Re: Gunnar signs new deal
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SunderlandBluebird
Who's acting like a kid? Because I think he's taking the mick by signing a one year deal?
He's contributed for eight years but he's also been very well rewarded for it. I don't have a problem with people having ambition but when it's at the cost of the club it's a bit crap. If he'd signed a two year deal the club could've let him go for a couple of million next season. The will he/won't he sign was boring last season and it'll be the same next year. He's never made it in the Premier League so it's no surprise to me that he had zero offers from the PL and decided to give it another year.
He may have been here for seven years but I don't think that's through choice. Compare his attitude towards interest from other clubs and whitts' and they're worlds apart.
First of all, how could we get any money for Gunnar next summer if, as you say, he's had no contract offers this summer, when he's on a free? You say he's only stayed because he had to, so why would we get offers next summer when we've not had any of 7 seasons before. You've contradicted yourself.
Also, Gunnar has turned down offers to leave before, that's fairly common knowledge I thought. He's been a great servant to us and has played over 250 games. He doesn't want to play in the Championship, it's 8 games more than most leagues and he's nearly 30. Warnock has heaped praise on him, "a top man and a top player" and I've not seen anything to suggest otherwise.
Re: Gunnar signs new deal
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SunderlandBluebird
Who's acting like a kid? Because I think he's taking the mick by signing a one year deal?
He's contributed for eight years but he's also been very well rewarded for it. I don't have a problem with people having ambition but when it's at the cost of the club it's a bit crap. If he'd signed a two year deal the club could've let him go for a couple of million next season. The will he/won't he sign was boring last season and it'll be the same next year. He's never made it in the Premier League so it's no surprise to me that he had zero offers from the PL and decided to give it another year.
He may have been here for seven years but I don't think that's through choice. Compare his attitude towards interest from other clubs and whitts' and they're worlds apart.
How’s it at the cost of the club though? It’s been negotiated with both him and the club in mind. How do you know he’s had zero offers?
Also I imagine he’s looking for something abroad, he’s not British what reason would he have to stay here after this year?
Re: Gunnar signs new deal
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SunderlandBluebird
Haven't read this thread so the point may have been made but a 1 year contract really taking the piss. I posted about a month ago that in my opinion it was understandable him not signing whilst going for promotion and a world cup coming up but once we went up he should've put pen to paper.
Now we'll have a few months of will he/wont he sign towards the end of the season. Warnock should've called his bluff and told him it's 2 years or nothing - as he certainly wouldn't have had another offer from a PL club after two big injuries in the last 12 months and a mediocre world cup.
Why would we sign someone who's had two big injuries and a mediocre world cup for two years?
Re: Gunnar signs new deal
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lardy
Why would we sign someone who's had two big injuries and a mediocre world cup for two years?
^^this^^
Never dis the man as he's been a great servant and his experience will be invaluable but I don't think he's automatic choice in the mixer.
Places up for grabs and good competition.
Re: Gunnar signs new deal
Ok, I must be wrong and he must have turned down several offers to finally decide to put pen to paper on a one year deal (which is virtually unheard of for a 29-year-old player in the PL extending his contract.)
All hail the loyalty :hehe:
Re: Gunnar signs new deal
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SunderlandBluebird
Ok, I must be wrong and he must have turned down several offers to finally decide to put pen to paper on a one year deal (which is virtually unheard of for a 29-year-old player in the PL extending his contract.)
All hail the loyalty :hehe:
Well done on missing the point entirely though
Re: Gunnar signs new deal
The sooner people grow out of thinking any player has “loyalty” to a club which they have no real connection to the better. Players have a short career and either want to win something or make as much money as possible.
What do you think about the loyalty of Reid or Murphy leaving their boyhood clubs?
Re: Gunnar signs new deal
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Croesy Blue
The sooner people grow out of thinking any player has “loyalty” to a club which they have no real connection to the better. Players have a short career and either want to win something or make as much money as possible.
What do you think about the loyalty of Reid or Murphy leaving their boyhood clubs?
If Gunnarsson/Zohore/Ralls had moved on last season for 3-5m I wouldn't have had an issue and I'd wish them well. But to run down your contract, wait for better offers through the WC, wait a further couple of weeks once out then sign for just a year when no decent teams came in, before being quoted as saying "never in doubt, I love this place, representing the capital of Wales" etc is poor imo but we'll agree to disagree.
Reid had a year left on his contract and let the club receive a very good fee. So he's shown ambition and ensured they receive a decent fee. Why would any club keep someone who's got a year on their deal, it offers the club absolutely nothing. That's why you see clubs shifting players on who have a year left on their contract unless they're worth very little like Greg Halford.
Re: Gunnar signs new deal
The club would keep someone with a year on their deal so they can play in matches for that year.
Why would the player care what fee the club gets? Other than the "loyalty bonus" cut they get off it, and why should they care?
Why is running down a contract seen as a bad thing? The club and player have agreed to that length of contract, surely there is nothing "disloyal" about honouring that contract.
And why is it ok for the club to shift a player on with one year left on his deal so the club can make money, Doesn't seem very loyal from the club towards the player. Or does loyalty only work one way?
Re: Gunnar signs new deal
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SunderlandBluebird
If Gunnarsson/Zohore/Ralls had moved on I wouldn't have had an issue and I'd wish them well. But to run down your contract, wait for better offers through the WC, wait a further couple of weeks once out then sign for just a year when no decent ones came in, before being quoted as saying "never in doubt, I love this place, representing the capital of Wales" etc is poor imo but we'll agree to disagree.
Reid had a year left on his contract and let the club receive a very good fee. So he's shown ambition and ensured they receive a decent fee. Why would any club keep someone who's got a year on their deal, it offers the club absolutely nothing. That's why you see clubs shifting players on who have a year left on their contract unless they're worth very little like Greg Halford.
I think most people are of the opinion that a 12 month deal is the best outcome for both parties - it's not about loyalty. Tying him down for longer than a year may not be ideal (given his recent injuries and his relative age) but should we wish to, we will always have the option to offer him a new contract down the line - should we deem him worth it.
Plus, should he feel like he's had enough of the UK after another bash at the PL and wants to ply his trade abroad after 12 months - he won't have to worry about transfer fees etc playing a part - possibly giving him greater options.
I think a 1 year deal is sensible.
Re: Gunnar signs new deal
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Croesy Blue
The club would keep someone with a year on their deal so they can play in matches for that year.
Why would the player care what fee the club gets? Other than the "loyalty bonus" cut they get off it, and why should they care?
Why is running down a contract seen as a bad thing? The club and player have agreed to that length of contract, surely there is nothing "disloyal" about honouring that contract.
Do you not see anything wrong then if Bobby Reid had stayed another year at Bristol then ****ed off next summer on a free?
Re: Gunnar signs new deal
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Heisenberg
I think most people are of the opinion that a 12 month deal is the best outcome for both parties - it's not about loyalty. Tying him down for longer than a year may not be ideal (given his recent injuries and his relative age) but should we wish to, we will always have the option to offer him a new contract down the line - should we deem him worth it.
Plus, should he feel like he's had enough of the UK after another bash at the PL and wants to ply his trade abroad after 12 months - he won't have to worry about transfer fees etc playing a part - possibly giving him greater options.
I think a 1 year deal is sensible.
Yeah, that's fair enough. It was the quotes and club promoting the loyalty in him signing that made me laugh a bit. I'm not sure he'll get in the team week in week out next season anyway so maybe you're right.
Re: Gunnar signs new deal
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SunderlandBluebird
Do you not see anything wrong then if Bobby Reid had stayed another year at Bristol then ****ed off next summer on a free?
No that's exactly how a contract works, he's not done anything wrong by honouring the length of a contract.
Bristol City would probably be annoyed but that would be their fault either for not offerring a new one or trying to sell them. You can't blame a player for running down a contract and getting themself the best deal, they'd have to be a ****ing idiot to do any different.
Re: Gunnar signs new deal
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SunderlandBluebird
If Gunnarsson/Zohore/Ralls had moved on last season for 3-5m I wouldn't have had an issue and I'd wish them well. But to run down your contract, wait for better offers through the WC, wait a further couple of weeks once out then sign for just a year when no decent teams came in, before being quoted as saying "never in doubt, I love this place, representing the capital of Wales" etc is poor imo but we'll agree to disagree.
Reid had a year left on his contract and let the club receive a very good fee. So he's shown ambition and ensured they receive a decent fee. Why would any club keep someone who's got a year on their deal, it offers the club absolutely nothing. That's why you see clubs shifting players on who have a year left on their contract unless they're worth very little like Greg Halford.
You don't seem to grasp this but here goes:
Gunnarsson doesn't want to play in the Championship. That's fair enough, it's a tough slog and he's done it for 9 seasons. He can go abroad for an easier life, less games and for presumably more money.
He verbally agreed on a deal 6 weeks ago. Warnock said so. He's been to the world cup, had his holiday and signed the new deal in Iceland.
He has turned down offers before to stay. His agent could have been fielding calls for 6 months, so he'll have known how the land lies.
We're not going to get a decent fee for a 30 year old midfielder anyway, which is how old Gunnar will be next summer.
None of this is in the unreasonable at all. It's a good deal for both us and Gunnar.
Re: Gunnar signs new deal
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Croesy Blue
No that's exactly how a contract works, he's not done anything wrong by honouring the length of a contract.
Bristol City would probably be annoyed but that would be their fault either for not offerring a new one or trying to sell them. You can't blame a player for running down a contract and getting themself the best deal, they'd have to be a ****ing idiot to do any different.
Think you're in the minority for that then. Good job Ramsey didn't run his deal down and piss off for free when we were fighting administration every season though, eh.
Re: Gunnar signs new deal
Yeah it was great, completely unrelated really but great.
If I’m in the minority it’s because I’m thinking about it logically. A contract is signed and it being honoured by both parties is about as “loyal” as you can be.
In exceptional cases I can see why some people would sign another contract and then leave anyway to make money for a struggling club. But in normal situations why would anyone lose themselves a huge signing on fee in order to put money into the pocket of an organisation and it’s owner?
Re: Gunnar signs new deal
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SunderlandBluebird
Think you're in the minority for that then. Good job Ramsey didn't run his deal down and piss off for free when we were fighting administration every season though, eh.
How is Gunnar doing out of a transfer fee if you said he has no offers so he's come crawling back?
If anything, he's saving us money so we don't have to pay his wages next year.
