One year contracts & Thai job lots.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

Maybe we should put the whole darn lot of them on one year contracts.[:O]

And bring in a new job lot next year if they don''t perform. You know, just like Sven and the Thai guy at Man City.

Maybe it''s the new way.[:-*][:)]

OTBC

 

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

We should Thai them all in on long contracts you dim sum.

[Tom NCFC 0]

???

Only Murray and Fotheringham have come in on 1 year contracts.... I can''t work out if your being naive or not!

Anyway what do you want us to do, sign him on  4 year deal only for his injury to come back.... You fancy paying him 4 years worth of wages if he is injured for the duration???

[blahblahblah 2]

Three word Bly, Matthieu Louis Jean.

[Hardhouse44 261]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]Three word Bly, Matthieu Louis Jean.
[/quote]

So are you saying we should sign all players on a 1 year contract in case they get long term injuries.

[blahblahblah 2]

No, I''m saying that if a player has previous had a career threatening injury that could re-occur such as Murrays'', then it''s only sensible that we should take them on for a year and see how they do.

[Hardhouse44 261]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]No, I''m saying that if a player has previous had a career threatening injury that could re-occur such as Murrays'', then it''s only sensible that we should take them on for a year and see how they do.
[/quote]

And if he does excellently and looks the business we''ll just sign him up again for another year. While the competition just sit back and allow use to do it.

Clubs insure their player against career threatening injuries.

Only reasons for such a short contract are

1. we are not convinced he can cut it

2. He wouldn''t sign for longer cos he only wants to you us as a shop window

My instinct would be the first but either way the injury thing is rubbish. If he ain''t able to obtain a clean medical report the we shouldn''t sign him at all if he is the we should only sign him if he is of a better quality that that which we already have. And if he is then we should get him on a decent length contract so we can control the situation regarding his future. I all smacks of panic buying to me.

[colneycanary 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Maybe we should put the whole darn lot of them on one year contracts.[:O]

And bring in a new job lot next year if they don''t perform. You know, just like Sven and the Thai guy at Man City.

Maybe it''s the new way.[:-*][:)]

OTBC

 

[/quote] Murry suffered from Reactive Arthritis which ruled him out for a big part of the season last year. It could come back, lets hope it doesn''t and no team in the country would give him a longer contract because of this, so you should not even be questioning why only a 1 year contract.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

My initial post had nothing specifically to do with either Murray or Fotheringham (1 year contracts quite right for both in my view).

It was just a humourous look at postulating a prelude to doing what one of the rich (Man City) is in fact doing i.e. bringing in a new job lot of players because those they had were not good enough for a new owner with higher ambitions.

One thing is for sure - they would be motivated to perform and pull together in order to get a new contract at the end of the season!

Slackers/non-performers. Kick them out and get in a new lot in January or July/August.

Our suits would also have to work better and think smarter.

It''s just a question of thinking outside the box and thinking the unthinkable - which often produces some seeds leading to creative solutions.[8-|]

Blah, blah, blah.....

[6]

[:D]

OTBC