Examiner Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 After the shocking Webstabber result giving 5 year deals to youngsters seems astoundingly good common sense. You only have to avoid ONE Webstabber situation to pay for the rest. I remember some giving dogs abuse for giving lads long contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lochend Brazil Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 After the shocking Webstabber result giving 5 year deals to youngsters seems astoundingly good common sense. You only have to avoid ONE Webstabber situation to pay for the rest. I remember some giving dogs abuse for giving lads long contracts. Fair point but Mole and Elliot dont do it any favours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Harris Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 it has its plus points, but there are definitely drawbacks as well. Young players' drive and motivation has to be maintained - if they are sitting on a fat contract there is less incentive to give 100% at all times. I do agree that it is wise to make sure the best young talent is secure, top assets have to be protected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Examiner Posted January 30, 2008 Author Share Posted January 30, 2008 Fair point but Mole and Elliot dont do it any favours. 1 Driver or Rocky will more than make up for the odd Mole or Elliot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big G Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 After the shocking Webstabber result giving 5 year deals to youngsters seems astoundingly good common sense. You only have to avoid ONE Webstabber situation to pay for the rest. I remember some giving dogs abuse for giving lads long contracts. Couldn't agree more with you there BJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazo Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 After the shocking Webstabber result giving 5 year deals to youngsters seems astoundingly good common sense. You only have to avoid ONE Webstabber situation to pay for the rest. I remember some giving dogs abuse for giving lads long contracts. You can still do a webster with a 5year contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_Mywords Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 After the shocking Webstabber result giving 5 year deals to youngsters seems astoundingly good common sense. You only have to avoid ONE Webstabber situation to pay for the rest. I remember some giving dogs abuse for giving lads long contracts. Why? It does not matter if it's a 4 year contract or a 5 year contract. It's the first 3 years that are protected if under 28 years old. Basically, after 3 years, they can leave, even if they have a 5 year contract, using article 17. Edit: just noticed dazo's reply... he is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazo Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Why? It does not matter if it's a 4 year contract or a 5 year contract. It's the first 3 years that are protected if under 28 years old. Basically, after 3 years, they can leave, even if they have a 5 year contract, using article 17. Ssshhh Vlads a genius don't you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_Mywords Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Even worse when a player is 28 or over.... it's only 2 years protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Winstone Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Someone who plays with Graham Weir at Raith was saying that Weir said that after getting the 5 year deals boys (including him) just stopped being ersed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.