sufcintheprem
This is a modified caption
Please, before we get any more players being offered contracts, can I make a point about the way that contract negotiations should go.
Party one (SUFC, here) offers party two (Player) an offer of a contract to supply a good or service for a certain price.
Party one know the last year had good business and noticed the improving profit margins as well as vastly increased revenue and identifies which areas were the key reasons for this. If any of the key contracts are up for renewal, they would most likely be contested by other companies (Hull) so party one will offer these contracts improvements straight away to ensure they are kept.
For more peripheral contracts, there is less risk of a supplier offering an improvement so party one can be more coy with the offer and will try and renew the contract at the same price or less to try and root out party B's lowest acceptance point.
Party B, under advise from Party C (Pini Zahavi) will throw away the normal instinct for job security and enter the negotiation game under the implication that there would be better conditions on offer elsewhere or that the club would lose out in some way. As a result, Party B says the offer is unacceptable to try and push the bid up.
Party B's overestimation of it's worth and Party A's underestimation eventually meet up at some point in most cases if both parties are happy with the other's contribution generally.
Or to adjust the long-winded illustration to a shorter one. SUFC try to cut the wages as much as it can, the player tries to increase it as much as he can and somewhere between they will almost certainly meet.
Let's not all get excited about players saying that a contract offer isn't good enough. It's all part of the negotiation process. If Tilson and Brush rate any of the players up for contract renewal then they will get new contracts. If not, then they're playing a very dangerous game and it will backfire, as Flahavan's already found out to his cost once in his career already.
Frankly, this club hasn't been run with any sort of cost-cutting applied to it for a long time, if at all. It's excellent to see the club is finally taking a firm stance on contract negotiations and I imagine that the club's been taking this approach to most contractual agreements leading to much better organised off-the-pitch performance.
Party one (SUFC, here) offers party two (Player) an offer of a contract to supply a good or service for a certain price.
Party one know the last year had good business and noticed the improving profit margins as well as vastly increased revenue and identifies which areas were the key reasons for this. If any of the key contracts are up for renewal, they would most likely be contested by other companies (Hull) so party one will offer these contracts improvements straight away to ensure they are kept.
For more peripheral contracts, there is less risk of a supplier offering an improvement so party one can be more coy with the offer and will try and renew the contract at the same price or less to try and root out party B's lowest acceptance point.
Party B, under advise from Party C (Pini Zahavi) will throw away the normal instinct for job security and enter the negotiation game under the implication that there would be better conditions on offer elsewhere or that the club would lose out in some way. As a result, Party B says the offer is unacceptable to try and push the bid up.
Party B's overestimation of it's worth and Party A's underestimation eventually meet up at some point in most cases if both parties are happy with the other's contribution generally.
Or to adjust the long-winded illustration to a shorter one. SUFC try to cut the wages as much as it can, the player tries to increase it as much as he can and somewhere between they will almost certainly meet.
Let's not all get excited about players saying that a contract offer isn't good enough. It's all part of the negotiation process. If Tilson and Brush rate any of the players up for contract renewal then they will get new contracts. If not, then they're playing a very dangerous game and it will backfire, as Flahavan's already found out to his cost once in his career already.
Frankly, this club hasn't been run with any sort of cost-cutting applied to it for a long time, if at all. It's excellent to see the club is finally taking a firm stance on contract negotiations and I imagine that the club's been taking this approach to most contractual agreements leading to much better organised off-the-pitch performance.
