Dubai Blue said:Maybe for a certain standard of player it is a given, but it certainly isn't automatic across the board. Do you think Caceido will be getting bumper wages when his contract expires? No, he'll take whatever he's offered.SWP's back said:Oh yes they do. You could not be more wrong. You could try, but you would fail. Sol Campbell is one very large example of this. Or Bolton saying last week the reason they could afford to pay Petrov £35k per week was that they got a £5M player for free.
Players who let their contracts expire against the will of their parent club (Sol Campbell, Joe Cole, McManamanamanamanaman etc) will, of course, benefit from their 'free' status because they are/were sought after. But players whose contracts have expired because their parent club had no interest in keeping them are unlikely to feel any benefits.
Thank you for your few words of wisdom... clearly some people haven't a scooby how contracts work. It's nice to see at least you understand the realities.
And as for the comment "Petrov is a £5m player"... who said that? It's meaningless. He's out of contract, he's "worth" nothing. Who decides an out-of-contract player is "worth" £5m? Clearly not the market.
We would love to get Caceido and Jo off on free contract right NOW.
We aren't going to get any transfer fee of any magnitude... Jo for £5m... Caceido...£2m...??? Maybe no one wants them at all, even on a free! Seeing as we are prepared to let them go out on loan, and no one at this moment is forming a queue to take them, then I would suggest we would be better writing them off.
If we keep both of them for another three years, then we will have to find wages of about £15m for the pair.
Is it not better to let them go on frees? I would.
They are not even going to make our 25-man squads next season, so they are a worthless asset for us at the present time.
One day I may spend some time on explaining the concept of Sunk Costs...