Taylor has sights set on attacker (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

Quote from Taylor;
“People used to sign for three years but that’s quite unusual now at our level. It’s more likely to be one-year contracts with an option for the club to keep them on if they play so many games.
Now do you believe there is such a clause Waynus?

fatbloke wrote:
Quote from Taylor; “People used to sign for three years but that’s quite unusual now at our level. It’s more likely to be one-year contracts with an option for the club to keep them on if they play so many games. Now do you believe there is such a clause Waynus?

I never said such a clause existed. What I said was I found it hard to believe that a player (Brandon in this case) would be offered a 2 year deal with the option of a 3rd depending on TOTAL performances in the previous 2 seasons.

I ask again, what would happen if Brandon played every game in his first season but not at all in his 2nd? Why would any manager put himself in a situation whereby 1 season of football could turn into being tied to a 3 year contract??

Now, how do you know that Taylor wasn't referring to a contract that I suggested would be more logical and probable? That was that the 3rd year 'add-on' would be subject to appearances in his 2nd year, not a combination of his first two seasons.

Besides, it is a massive difference to offer a 1 year deal (with a clause based on minimum appearances) than it is for a 2 year deal!!

The day after I posted a comment that a friend of mine had said we had spoken to a couple of strikers and Taylor speaks to Parker about recruiting in the striker area and Taylor confirmed he had 'spoken to more than one' .

Were the rumours about Knight/Burton true? More importantly was his claim that Flynn almost joined L Orient also true?

I can't wait to see who Taylor brings in next and this morning we will see who we draw in the Carling Cup.

Bring on next season.

Waynus71 wrote:

fatbloke wrote: Quote from Taylor; “People used to sign for three years but that’s quite unusual now at our level. It’s more likely to be one-year contracts with an option for the club to keep them on if they play so many games. Now do you believe there is such a clause Waynus?

I never said such a clause existed. What I said was I found it hard to believe that a player (Brandon in this case) would be offered a 2 year deal with the option of a 3rd depending on TOTAL performances in the previous 2 seasons. I ask again, what would happen if Brandon played every game in his first season but not at all in his 2nd? Why would any manager put himself in a situation whereby 1 season of football could turn into being tied to a 3 year contract?? Now, how do you know that Taylor wasn't referring to a contract that I suggested would be more logical and probable? That was that the 3rd year 'add-on' would be subject to appearances in his 2nd year, not a combination of his first two seasons. Besides, it is a massive difference to offer a 1 year deal (with a clause based on minimum appearances) than it is for a 2 year deal!!

In fairness to waynus fatbloke it does say the club have the option of another year if the player plays so many games, not the club has to give another year if the player plays so many games. I personally believe most clubs would hold the ace card of tying the player down not the player. Thats what it sounds like to me but then what do i know

macca1969 wrote:

Waynus71 wrote:

fatbloke wrote: Quote from Taylor; “People used to sign for three years but that’s quite unusual now at our level. It’s more likely to be one-year contracts with an option for the club to keep them on if they play so many games. Now do you believe there is such a clause Waynus?

I never said such a clause existed. What I said was I found it hard to believe that a player (Brandon in this case) would be offered a 2 year deal with the option of a 3rd depending on TOTAL performances in the previous 2 seasons. I ask again, what would happen if Brandon played every game in his first season but not at all in his 2nd? Why would any manager put himself in a situation whereby 1 season of football could turn into being tied to a 3 year contract?? Now, how do you know that Taylor wasn't referring to a contract that I suggested would be more logical and probable? That was that the 3rd year 'add-on' would be subject to appearances in his 2nd year, not a combination of his first two seasons. Besides, it is a massive difference to offer a 1 year deal (with a clause based on minimum appearances) than it is for a 2 year deal!!

In fairness to waynus fatbloke it does say the club have the option of another year if the player plays so many games, not the club has to give another year if the player plays so many games. I personally believe most clubs would hold the ace card of tying the player down not the player. Thats what it sounds like to me but then what do i know

You are spot on. In our eagerness to debate the point, both 'fatbloke' and myself missed the key words here, "an option for the club", rather than being forced into keeping a player a manager may no longer want or need.

Good spot, but no doubt 'fatbloke' will still defend his original claim.