Tweet
Its becoming a standard procedure at QPR that new players signed 3 year contracts. CW, the polish guy, Lynch and Bidwell, all signed 3 year contracts. It could be a decision that can haunt us in the long term. After only one season, a player is already in his last 2 seasons so if he is doing quite well will either extend his contract or transfer for any suitors that wants to pay. Four year contracts to players still young and promising, makes more sense. I assume they are not on huge contracts we used to give in the past.
-
-
I think we need to give them the benefit of the doubt here. Any longer contracts and if they don't work out we will get stuck with their wages.
Also they may be taking a view on the suitableness (is that even a word!) or otherwise of whether the player can possibly step up were we to get promoted. -
On the flip side if / when the players succeed and then get snapped up for a cut price fee we would be slating he club for not tying them down to a longer contract. No issue with 3 year deals, it's 5 year deals I would be worried about .You should never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.Comment
-
-
Works both ways. JET will probably sit out the next 2 years.Comment
-
I watched parts of the first friendly and without doubt, JET was the best player on the pitch. He scored two goals and was very near to hat-trick. Its true it was against Aldershot, however it was the same for Polter and he did not do as much as JET.Comment
-
-
Personally I think it's the correct approach for a player in his 20's. Drop it to 2 years or even 1 year for players in their 30's or youngsters with a lot to prove.Originally posted by Martinmalta View Post
We've been stung a load of times in the past with long contracts for players that haven't worked out. A 3 year contract allows you to work on a new deal after a year or 18 months if somebody has done well. It also means you aren't stuck with a huge bill to get rid of a player after a year if it doesn't work out.Comment
Comment