Doyle signs new contract

[Large Mendonca]

The more I read about this, the more i'm convinced this is an exercise in getting around the fair play rules for one of two reasons:-

1) We were hovering very dangerously or even above the wage bill threshold.
2) We've restructered the wage bill to get someone else in - a midfield winger that we're so desperately craving?

The Doyle contract change was maybe the best/easiest way to achieve it.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

The more I read about this, the more i'm convinced this is an exercise in getting around the fair play rules for one of two reasons:-

1) We were hovering very dangerously or even above the wage bill threshold.
2) We've restructered the wage bill to get someone else in - a midfield winger that we're so desperately craving?

The Doyle contract change was maybe the best/easiest way to achieve it.

Very good point, didn't cross my mind initially.

Stands to reason and why would anyone take a pay cut unless there was an incentive (e.g. 3 year extension).

 

[metalblade]

The more I read about this, the more i'm convinced this is an exercise in getting around the fair play rules for one of two reasons:-

1) We were hovering very dangerously or even above the wage bill threshold.
2) We've restructered the wage bill to get someone else in - a midfield winger that we're so desperately craving?

The Doyle contract change was maybe the best/easiest way to achieve it.

Like I said earlier, a financial exercise to spread playing the same amount over a longer time period. This is a very dangerous move if we don't get promotion this season (and it looks a million miles away). We could be stuck with a player who's legs have gone by the end of the season (like Cresswell) while at the same time having to make more cuts for the fair play rules, who will we sell to pay for it Maguire ? Whitehouse maybe ?

Don't hold your breath waiting for a winger to arrive, Danny boy was bleating on the radio at teatime that he can't bring a wide man in unless someone goes out possibly on loan. I fully expect a counter statement on RS by Kevin McCabe saying he can afford to bring in players in the next day or so followed by .................... "Hey there's no bigger Blade than this fella"

 

[Large Mendonca]

Don't hold your breath waiting for a winger to arrive, Danny boy was bleating on the radio at teatime that he can't bring a wide man in unless someone goes out possibly on loan. I fully expect a counter statement on RS by Kevin McCabe saying he can afford to bring in players in the next day or so followed by .................... "Hey there's no bigger Blade than this fella"

Might have been the first reason then

Who knows ? personally i'm not sure about the whole contract-extension thing anyway. I haven't been particularly impressed by the way in which Doyle has started this season, but then again he's not the only one who's stuttered so far.........

 

[mpjacko]

so followed by .................... "Hey there's no bigger Blade than this fella"

Almost. the line is

"there is no-one out there who is better than we have already have" ......

 

[oldblade]

He's the club captain

And he's a fit lad, so why can't he play to 34

Exactly. Stuart McCall was a few years older than that and still performed very well at Championship level.

 

[oldblade]

Words fail me. 32 is past it in the modern game so we tie him down until he's 34. Why do we never learn?

Yes 32 makes you an old age pensioner, just like Steven Gerrard.

 

[secretchief]

Yes 32 makes you an old age pensioner, just like Steven Gerrard.

Are you saying Gerrard isn't past his best?

 

[SwissBlade]

Are you saying Gerrard isn't past his best?

I think this is the point.

You expect players at their peak age. It ain't happening, we're league 3.

Paul McGrath, Gary speed, Stuart mcCall all came to us when they were past their best, but did decent jobs for us and passed on their experience.

Gerrard is past his peak, but still doing a job.

 

[oldblade]

Are you saying Gerrard isn't past his best?

He appeared to be pretty good to me during the Euros. Probably England's best player. So no is the answer to that.

But it's not a matter of whether or not a player is past his best. What is important is whether or not the player is good enough to fulfil the role he's selected for at his particular club. Over the last season, Doyle has shown quite emphatically that he is good enough. Will he be worse in 3 years time? Maybe, but it's also conceivable that he might not be. 34 might be old for a striker whose game is based on pace and acceleration, but it is not old for a player doing Doyle's job.

Stuart McCall might have been past his best when he played for us at the age of 38 up until 40. But his best was still more than adequate for us at a higher level than we are now.

 

[oldblade]

Ok, but believe it or not, I'm not basing my argument here on the objection that Doyle may get a career threatening injury at the end of his career. It's a small consideration to the fundamental problems it presents, being an unnecessarily long contract offered at the wrong time at the season to an ageing player. There is no reason to protect his contract, as Bergs has pointed out.

Creswell hasn't got much left to offer, it's there for all to see. Are you sure you want to use him as an example of best practice? He's old for a footballer. The fact he is still playing regularly and in the first team is part of the problem, for a variety of reasons. This was a direct consequence of giving him an overlong contract. Do we really want a 33-34 year old Doyle playing regularly in the first team? If not, why offer such a contract?

Cresswell is irrelevant to this argument. He and Doyle are different players fulfilling completely different roles.

 

[oldblade]

Like I said earlier, a financial exercise to spread playing the same amount over a longer time period. This is a very dangerous move if we don't get promotion this season (and it looks a million miles away). We could be stuck with a player who's legs have gone by the end of the season (like Cresswell) while at the same time having to make more cuts for the fair play rules, who will we sell to pay for it Maguire ? Whitehouse maybe ?

Don't hold your breath waiting for a winger to arrive, Danny boy was bleating on the radio at teatime that he can't bring a wide man in unless someone goes out possibly on loan. I fully expect a counter statement on RS by Kevin McCabe saying he can afford to bring in players in the next day or so followed by .................... "Hey there's no bigger Blade than this fella"

Yes, McCabe has to be worked into the thread somehow doesn't he.

 

[secretchief]

Ok, fair enough. I don't think this point is worth arguing into the ground. Bergen best articulates the reasons why this deal might not be an unalloyed masterstroke in post 90. McGrath, Speed and McCall were successful international players of higher pedigree than Doyle (no offence to him, in fact I think he is capped once or twice); Doyle has experience but not their definitive quality. Yes, I think it would be best to concentrate on recruiting players who are in their physical prime, not going past it, but I suppose that an old head counts for something. Doyle's best quality appears to be allowing McDonald to play. I really hope Whitehouse comes to the fore, because he looks like a box to boxer from when I've seen him previously.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Will he be worse in 3 years time? Maybe, but it's also conceivable that he might not be.

It is this little uncertainty that make some people of the opinion that it may have been wiser to wait and analyse Doyle's performances and development, and decide later if he was one we wanted to keep at the club one more year at a time.

There are some players that can do it until they're 37-38, some exceptional players that have been world class both technically and in term of natural athleticism have been mentioned. Then there are some that can't, like Hendrie, Harper and Flitcroft, and we all saw McCall and Speed play on one year too long.

 

[oldblade]

It is this little uncertainty that make some people of the opinion that it may have been wiser to wait and analyse Doyle's performances and development, and decide later if he was one we wanted to keep at the club one more year at a time.

There are some players that can do it until they're 37-38, some exceptional players that have been world class both technically and in term of natural athleticism have been mentioned. Then there are some that can't, like Hendrie, Harper and Flitcroft, and we all saw McCall and Speed play on one year too long.

The one year too long was 6 years after the age of 34!

31 is not old (and nor is 32, 33 0r 34), and is certainly far from old for a defensive midfieldedr plying his trade in either the championship or the first (third) division.

By the time someone is 31 you have a pretty good idea of how good or bad they are, how fit they are and how injury prone they are. To my mind it is as much of a risk offering a 20 year old a 3 year contract as it is to offer a 31 year old the same length of contract.

 

[oldblade]

Ok, fair enough. I don't think this point is worth arguing into the ground. Bergen best articulates the reasons why this deal might not be an unalloyed masterstroke in post 90. McGrath, Speed and McCall were successful international players of higher pedigree than Doyle (no offence to him, in fact I think he is capped once or twice); Doyle has experience but not their definitive quality. Yes, I think it would be best to concentrate on recruiting players who are in their physical prime, not going past it, but I suppose that an old head counts for something. Doyle's best quality appears to be allowing McDonald to play. I really hope Whitehouse comes to the fore, because he looks like a box to boxer from when I've seen him previously.

Fair enough, and I'm not trying to say it might not come off or that there is no element of risk. But the negative reaction of some on here is a little puzzling to say the least.

 

[metalblade]

Fair enough, and I'm not trying to say it might not come off or that there is no element of risk. But the negative reaction of some on here is a little puzzling to say the least.

Oldblade you are completely missing the point here, by the time Doyle reaches 34 if indeed he does then he will have no resale value, another reason to give him a yearly contract with the option to extend it or get a little bit of cash back by moving him on. What we are doing makes a mockery of the recent statement from the club saying we would be looking to invest in younger players. Now is the time we should be looking to replace Doyle with someone younger who does have a resale value, people quoting Giggs, Gerrard etc has nothing to do with Doyle all due respect they are world class players Doyle is not. Arsenal have the right idea selling Van Persie at 28 still a top striker but in 2 years who knows and by then his resale value will have halved. No wonder this club is skint we throw good money away on long shots all the time.............. the likes of Speed, Giggs and McCall playing on at 38 are exceptions to the rule, a few players out of thousands.

 

[oldblade]

Oldblade you are completely missing the point here, by the time Doyle reaches 34 if indeed he does then he will have no resale value, another reason to give him a yearly contract with the option to extend it or get a little bit of cash back by moving him on. What we are doing makes a mockery of the recent statement from the club saying we would be looking to invest in younger players. Now is the time we should be looking to replace Doyle with someone younger who does have a resale value, people quoting Giggs, Gerrard etc has nothing to do with Doyle all due respect they are world class players Doyle is not. Arsenal have the right idea selling Van Persie at 28 still a top striker but in 2 years who knows and by then his resale value will have halved. No wonder this club is skint we throw good money away on long shots all the time.............. the likes of Speed, Giggs and McCall playing on at 38 are exceptions to the rule, a few players out of thousands.

I am not missing the point.

Neither you nor I have any idea what actually went on in negotiating Doyle's new contract. As others have said, it could be that he has accepted reducedd terms in exchange for greater security If that is what happeened, surely that helps us remain within the wages versus turnover limits set by the league and also frees up money to spend on the wages of other players.

Secondly, what resale value do you think he'll have next year at 32 or the year after at 33? A decision has to be made balancing the possible resale value that we might forego against the value he might have as a player for this club. Based on his numerous good displays last season I would say he is a valuable member of our squad and one that we have missed whilst he served his suspension.

During the next 3 years we are highly unlikely to reach the premier league, but we do have realistic chances of getting to the championship and staying there. From what I've seen, Doyle is more than capable of holding his own at that level. He was poor when he first came, but was in a poor side with players all around him who appeared to have no stomach for fighting their way out of the position we were in, and often didn't seem to know what they were supposed to be doing. Last season (albeit at a lower level) he looked comfortable in a well organised side.

I'm not interested in his possible resale value next year or the year after. That is not likely to be huge anyway. I'm interested in what he can do for us.

Yes, we should look for a new younger player for his position. We may already have one in the accademy. But that player could take a year or two to bed in and we will still need cover.

Giggs, McCall, Cowans, Scholes, Mortimer, Gerrard etc etc may be the exceptions, but they are not exactly rare exceptions. There are many, many players who perform very well at championship level and below well into their 30s.

 

[sitwell]

Unfortunately Cowans and McCall are better players even now than Doyle ever was, will be or dreamt he'd be - Doyle is a reasonable player at this level but has proven he can't hack it any anything above 3rd Division -I cannot believe you mentioned Scholes, Lampard, Gerrard et al in the same thread as Doyle!

Unfortunately that post emphasises why it is difficult to have a sensible debate on here.

 

[metalblade]

A question for Oldblade or anyone else that wants to air their views .....................
Bearing in mind the Porter contract which can be extended each year and the Creswell deal where we were stuck with a high earner, long term who struggles to last a game.
I'm finding it difficult to see any advantage myself all I see is risk taking and the same old mistakes being repeated, let's not forget for every McCall / Speed there is a Martin Peters / Peter Withe.

What if any are the advantages of giving a 31 yr old a three year deal rather than a one year rolling contract that can be reviewed/extended at any suitable time ???

 

[alcoblade]

Oldblade you are completely missing the point here, by the time Doyle reaches 34 if indeed he does then he will have no resale value, another reason to give him a yearly contract with the option to extend it or get a little bit of cash back by moving him on. What we are doing makes a mockery of the recent statement from the club saying we would be looking to invest in younger players. Now is the time we should be looking to replace Doyle with someone younger who does have a resale value, people quoting Giggs, Gerrard etc has nothing to do with Doyle all due respect they are world class players Doyle is not. Arsenal have the right idea selling Van Persie at 28 still a top striker but in 2 years who knows and by then his resale value will have halved. No wonder this club is skint we throw good money away on long shots all the time.............. the likes of Speed, Giggs and McCall playing on at 38 are exceptions to the rule, a few players out of thousands.

Doyle has no resale value now. As don't 75% of professional footballers these days.

Nobody is comparing Doyle, directly, with Giggs and Gerrard. The point is that their level has not significantly dropped off (from a much higher level) as they've got into their 30's.

Far too much anaysis has gone into the length of this contract. A 3 year contract on £10K per week is a completely different beast to 3 years at £3K. Both in terms of the financial commitment and ability to offload if and when our situation changes.

The usual suspects need not respond, but those who are still able to offer the club a modicum of support don't find it beyond credibiity that it has learned some lessons, and not broke the bank for this deal.

UTB

 

[GAZBLADE]

The value he has to us at this present time is priceless IMO. We've missed him in the last three games.
Great news on the new deal.
UTB
COYRWW

 

[oldblade]

A question for Oldblade or anyone else that wants to air their views .....................
Bearing in mind the Porter contract which can be extended each year and the Creswell deal where we were stuck with a high earner, long term who struggles to last a game.
I'm finding it difficult to see any advantage myself all I see is risk taking and the same old mistakes being repeated, let's not forget for every McCall / Speed there is a Martin Peters / Peter Withe.

What if any are the advantages of giving a 31 yr old a three year deal rather than a one year rolling contract that can be reviewed/extended at any suitable time ???

Cresswell is irrelevant to this argument. He is a different player, in a different position and fulfilling a different role, requiring different attributes.

Doyle is a defensive midfield player playing in the third division and at most may be required to play in the second division for us. His resale value now is likely to be very little. I see hardly any risk in this deal. He is a known quantity, of proven fitness levels and is rarely out through injury. A younger unknown player would in some ways be more of a risk.

Wilson clearly values him and has agreed to this deal. My guess (and it is a guess) is that Doyle would have had to give up something in order to get a 3 year contract. It seems likely to me that he has accepted lower wages. That is quite an important benefit to the club.

I really can't see why you are getting your knickers in a twist over this.

 

[Bergen Blade]

I think most of the arguments for and against have been put forward and we must agree to disagree on this not really huge topic.

One last comment though. If the club had waited till February-March and then signed Doyle up for another year it would have been exactly how I think we should have done it with a player of his age and current ability. I would have praised the decision on here, as long as I agreed Doyle had continued to perform well and shown no sign of decline.

Would those who have defended the three year contract have posted criticism on here if the above scenario happened? Would they have said "FFS, we should have offered him a three year contract last September!"

Or are the reactions automatically triggered by posts that questions the club's decisions?

 

[alcoblade]

Or are the reactions automatically triggered by posts that questions the club's decisions?

I'm not arguing that this is great decision - just that we don't have enough information to be overly critical, and it's quite feasible that there's lots of common sense behind it.

There's a country mile between the way you question the club's decsions and the way some others question the club's decisions.

UTB

 

[metalblade]

Would those who have defended the three year contract have posted criticism on here if the above scenario happened? Would they have said "FFS, we should have offered him a three year contract last September!"

Or are the reactions automatically triggered by posts that questions the club's decisions?

Nail on the head there Bergen, certain posters either like arguing for the sake of it or they truly cannot see any fault or cannot stand anything to be said about SUFC that does not portray the club in a good light.

 

[alcoblade]

Nail on the head there Bergen, certain posters either like arguing for the sake of it or they truly cannot see any fault or cannot stand anything to be said about SUFC that does not portray the club in a good light.

I can point to plenty of my posts that have been extremely critical of United - though probably a year or two old. Point me to one of yours that is even remotely supportive of the club you "support"?

Your posts are nothing like Bergen's. Don't hang on his coattails.

UTB

 

[sitwell]

Nail on the head there Bergen, certain posters either like arguing for the sake of it or they truly cannot see any fault or cannot stand anything to be said about SUFC that does not portray the club in a good light.

Whats that song by Alaniss Morissette ?

 

[metalblade]

Whats that song by Alaniss Morissette ?

Are you thinking of "Excuses" from her 2004 album "So Called Chaos"

 

[alcoblade]

Are you thinking of "Excuses" from her 2004 album "So Called Chaos"

I was thinking "cock end", but she never released it.

UTB