offered the occasional game where they were clearly better, Normann couldn't keep it going, Lees-Melou looked a different player further forward, Gilmour... 

The other issue about wages is that even a freebie we could pick up would be wanting a signing on fee on top. What sort of player would be free and be better than McLean and want the same wages? Realistically very few if any. And you can bet we wouldn't be the only team in the hunt for them.

The only time when this argument therefore becomes valid, to me at least, is if say, Cantwell leaves after turning down a new contract saying it wasn't enough money. At which point there could be an argument that letting McLean go may have freed up more funds to keep Cantwell. But again, that would only really be an argument should the club he ends up at is a club playing at the same level as us next season. 

He's clearly not being given a contract to be a regular starter in the premier league. I think it's more a case of he doesn't cost anything to keep and we get full control over what happens from then onwards. We don't give him a contract and he leaves for free in the summer.

If we don't gain promotion we'd be likely to lose Hayden, as it stands, though things can and do change. That would leave us with just Sorensen as the DM choice. We have Gibbs, Sara and Nunez who all have shown they can play at this level now - we just need that consistency from them. We don't need to be losing the only other experienced player in the middle - especially when all three of those could also be considered "assets" should we need to sell.

It's the nature of our model.

If we go up, and we feel we could replace him, then we can get in touch with Rangers and offer him on a loan with a view to a permanent. Or if even more confident that he's not needed, ask for a minimal fee or even on a free transfer - the same as we could do the following season - it puts us in the driving seat. It gives us security around future scenarios and makes sense.

IMHO, there are other areas of the pitch that need more attention and have worse issues than McLean. The width, for example. Cantwell, Hernandez, Sinani and Martin are all out of contract. That leaves Tzolis, Rashica, Rowe, Springett and Mumba who can all play there. Rashica is unlikely to stay now I think. Tzolis is probably a 60-40 to stay at this point, I think the decision was he needed a palette cleanser. None of the others offer a great deal of experience though Mumba is looking good, I still think he'll be favoured as an attacking full back rather than a winger. He reminds me a bit of Olsson.

Then you have the strikers - Pukki and Hugill are out of contract, Idah injury issues and Sargent. Idah needs an injury free season in him IMHO. Would we be happy with Sargent and him as our first choice two? I'd like to think we could add more experience to that.

And there in lies the problem. If we can spend money, it'll be on a tight budget again. If we want to keep Hayden next summer it'll cost us, and we can't afford, even if we go up again, for wholesale changes of the team. We don't have a Buendia or Godfrey to sell to try and spread the value over the team again. We'd be looking at £25-30m again without sales I reckon. 

I think we agree. All I was saying was that the poster said he had 2 years premier League experience as a positive. I don't see it that way.