Stephen O'donnell

[Liamconnollyglasgow]

Think the club and management need to look at how we conduct contracts etc, we've now lost Cairney , Erskine , Paton for nothing after letting the players run down their contracts , it now looks as if O'Donnell , Higgy etc are doing the same thing.

All of these players were going absolutely nowhere until PTFC gave them their chance and developed them so it kinda sticks in the throat a bit. Unfortunately with our limited squad it's difficult to play hard ball with a player who is winding his contract down and basically tell him he's getting sold before his contract runs out.

We should maybe look at different contracts for players, 30 month contracts , performance related contracts etc even 12 month rolling contracts. IMO negotiations for players Archie wants to keep should maybe happen a little bit sooner so we've got a chance to put other plans in place if contract talks comes to a standstill.

agree 100% it's so frustrating ! Think the club are scared to risk paying a decent wage to young players with potential for the fear they won't live up to it and won't get a decent fee for the player ! But a guess it's not easy to make these decisions because so many players have a few good seasons then end up back down the lower leagues on free transfers. I thought a bigger club would take muirhead/balatoni but they didn't so id imagine it's hard to make the decision of who's worth the risk and who's not

[jlsarmy]

 

 

Not disagreeing if it's the odd one off. Doing that routinely would make the man management of the players Archie might be pondering over or letting go at the end of the season very tricky. I know it's still in the interest of players not being retained to impress but knowing you're not wanted and human nature.

It can work for you or against you , been plenty times players have signed new contracts and taken their foot off the gas, or the reverse is true as well players trying to convince the manager they are worth another contract and playing out their skin. Edited January 27, 2015 by jlsarmy

[Mr Bunny]

Stevenson. 3 year deal on good money I'd imagine. Seabourne not a 2 year deal? Do you not think it would've made good business sense to tie up,a young player on a contract like that last Summer? After all it may have made the club some money.

 

Plenty of clubs in our position offer deals to players with get out clauses (at best we will sell them if we get relegated) for relegation. Occasionally a player will stay, usually if he's getting on a bit. It makes sense. We get a better player while we're in the top division and if we go down we don't necessarily need them. Sometimes - rarely - you might convince a player we'll come straight up and he'll stay.

 

I don't think all our players will be on such deals - mainly guys like Stevenson and Higgy (OK the latter's has run down but he probably had a get-out if we hadn't stayed up last season).

Edited January 27, 2015 by Mr Bunny

[lady-isobel-barnett]

It can work for you or against you , been plenty times players have signed new contracts and taken their foot of the gas, or the reverse is true as well players trying to convince the manager they are worth another contract and playing out their skin.

 

But that's partly my point. Those players would know they weren't likely to be retained if it was routine policy to offer contract extensions to players earlier. And I can imagine it not being unusual for them to have approached the manager just after other teammates have re-signed. I believe it's fine and positive to get the odd player signed up to an extension mid season. It shows fans and squad the level of our ambition. I just don't think it wise to be a Club policy.

Edited January 27, 2015 by lady-isobel-barnett

[jlsarmy]

 

 

But that's partly my point. Those players would know they weren't likely to be retained if it was routine policy to offer contract extensions to players earlier. And I can imagine it not being unusual for them to have approached the manager just after other teammates have re-signed. I believe it's fine and positive to get the odd player signed up to an extension mid season. It shows fans and squad the level of our ambition. I just don't think it wise to be a Club policy.

Not disagreeing it should be a club policy totally but surely we should be looking at young players like O'Donnell and if Archie rates him get him on a longer contract as he has done with Fraser and Bannigan. Doesn't make any sense to give Stevenson a 3 yr contract on decent money as there will very little value left in a 32yr old player when his contract expires, where some of that budget could have been used in other ways to entice Higgy or SOD to sign longer contracts

[Jaggernaut]

If SOD can keep us his recent excellent form and we do manage to make the top six, then I'll be over the moon at his decision to stay with us until the end of the season (at least). Even if we don't make the top six, if he continues to play well, I'll also be happy. If he signed an extension and then got sold, I'd be delirious.

[Lindau]

There is very little a club can do nowadays to keep players. If we offer a player a 3 year contract, he is within his rights to say he only wants a 1 year deal. The club then have the option of letting him go or giving him the shorter option. The days of the club dictating matters on contracts are long gone. Sadly with a club of our size, even though we are now in the top division, we can't afford the wages that most SPL clubs pay, so any player that shows decent form for us is always going be a target for these clubs or Championship sides down South. Sad fact of life being a jags supporter.

[Mediocre Pundit]

Agree with Lindau. It's extremely naive to assume that we simply need to offer longer contracts in order to retain players - why would/should the player sign many years of their (short) career away to getting paid relatively low wages by ourselves and minimising the possibility of them moving somewhere else where they would get more money. I know I wouldn't.

 

Additionally, I find it hard to believe that people are using contract length as a stick to beat the club with. My perception is that the club has been pretty good at this over the past number of years - pretty much since McCall - which has led to us getting transfer fees for some players (GGH, Twaddle) and retaining some for longer than would have likely been the case if they had a shorter deal (Cairney, ATS, Paton, probably Higgy too) I think some people need to be a bit more realistic about what we can achieve.

[Bleeding Gums Murphy]

I think some people need to be a bit more realistic about what we can achieve.

 

I get it. We should aim low & avoid disappointment!!

 

Maybe time to get the club staff to stop talking about top 6 & start talking up avoiding relegation?

 

The flip side to your argument of course is that a footballer's career is so short that a longer contract gives them security should they be injured for the best part of their contract or that they're really not as good as their agents would have them believe!

[jlsarmy]

Agree with Lindau. It's extremely naive to assume that we simply need to offer longer contracts in order to retain players - why would/should the player sign many years of their (short) career away to getting paid relatively low wages by ourselves and minimising the possibility of them moving somewhere else where they would get more money. I know I wouldn't.

 

Additionally, I find it hard to believe that people are using contract length as a stick to beat the club with. My perception is that the club has been pretty good at this over the past number of years - pretty much since McCall - which has led to us getting transfer fees for some players (GGH, Twaddle) and retaining some for longer than would have likely been the case if they had a shorter deal (Cairney, ATS, Paton, probably Higgy too) I think some people need to be a bit more realistic about what we can achieve.

No reason why we shouldn't follow the Hamilton Accies template who probably have a similar wage structure and I think that's worked pretty successfully. Some of these players like Paton , Cairney , Erskine and SOD were just establishing their career similariily to to the Accies players, difference being McCarthy , McCarthur , Easton etc were all tied up on contracts and therefore a transfer fee was paid. We should follow the same business practice and get some sort of fee for players we have developed.

[Dark Passenger]

Dundee also apparently hoping to secure O'Donnell's services...

[Mr Bunny]

No reason why we shouldn't follow the Hamilton Accies template who probably have a similar wage structure and I think that's worked pretty successfully. Some of these players like Paton , Cairney , Erskine and SOD were just establishing their career similariily to to the Accies players, difference being McCarthy , McCarthur , Easton etc were all tied up on contracts and therefore a transfer fee was paid. We should follow the same business practice and get some sort of fee for players we have developed.

 

All these Thistle guys you mention were at one point on longish contracts, albeit not really long ones. It just depends how things pan out. You might not be too sure of a player when signing contract time comes so play safe; then they come good just before their contract runs down. You can't afford to sign up every promising player on a long deal.

 

Hamilton have an advantage in that they have had their system going longer than us and are probably getting more players through who are worth risking a long deal on. Also because of their record in getting youngsters good transfers, they are more likely to be willing to sign long term. If we can get a youngster or two sold on at a decent price it will make it a lot easier to get young lads to sign up longer for us.

[jags on tour]

Dundee also apparently hoping to secure O'Donnell's services...

 

that would be more of a kick in the stones than him going to Dundee United!!

[Paulo]

Lots of crystal balls, magic wands and lottery wins in this thread. Good stuff.

 

Going by certain suggestions, I could imagine the jovial mood at this time last year when we would have been faced with paying up 2 and a half years wages to Mark Kerr and John Baird to release them.

[dunnikierjag]

I read that Dundee United want Paul Dixon back from Huddersfield. Does this mean S O'D will be sitting on the bench if he goes there. Another ATS situation.

[ThickAsThieves]

I read that Dundee United want Paul Dixon back from Huddersfield. Does this mean S O'D will be sitting on the bench if he goes there. Another ATS situation.

Dixon's a left-back.

 

It would be McGowan he'd be competing with.

[Dark Passenger]

Paul Dixon's a left back.

[ColinKelvin]

Lots of crystal balls, magic wands and lottery wins in this thread. Good stuff.

 

Going by certain suggestions, I could imagine the jovial mood at this time last year when we would have been faced with paying up 2 and a half years wages to Mark Kerr and John Baird to release them.

 

That's a bit unfair given that they were both journeymen who we signed up to fill gaps in our squad. Not the same as getting young fullbacks and midfielders tied down on long deals. There's a huge difference between us and, say, Hamilton Accies, in that they have a big reputation now as sellers-on of Premiership-quality players; however they only got the transfer fees because they had those young players under contract.

 

I think it's pretty poor that we'll have lost Cairney, Erskine, Paton, ATS and SOD for a grand total of £0 between them. Would the mighty Accies have allowed that to happen?? And if they played for Hamilton and each had, say, 2-3 years left on a contract, how much would they have been worth at the time we are letting them go (i.e. as proven players)?

[lady-isobel-barnett]

Lots of crystal balls, magic wands and lottery wins in this thread. Good stuff.

 

Going by certain suggestions, I could imagine the jovial mood at this time last year when we would have been faced with paying up 2 and a half years wages to Mark Kerr and John Baird to release them.

 

Bit disingenuous with Kerr but spot on with Baird. There's a lot on here I believe would've been chuffed when he signed if the wee man had been on a longer contract. But re-writing history ain't exactly new. We were also a bit put out when Paddy Boyle wouldn't re-sign. Meantime others were aghast we were reduced to holding on to ex Juniors like Doolan & Erskine.

Actually I think that post Bunnet (DC being an irrelevance) very few of our good performers have gone on to have seasons of success at a higher level. Getting the best out of players has long been a Jags trait with Lambie being a past master. Ironically and perhaps Lambie's most glaring fault was not getting key players signed up longer when they most likely would've have re-signed no bother. Can just imagine this thread if he was current manager.

[ThickAsThieves]

I think it's pretty poor that we'll have lost Cairney, Erskine, Paton, ATS and SOD for a grand total of £0 between them. Would the mighty Accies have allowed that to happen?? And if they played for Hamilton and each had, say, 2-3 years left on a contract, how much would they have been worth at the time we are letting them go (i.e. as proven players)?

They start playing their youngsters at 17. We don't/can't. If you throw a 17 year old in, by the time they're 20 they could be approaching 100 appearances. Whereas we're starting to play guys at 20/21, who have the same amount of playing time, but can then leave on a free because they're outwith compensation rules. And we can't force anyone to sign longer contracts.

 

The whole point of Thistle Weir is to get young guys through the system and into the team that we can then sell on. So hopefully that works - but it's a few years down the line. There was an outside chance the likes of Taylor-Sinclair and O'Donnell would make us money, but if there's no bids, what can you do? Clubs know they can pick them up when they turn 23.

 

Plus the likes of Erskine, Paton and Cairney were only good enough to move to Scottish teams, where there's no money available. So we'd never have received money for them.

Edited January 28, 2015 by ThickAsThieves

[Duke Gekantawa]

Hamilton have made money on transfers largely because their talent has been particulalry exceptional and therefore attracted competitive interest from a number of large EPL clubs. Our players, however good they have been for us, have not been of that same class and therefore play for the likes of Dundee United instead of Everton.

 

Personally, I think that nowadays very few Scottish clubs are likely to make money on transfers, and to think of players "going for nothing" is not the correct mindset. We pay them to play during their contract, and to have risked long contracts back in the first division (in the case of Erskine, Paton and ATS anyway) would have been foolhardy without hindsight. I don't remember it being anywhere near certain that these players would be as good as they proved when they signed their last contract for the club. Meanwhile O'Donnell was looking out of sorts last season, and had slipped behind McMillan in the pecking order. Hindsight is 20/20 after all.

 

Ultimately, our main reward has been success. In this regard, we have certainly received compensation for Paton, Erskine, ATS and O'Donnell in the form of promotion. That will do me.

[Paulo]

That's a bit unfair given that they were both journeymen who we signed up to fill gaps in our squad. Not the same as getting young fullbacks and midfielders tied down on long deals. There's a huge difference between us and, say, Hamilton Accies, in that they have a big reputation now as sellers-on of Premiership-quality players; however they only got the transfer fees because they had those young players under contract.

 

I think it's pretty poor that we'll have lost Cairney, Erskine, Paton, ATS and SOD for a grand total of £0 between them. Would the mighty Accies have allowed that to happen?? And if they played for Hamilton and each had, say, 2-3 years left on a contract, how much would they have been worth at the time we are letting them go (i.e. as proven players)?

 

Yeah, I accept that first point. I was trying to be as obtuse as the initial suggestion in some ways.

 

It's tough for some to accept the fact that we're strides behind different clubs in different ways. We don't (yet) have a youth setup to rival Hamilton, that can produce a good proportion of guaranteed first team players, and we don't have the resources to rival Dundee Utd, who can offer more money/longer contracts to players who may or may not work out long term.

[kni]

Whilst we have not received any fees for top players who have moved to other clubs, we did not have to pay much (if anything) for key players who have done well for us. And we got Erskine back for a few months too.

 

We may lose O'Donnell in May for nothing but few would have thought that we would get a six figure offer for him at the start season. We signed Frans and Seaborne for nothing too and they will be with us next season too. There are several obvious and similar examples too.

 

McMillan signed for us when the Pars were in admin and forced to let him go. Similarly, Scott Fox was made redundant by Dundee and then signed for us when he was only 23. Morton fans were not pleased when we somehow picked up McDaid for free.

 

Overall, even with loss of players on frees, the transfer market has probably worked in our favour over the last few seasons.

[Mr Bunny]

Hamilton have made money on transfers largely because their talent has been particulalry exceptional and therefore attracted competitive interest from a number of large EPL clubs. Our players, however good they have been for us, have not been of that same class and therefore play for the likes of Dundee United instead of Everton. Personally, I think that nowadays very few Scottish clubs are likely to make money on transfers, and to think of players "going for nothing" is not the correct mindset. We pay them to play during their contract, and to have risked long contracts back in the first division (in the case of Erskine, Paton and ATS anyway) would have been foolhardy without hindsight. I don't remember it being anywhere near certain that these players would be as good as they proved when they signed their last contract for the club. Meanwhile O'Donnell was looking out of sorts last season, and had slipped behind McMillan in the pecking order. Hindsight is 20/20 after all. Ultimately, our main reward has been success. In this regard, we have certainly received compensation for Paton, Erskine, ATS and O'Donnell in the form of promotion. That will do me.

 

Promotion and staying in the SPL for a second season. I think that's an excellent point. I don't mind a young player going for no fee if he contributes to the team for a couple of years. Ideally we get some kind of fee but if we get good service from a young player (who won't be on the top wage) that will save money that would otherwise be spent on more expensive older but not necessarily much better players. There's also the advantage that young players breaking through will have been brought up in the system and ethos of the team.

[Harry Wragg]

Read that Panathanaikos want Efe Ambrose for a fee of £2m !! He couldn't lace O'Donnells boots and all weve been offered is a measely 100K !! No wonder Scottish football is in a mess, and then theres Darren Fletcher on a free , one of our "International " stars !! What a joke !!