Free signings are not bad signings.
Players are more careful with structured contracts allowing them to deliberately become free agents.
If you are a decent player who will be in demand its a risk worth taking.
It gives the player a better chance of getting higher wages/longer deal because the new club doesn't have to pay a transfer fee.
Or at least a reduced fee because the player has made it clear he will run down his contact to test the free agent waters.
Exactly what Rusty has done.
Most people think he is a decent player yet if he signs for free elsewhere he can justify a longer contract because the club has no transfer fees to pay.
Obvious I know, but its strange we still hear arguments about the quality of a player if he signs for free.
Posted By: usacanary on May 26th 2010 at 19:35:59
Message Thread
- Free signings are not bad signings. (NCFC) - usacanary, May 26, 19:35:59
- If you read it all again, not once did pants say it was a bad signing... (n/m) (NCFC) - Yellalee, May 26, 19:49:13
- I wasn't talking about him specifically. (NCFC) - usacanary, May 26, 19:55:41
- oh, fair enough. (n/m) (NCFC) - Yellalee, May 26, 19:56:29
- I wasn't talking about him specifically. (NCFC) - usacanary, May 26, 19:55:41
- If you read it all again, not once did pants say it was a bad signing... (n/m) (NCFC) - Yellalee, May 26, 19:49:13
Reply to Message
In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.
If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.