Are long term contracts the problem?

[Pilchards]

A player signing a 6 year contract gives them guarantees of course but those that are not so driven can become complacent perhaps?

 

What does it matter that VVD signed his long contract because he would still go for ** millions even if he had 2 years left.

Shane Long, Fraser Forster, Redmond, JWP, and Tadic to name a few have taken a mega step back in ability and effort on the pitch in recent months and maybe they lack that hunger and fight anymore?

Edited 13 September, 2017 by Pilchards

[trousers]

One would have thought the desire to be selected for one's country (and thus needing to perform well) would outweigh any complacency at club level. That said, for some players it's easier to get into their national squad than others.

Edited 13 September, 2017 by trousers

[Toadhall Saint]

A player signing a 6 year contract gives them guarantees of course but those that are not so driven can become complatant perhaps?

 

What does it matter that VVD signed his long contract because he would still go for ** millions even if he had 2 years left.

Shane Long, Fraser Forster, Redmond, JWP, and Tadic to name a few have taken a mega step back in ability and effort on the pitch in recent months and maybe they lack that hunger and fight anymore?

 

There could always be that element with certain players. This is compounded with no "general" on the pitch. I'm sure if we had a (dare I say it) Roy Keane type of player on the pitch then the level of complacency would be far less.

[eurosaint]

Arsenal are about to lose a number of players for much reduced fees due to short contracts !

I.e. Sanchez - £20 mil in January.

There is no perfect scenario but I reckon that long term is better than short !

[tajjuk]

Lack of competition for places would seem a more obvious reason for complacency.

 

3/4s of that team barely get disturbed from their positions, even though many like Tadic or Redmond have not been in good form for a long while. We are repeatedly told we have a strong squad but the same faces seem to get rotated.

 

But we also lack forward options really, unless they play two up top you have 3 strikers for 1 position, but then behind them you have really 4 players for 3 positions or 5 at a stretch if you consider Davis in there, but to be honest I'm not sure JWP should be considered in there either as really hes like Davies and more of an all round midfielder not an attacking mid or wide man, so pretty much 2/4 will always be playing.

 

We needed to get someone else in with some pace and trickery about them that would challenge Tadic/Redmond/Boufal for those 2/3 spots behind the striker. Especially as the only one last year that really made a challenge in those spots was Sims and he's out injured for a while.

 

If say Tadic and Redmond got injured then who else have we got?

 

The same could also be said of Forster as McCarthy clearly isn't challenging for his spot and Targett's long absence might be making Bertrand a bit complacent as well.

 

The first team squad currently has 6 centre-backs, 5 full backs, 5 centre mids, 3 main strikers and really only 4 attacking mids/wide players.

[darren2]

Proving yourself good enough to be sold in 2 years to Liverpool should be enough to make you play well.....

[the saint in winchester]

And Darren is right.

I also think the long contracts could be our undoing. Up until recently, we were recruiting young n hungry players keen to improve themselves via the Saints self-improvement machine with a view to being sold on to a top 7 side. They saw it as fast-tracking to the top, we got 2 years of dedication from players desperate to showcase their talents.

Now we appear to be going for a new model. Get a young player in, get them on a long contract, nail their boots to the floor, and say "forget moving for a few years, son, you're ours for the foreseeable."

There no incentive to showcase their talents and get the big money move they want.

I actually preferred the previous model. Get them on 3 year contracts, then at the end of year 2, offer an extended contract. If they decline, then we sell to highest bidder.

[labibs]

And Darren is right.

I also think the long contracts could be our undoing. Up until recently, we were recruiting young n hungry players keen to improve themselves via the Saints self-improvement machine with a view to being sold on to a top 7 side. They saw it as fast-tracking to the top, we got 2 years of dedication from players desperate to showcase their talents.

Now we appear to be going for a new model. Get a young player in, get them on a long contract, nail their boots to the floor, and say "forget moving for a few years, son, you're ours for the foreseeable."

There no incentive to showcase their talents and get the big money move they want.

I actually preferred the previous model. Get them on 3 year contracts, then at the end of year 2, offer an extended contract. If they decline, then we sell to highest bidder.

 

This is trolling surely? Sell all our players when they have a year left on their contract? the highest bidder will bid 50% of their value if they had longer contracts. How is that a sensible approach?

[sadoldgit]

It wasn't that long ago that the club was being slagged off for giving shorter contracts.

[stevy777_x]

And Darren is right.

I also think the long contracts could be our undoing. Up until recently, we were recruiting young n hungry players keen to improve themselves via the Saints self-improvement machine with a view to being sold on to a top 7 side. They saw it as fast-tracking to the top, we got 2 years of dedication from players desperate to showcase their talents.

Now we appear to be going for a new model. Get a young player in, get them on a long contract, nail their boots to the floor, and say "forget moving for a few years, son, you're ours for the foreseeable."

There no incentive to showcase their talents and get the big money move they want.

I actually preferred the previous model. Get them on 3 year contracts, then at the end of year 2, offer an extended contract. If they decline, then we sell to highest bidder.

 

You cannot make this up

[Adkins' Bus]

It wasn't that long ago that the club was being slagged off for giving shorter contracts.

 

Probably because we were forced in to selling Mane, Wanyama earlier than we might have wanted to in order to maximise the sale price. In reality the ideal is probably somewhere in between. We perhaps need to be a little more careful about who we give the long contracts to. For example, were Forster, Long, JWP, Davis really deserving of long contract extensions? The long contracts only work in our favour when it comes to players that are in high demand, ie. VVD, Bertrand, Cedric.

[saint1977]

Lack of competition for places would seem a more obvious reason for complacency.

 

3/4s of that team barely get disturbed from their positions, even though many like Tadic or Redmond have not been in good form for a long while. We are repeatedly told we have a strong squad but the same faces seem to get rotated.

 

But we also lack forward options really, unless they play two up top you have 3 strikers for 1 position, but then behind them you have really 4 players for 3 positions or 5 at a stretch if you consider Davis in there, but to be honest I'm not sure JWP should be considered in there either as really hes like Davies and more of an all round midfielder not an attacking mid or wide man, so pretty much 2/4 will always be playing.

 

We needed to get someone else in with some pace and trickery about them that would challenge Tadic/Redmond/Boufal for those 2/3 spots behind the striker. Especially as the only one last year that really made a challenge in those spots was Sims and he's out injured for a while.

 

If say Tadic and Redmond got injured then who else have we got?

 

The same could also be said of Forster as McCarthy clearly isn't challenging for his spot and Targett's long absence might be making Bertrand a bit complacent as well.

 

The first team squad currently has 6 centre-backs, 5 full backs, 5 centre mids, 3 main strikers and really only 4 attacking mids/wide players.

 

I agre, long-term contracts of assets aren't the problem as the OP asks, it's the lack of competition in key areas and some very strange transfer decisions (Bednarak). Also, rewarding poor performers, as Fraser was last year, with new contracts doesn't help unless they majorly up their game.

 

I think Lemina and Hoedt will prove good acquisitions but SFC really needed a good clear out in midfield and to rebuild that area, thus some of the attacking midfield/wide areas would have been addressed. I thought JWP would build on last year's improved displays for example. OK, you can argue last week was a tactical balls up by MP but he was dreadful at the Wolves game. Loan him out to shock him into strengthening or sell to improve elsewhere. PEH - I like him but we have a costly player, ex-Bayern as well, not even making the squad. Tadic blows hot and cold; need a change of systen to get the best out of him. Shame Sims injured as just what we need; Hesketh has an injury record even Darren Anderton would be ashamed of.

 

However, when the DoF comes out with one of the most stupid comments I've ever heard last summer 'Pierre joins one of the strongest midfield options in the PL' and Claude's Henry jibberish about Redmond - another midfielder/wide player who should be under severe scrutiny - you can see the level of delusion.

[DuncanRG]

In a word: no.

[The9]

Seems fairly clear to me we're offering 5 and 6 year deals to ensure that any saleable assets we're ready to move on still have plenty of time left on their contracts to ensure as high a price as possible. Also seems pretty sensible.

 

Lack of competition for places seems a pretty unlikely demotivator given how little competition there was in previous seasons.