There has been a growing trend in top players letting their contracts run down.
The benefits to them are obvious as they can pick and chose where to go and can demand beefed up wages, maybe a signing on fee, as there is no transfer fee involved.
This is taking the balance even more towards the individual player as clubs who will have relied on realising some value from the player, to either balance the books or fund more transfers, are now losing them for free.
This means more of the money moving around the game is going to players & agents (effectively out of the game) and less to the clubs in transfer fees. When transfer fees are involved, this trickles through the game as selling a player will often result in you then buying a player and the money moves around...what will happen more and more it seems is that clubs will receive less in fees, wages will go up, and they will spend less on players as there are more free options available and less funds available.
This is an unhealthy balance for the game IMO and is of course being driven by agents who are exploiting ways of taking the most value from the player for themselves/their client and the club benefits far less.
But i do not expect clubs to take this shift lying down. In our league I would say everyone bar City & United are reliant on on gaining value for players that become surplus. How clubs react is difficult to know....longer contracts, shorted contracts, loyalty bonuses, selling players earlier, changing transfer strategies? Taking less risk?
Arsenal have taken the view that keeping Nketiah for no fee but on big wages is better than losing and replacing. They have committed £26m in wages to a player who may or may not be any good.
Liverpool seem to be taking the view that they will not pay Salah the £400k or whatever weekly wage he wants. As a club who are well run but do depend to a certain degree in sales they have a tough decision to take....but if you paid Salah £400k, over 4 years thats £80m in wages , on a player who is probably reaching or passing his peak and will probably not be worth those wages in the latter part of his contract. Perhaps they are better to plan for his replacement, like Diaz. Cost £40m reportedly on £70k a week = total deal worth about £60m over 5 years.
Spurs and Chelsea are probably just going to have to loan out and pay the wages (partially) of their big flops until their contracts run out. Its a massive drain.
It might, perhaps, take a big high profile injury to get players to think differently. Say Salah decided to see out his contract at LFC and busted his ACL during the season, this could potentially end his career early but would at least limit his options and value/wages when he walks (hobbles) away on a Bosman the following summer.
Players make the game and should be rewarded well for this, but to me it seems that, at the higher level at least, they want a bigger and bigger slice of the revenues and this is not healthy.
Player Wages
posted on 28/6/22
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 28/6/22
comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 3 minutes ago
If Salah was 26 and had done what he has done then I am pretty sure we'd be paying him the wage he wants. To give a 30 year old a 400k a week deal for 4 years is a huge risk and one we're not is a position to take. I have said on here that I think that the only area our set up lets us down is the forward planning part in terms of players contracts. We shouldn't be in a position where we're entering final years of assets worth 50 million plus like Mane and Salah are/should be. Extensions should have been dished out two seasons ago that took both of them until they're 32. If they don't sign, then one or both get sold for upwards of 100 million in the case of Salah and we rebuild.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's easier said then done though coz as soon as that player enters his final 2 years of his contract, the power has shifted to him and less so to the club and if no-one wants to pay 100 mil for said player because everyone knows he has 2 years left, there's really not much the club can do about it imo...they can bench them but they'll be hurting themselves by benching their best players.
posted on 28/6/22
maybe we need to be making sure these players a 33/34 by the time their contract runs out, which means tying them down to 4/5 year contracts at 29.
Salah will be 31 if he leaves for free, mane would have been too. bobby few months shy of 32.
posted on 28/6/22
players are clearly more conditioned and looked after to play well into their 30s at the highest level now. All this despite congested fixture schedules.
posted on 28/6/22
comment by InBefore (U20589)
posted 13 minutes ago
not saying diaz is on a 9 year contact but 9 years of 75k a week and the 49m fee is still less than 400k a week for 4 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think yourself lucky we negotiated them down on your behalf, from £60-£40m
But in all seriousness, that Diaz was a typical Spurs deal, but like Romero. Quality player but who can still get better and better, start off on good wages (£75k a week) which probably double or better existing wages but leaving room to offer them improved terms.
That way if you got Diaz for £75k a week, after 2 strong seasons you offer him more and lengthen his contract, so the prospect of losing them for nothing or being held to ransom on wages is reduced.
The problem is giving them a massive deal which, due to their age, isnt probably their last deal.
I think Salah will be taking a massive risk if he sees out his deal...is he really going to better whatever LFC are offering now. Most European clubs are reigning in their spending and wages. Where's he going to get £400k a week for 3 or 4 years as a 30 year old.
Salah's last contract extension (2018) took him to age 30 and maybe the club view that as his best before date. They will have got good value out of him and may be are perhaps prepared to move rather than be held to ransom. Certainly his post AFCON form will not have encouraged them to push the boat right out.
posted on 28/6/22
We learned the hard way with NDombele. reportedly on £200k a week. We've had him 3 years, paid him £30m already and he couldnt give a toss about us. He's only 25 and has tons of ability.
Will be happy for him to leave for free or just pay off his wages and may be get a small fee in for him to offset the financial hit.
posted on 28/6/22
comment by AFCISMYTEAM (U14931)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 3 minutes ago
If Salah was 26 and had done what he has done then I am pretty sure we'd be paying him the wage he wants. To give a 30 year old a 400k a week deal for 4 years is a huge risk and one we're not is a position to take. I have said on here that I think that the only area our set up lets us down is the forward planning part in terms of players contracts. We shouldn't be in a position where we're entering final years of assets worth 50 million plus like Mane and Salah are/should be. Extensions should have been dished out two seasons ago that took both of them until they're 32. If they don't sign, then one or both get sold for upwards of 100 million in the case of Salah and we rebuild.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's easier said then done though coz as soon as that player enters his final 2 years of his contract, the power has shifted to him and less so to the club and if no-one wants to pay 100 mil for said player because everyone knows he has 2 years left, there's really not much the club can do about it imo...they can bench them but they'll be hurting themselves by benching their best players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think clubs can create a bit of a culture of rewards. certainly as Spurs developed under Poch, the likes of Alli Kane and other improving players seemed to get new deals every season...a concept where there is a clear path for rewards as you develop and become successful, rather than one-off massive wage hikes, is workable but probably increasingly less so as players and agents seem increasingly greedy and less loyal, and there's always going to be someone out there to turn your head by offering more
posted on 28/6/22
comment by InBefore (U20589)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 7 minutes ago
City learned their lesson with James Milner on that front.
The policy now is sign or leave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aguero? Fernandinho?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gave their best years to club, allowed to leave by mutual consent
posted on 28/6/22
Clubs have an overall recruitment budget which covers transfer an associated fees and the players salary. While players can have a resale value and potential for value to go up, ultimately it’s always a finite asset.
So specifically why do you think it is unhealthy? I’m not disagreeing with you, but I wonder if our frustration as fans may colour our views on the business side of the game. And let’s face it, 99.9% of us don’t really have anything beyond the most superficial idea how clubs are run.
posted on 29/6/22
comment by The Droog (U17596)
posted 16 hours, 58 minutes ago
Clubs have an overall recruitment budget which covers transfer an associated fees and the players salary. While players can have a resale value and potential for value to go up, ultimately it’s always a finite asset.
So specifically why do you think it is unhealthy? I’m not disagreeing with you, but I wonder if our frustration as fans may colour our views on the business side of the game. And let’s face it, 99.9% of us don’t really have anything beyond the most superficial idea how clubs are run.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The main reason it is unhealthy for the game is, IMO, that it takes more money from the game.
Money filters down and through the game. Part of a clubs revenue is spent on transfers, and part of that revenue is made up of transfer fees received. These are reinvested in new transfers, with fees received by other clubs, who themselves invest...and repeat.
If we move to a position where lots of players run down their contracts, there will be less revenue money between clubs spent on transfer and more spent of wages.
Grealish leaves Villa for £100m. Villa get Ings for £25m from Saints. Saints took than money and bought Blackburn's Armstrong, they spent a bit of that money but ultimately it probably helps them survive.
If Grealish or Ings just runs down is contract none of this flow of money happens, Ings would be getting more wages from Villa and their budgets are altered, tilting more towards higher wages and less transfer spending.
Now in this day and age that flow of money is not so often exclusively domestic, lots goes abroad, but the principal is the same. It supports the game generally and filters down.
A great % of revenue going on wages & agents is dangerous. It is by far the largest fixed cost and if things hit the fan then its difficult to react quickly.
I believe it will also skew the game even further in favour of the 'haves'.