Premiership players who'scontract expire in summer

[jjclaret]

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/ ... the-summer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Sidney1st]

"Meanwhile, Burnley may see five players depart for free next summer, including Dean Marney, Anders Lindegaard, Stephen Ward, Fredrik Ulvestad and Scott Arfield."

Ward is the only one you'd really want us to keep.
Arfield as a possible option.

Marney - all depends on how well he's recovered but he may want to move on.

The other 2 wouldn't be missed.

[UpTheBeehole]

Ward under contract until at least 2019

https://www.burnleyfootballclub.com/new ... -new-deal/

[Darthlaw]

I'd like to see Arfield stay as backup but I can't see him being happy with that as he could still command a first team place at a lower Premier League or Championship side elsewhere.

Lindegaard and Ulvestad can happily go for me.

[Moorite]

Scotty can stay as long as he likes just because of THAT goal and the celebratory run in hand with Duff!

[ŽižkovClaret]

Marc Pugh anyone?

[quoonbeatz]

arfield has started over half our games this season, knows our system as well as anyone and has been a key part of our success over the last 5 years.

there's no way i'd be letting him go just yet.

[ŽižkovClaret]

arfield has started over half our games this season, knows our system as well as anyone and has been a key part of our success over the last 5 years.

there's no way i'd be letting him go just yet.

Aye, if he is happy with the knowledge he wont be a starter, and isnt expensive salary wise, why not.

I fear Marney would be better served by a move though tbh but if he needs longer to get up to speed i wouldnt mind him doing pre-season etc with us. I just can't see the place for him in the squad unless we will fund a 3rd choice DMC?

[TheFamilyCat]

If we don't sign Corzola, Ozil, Sanchez, Cabaye, Barkley, Toure, Fellaini and Mata the board are clearly showing no ambition and are just lining their pockets.

[Ric_C]

McArthur and Lennon available for free?

Only trouble with freebies is that we may struggle to compete within our wage structure

[Sidney1st]

McArthur and Lennon available for free?

Only trouble with freebies is that we may struggle to compete within our wage structure

Bigger signing on fee can help there.

[Jakubs Tash]

Wouldn't shock me if Arfield signed for Rangers or Celtic on a pre-contract this month.

[Indecisive]

I'd like to see us bring in Lennon this window. I really think he would improve us in the battle for 7th.

Not sure why that one fell through at the last minute and whether the issues mean it wouldn't happen now. I do know the legals at the Everton side where completed and this fell through right at the death.

I don't get the paying higher sign on fees instead of increased wages. Only technically you might keep within a 'wage ceiling', you're not really, and if anything you are stumping out more cash up front, which is hardly a positive.

[KefkaClaret]

I had a theory that Arfield might sign for Vancouver in the summer for a free.

[UpTheBeehole]

Wouldn't shock me if Arfield signed for Rangers or Celtic on a pre-contract this month.

Arfield wouldn't sign for Rangers. Celtic through and through.

[Jakubs Tash]

Arfield wouldn't sign for Rangers. Celtic through and through.

Fairly sure he mentioned he would consider signing for Rangers in an interview he did in the summer...

[Roosterbooster]

I don't get the paying higher sign on fees instead of increased wages. Only technically you might keep within a 'wage ceiling', you're not really, and if anything you are stumping out more cash up front, which is hardly a positive.

I think it’s a useful tool for us. If we could afford to pay a certain amount s a transfer fee, but the player is available for much less, then it is a way of us attracting a player despite not being able to afford the higher wages. The strict wage structure makes perfect sense. Add in big bonuses for achieving targets and I think this makes a lot of sense

[Indecisive]

I think it’s a useful tool for us. If we could afford to pay a certain amount s a transfer fee, but the player is available for much less, then it is a way of us attracting a player despite not being able to afford the higher wages. The strict wage structure makes perfect sense. Add in big bonuses for achieving targets and I think this makes a lot of sense

Nah, don't get it.

Basically it's just a way around being able to say you are sticking within a 'wage structure'. A signing on fee is just like wages in that it's taxable income for the player. They are just getting it upfront, rather than across the contract.

The only benefit I can see is that notionally the club can say they are operating within a 'wage structure' ...but ultimately they are giving the player the money he wants, just in two different formats.

A good players negotiating hand is stronger towards the end of there contract, as less (or no) money is needed for his current club. Whether that means higher wages, or bigger signing on fee, it matters not, the outcome is still the same.

[Roosterbooster]

I think it comes down to operating costs and long term planning. Say we got relegated next season, and we had players on £100,000 a week. We’d realistically have to sell them. But if they were only on £30,000, we could afford to keep them with parachute payments, and offer a bonus if we were promoted the season after. We can afford big transfer fees and signing on fees at the moment, so why not pay them? But if we were relegated, we wouldn’t be able to afford very big wages.

An extra £70.000 a week costs just over £3.5m. Offer a player £5m signing on fee, £30,000 a week 3 year contract, a hefty staying up bonus, and we are onto a winner. It might just attract someone we wouldn’t otherwise get. Get relegated, and we still “only “have a wage of £30,000 a week to pay. It’s worth keeping them to try and get promoted again. And they will still have a year left on their contract if we don’t.