Women's Team - 2021/22

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good question, can't push either one up because you have Hemp at LW.

Possibly switch sides or maybe just benched.
Seems a bit of an unnecessary signing in terms of we desperately need a right back, a centre back and some midfielders.

Maybe she is versatile though. We’ll no doubt see.
 
She still has a year left on her contract so competing with Ouahabi as the starting left-back presumably, doesn't seem like Greenwood is being moved back out wide.
Fair enough, but by that stage, Ouahabi will only have one year left etc.

Just seems we’ve strengthened in an area we didn’t need to until next summer, whilst we have big gaps in other positions.
 
Fair enough, but by that stage, Ouahabi will only have one year left etc.

Just seems we’ve strengthened in an area we didn’t need to until next summer, whilst we have big gaps in other positions.
Yeah, personally I'm entirely happy with Greenwood staying as a centre-back but even so, I don't entirely get the contract lengths either from a planning POV. It leaves us with a 29 year-old left-back and a 30 year-old left-back both out of contract within 2 years, and the next option being a 28 year-old centre-back (unless we have someone waiting in the wings?)

Presumably we'll just extend or sign someone new at the time, but it doesn't exactly smack of long-term thinking. This goes back to a lot of the departures as well though, I'd like to see us be more ambitious with the contracts in general. Contracts in the women's game do tend to be shorter but it's not a rule, we can buck the trend!
 
Yeah, personally I'm entirely happy with Greenwood staying as a centre-back but even so, I don't entirely get the contract lengths either from a planning POV. It leaves us with a 29 year-old left-back and a 30 year-old left-back both out of contract within 2 years, and the next option being a 28 year-old centre-back (unless we have someone waiting in the wings?)

Presumably we'll just extend or sign someone new at the time, but it doesn't exactly smack of long-term thinking. This goes back to a lot of the departures as well though, I'd like to see us be more ambitious with the contracts in general. Contracts in the women's game do tend to be shorter but it's not a rule, we can buck the trend!
We’d need to show we are competing for every trophy out there to get players tied down to longer contracts.

How can you do that at the moment, when we don't have a right back, no competition in midfield and 2 centre backs, with one a converted full back.
 
We’d need to show we are competing for every trophy out there to get players tied down to longer contracts.

How can you do that at the moment, when we don't have a right back, no competition in midfield and 2 centre backs, with one a converted full back.
Depends on the player really, if you're after young players or those making a step up you have more chance, but I get what you're saying.
 
Depends on the player really, if you're after young players or those making a step up you have more chance, but I get what you're saying.
A young player wouldn‘t sign a long contract whilst the salary cap is in place, surely? Otherwise they’d become Harri Kane.
 
A young player wouldn‘t sign a long contract whilst the salary cap is in place, surely? Otherwise they’d become Harri Kane.
Why not? It's a cap on the overall wage bill relative to incomings, there's no cap on individual deals. As ever it comes back to how invested the club is - how much money have they brought in, how much is made available, how much are they willing to spend on players.

Any long deal could go the Kane route but there's a reason players and clubs still sign them, and with the pay and facilities situation for most clubs still being pretty poor, we really should be an attractive option.
 
Why not? It's a cap on the overall wage bill relative to incomings, there's no cap on individual deals. As ever it comes back to how invested the club is - how much money have they brought in, how much is made available, how much are they willing to spend on players.

Any long deal could go the Kane route but there's a reason players and clubs still sign them, and with the pay and facilities situation for most clubs still being pretty poor, we really should be an attractive option.
Are transfer fees a thing in the wonens’ game? Seems most move at the end of their contracts.

The more you spend on one player in wages, the rest the others want and you can’t pay them all the same.
 
Are transfer fees a thing in the wonens’ game? Seems most move at the end of their contracts.

The more you spend on one player in wages, the rest the others want and you can’t pay them all the same.
A thing rather than the thing. There are more transfer fees than there were but like you say most players move as free agents. It's a factor in the short contracts tbf, but it's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Clubs don't need to pay fees as contracts are short, clubs don't push for longer contracts as they don't have a transfer fee to protect and replacements are (theoretically) cheap, contracts are short so they don't pay fees etc. The problem being that while you keep some flexibility and maybe save some money, you get locked into shorter-term cycles and are more vulnerable to losing important players. It might be more expensive in the long run but longer contracts give the clubs more control.

We need bigger crowds to pay bigger wages.
It wouldn't hurt but we're not paying wages based solely on ticket sales, nobody in the WSL is. It's the sponsorships, TV deals, and other investments from parent clubs that are the big deal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top