Then he's clearly worried that he'd be one of the players whose skill level or commitment would fall below the required standard in which case you would not want them anyway.

At the moment we've got players who seem comfortable on the contracts they've got without having to make sure they keep putting in each week.

Where are all these players going to go? There are only so many clubs that a player could sign for.

The benefit may be that it deters some of those who think they can come to Salford for an easy 2-3 years. You don't have to set the target too high. One place higher than the previous year would do (based on a table without points deductions) until the standard is raised where the target is at least the top 8.

MOZZA

sadly not available [size=85(until Wire have removed all he could do)[/size

No. He's worried that the other players in the squad aren't top 8 material and that he'll lose his job through no fault of his own. Imagine Salford put an offer in today to, say, Kevin Sinfield, but with your 'must finish in the top 8' idea in the contract. Kevin, as we all know, is desperate to sign, but what does he do? He looks at the squad and thinks 'these are borderline top 8 at best. I could end up out of a job after one season. I'll stick with Leeds'. Bye bye Kevin.

It doesn't just deter those who see Salford as an easy ride. It deters everyone.

Why would a player of the calibre of Kevin Sinfield be worried by such a clause. Were Hodgson, Robinson, Korkidas or Finnigan would the season we got relegated. No they either walked straight into other clubs or already had them lined up.

Good committed players should not be worried. Anyone who baulks at such a clause is someone we would not want.

Standards have to be set and performance has to be monitored.

There's a thread on the go at present about Corey Paterson, he's still got 12 months to go at Newcastle Knights but has been told to look elsewhere. Those are the standards we need to aspire too.

Ive said before and ill say it again, we lack control in attack and intensity in defence.

I dont think we are too far away for being a very good side cermented in the top 8 but the players have to be prepared to play for a full 80 mins at the intensity expected for a superlegue team, get organised quicker and make every tackle both in attack and defence count currently we have a very good 20 mins where we challenge teams, 40 mins of average play where its one up rugby with no plans and 20 mins of which can only be described as rubbish where we drop the ball and usually have brain explosions in which we usually lose the game.


Hopefully with the new coach coming in he will take us back to basics and coach the players into using every tackle to maximum potential and we can continue to move in a forward direction

A player of Kevin Sinfield could walk into any club. So what attracts him to the one that threatens to terminate his contract after one season? What stops him thinking "this squad isn't good enough. Why join Salford - who will lilkely bin me after one year - when I could get a guaranteed three year deal elsewhere?"

You mentioned Sinfield, to attract him we'd need to be offering substantially more money in the first place! As you point out he could easily go elsewhere.

The club need to come up with fresh ideas to manage performance. What we have currently is not working.

Guaranteed deals are not bringing the level of performance need in all cases.

Ocker v Red John

Jeremy Kyle

Thursday 9:30

"I just can't see how he's talking sense"

Indeed. Salford would have to offer substantially more money to [iany[/i player to get them to accept a flaky contract that could see them binned after one season over a guaranteed two or three year deal at another club. Can the club afford this? Even if we could, your idea causes problems. Let's imagine Salford are taken over by Sheik Yarbouti, and he pumps billions of pounds into the club. The salary cap means we can only spend a certain amount. Because of your 'potentially binned after one season' idea, the club has to offer players more money. So the number of players they can afford drops, the squad gets thinner, the chances of finishing outside the top 8 increases, so the chances of a player getting, effectively, sacked increases. It would take a special player (one who couldn't get a place anywhere else) to accept those terms.



Agreed, but I don't think putting a termination clause in the contract is a viable solution. Let's look at another example. Suppose, by some miracle, we have a squad of superstars under your play well or get sacked regime, but get a run of serious injuries and end up with a massively depleted team for most of the season. We finish outside the top 8. So we then release all our best players because there's a clause in their contract that terminates the contract if they finish lower than 8th. Is this a good idea?



Other clubs get by with guaranteed deals. The solution lies elsewhere. Not sure where, but elsewhere.

We're not a million miles away but we need to shift on about 6 players and invest in about 8. League table never lies, so if you're seriously suggesting we're not far off then I'd have a look at the points difference. That will give you an indication of how far off we are.

Those that can't teach!

What we need to deal with is the here and now not some fantasy island suggestion that a rich individual takes over who will pump billions in. In your unrealistice scenario, we would presumably be competing on a level footing with all other clubs paying the full cap and consequently able to go after well motivated players at the top end of the market as opposed to what we are left with now. In such a case a modified approach could be adopted to performance management but that is not where we are.

Your second scenario flies off at an even wilder tangent. If you have a clause that allows you the [size=150OPTION[/size to terminate a contract why would you use it terminate the contracts of the best players? Surely you would release the worst players! Even then in the circumstances you outline, you may not wish to release any because you have clearly articulated the mitigation for the poor performance i.e the run of serious injuries and hence the massively depleted squad.

Perhaps we could ask the Newcastle Knights how they offload players who still a year to go on their contract.

come up with stupid contract ideas, and just carry on and on


meanwhile

Of course no one has ever had performance criteria in their contract.

Still it's to be expected from certain vocations.

two things that motive 1) Cash 2) Alcohol

We cant afford big bonuses as a club so.....

The players on a "mad monday" seem to have a great time why not try and use this to our advantage, the club Put say £2.5k behind the bar at the begining of the season, you win by more than 12 say £200 is added to the total, lose by more than 12 £200 is deducted from the total, conceed 50 points and £500 is deducted, score 50 £500 is added.
Cap it at £5k could pay for a fair few beers, limos everywhere, loads of food all day all around town but if we continue to fall apart and lose by more than 12 when its gone its gone.

For those who dont go to the party because they have familys or are too young to drink, divided by the amount of people in the squad and give them their share in £s or somthing of simular value

If the amount goes into a minus the players between them give £200 to a chosen charity

If somthing like this was inplace you would see far more urgency both in attack and defence imo, An Army marches on its stomach and i feel our players would do the same.

What we need to deal with here is the fantasy that a contract with a termination clause like the one you're suggesting would be more attractive to a player than one without such a clause. What tempts that player to turn down other offers in favour of one that could see him looking for another club after just one year?

Do people have contracts that coiuld see them sacked if the performance of the group of people they work with does not reach an arbitrarily defined target? Really?

A risk worth taking rather than being burden with a long term liability.

A risk that coud see the club unburdened by any sort of player whatsoever.

Well not really because there are only so many places to go. Only 14 teams and the gap between SL and championship salary cap is substantial.

So, the players who have more than one offer on the table will go to the clubs who are able to offer guaranteed two or three year deals. The rest - the ones without decent offers from elsewhere (y'know, the ones no-one else wants) - will come to Salford to join the contract termination lottery. Brilliant.

Only if we are very lucky. If not they'll do a year in our treatment room.

"If you have a clause that allows you the OPTION to terminate a contract why would you use it terminate the contracts of the best players? Surely you would release the worst players"

Explain how this stands up in employment legislation:
1. Players can ask to be released but the club can require a transfer fee: this makes them different in that they cannot just hand in a month's (or whatever) notice. At the same time it gives them security of their contract. You remove one, their soliciors will make sure the other is removed. So Ratchford (for example) could leave in July.
2. You are not talking redundancy so explain how you marry "unacceptable performance" with lack of points in a season won by others, whose performance is not seen as worthy of sacking?
3. How you decide on the worst players. Poor Broughton: few tackles and few passes. Out! Your and my view is immaterial here: the targets and the stats set to show the meeting of such targets become the golden rule.

We're not a million miles away... We're a billion!