Whilst I am generally in favour of slightly longer deals I'm starting to get concerned that every player we have seem to be signing on for 2 or more years.
Yes it brings stability to the squad but it is a long term commitment.

We are now losing the ability to easily move these players on. Williams for example probably merited another year, but 2 for a fringe player?

I would also consider Tremarco as back up to Shinnie.

If Draper gets offered a 2 year extension I'll be happy as he is a key player. But it should not be happening for every player as the trend seems to be going.

In my view key players should be signed on for a further year, the summer before the original contract was due to expire. This would probably have kept Shinnie, Rooney and Hayes at the club or at least brought in a fee. Keep key players always with an additional 12 months to avoid pre contracts and free transfers wherever possible

Fringe players should only get max year extensions in January at earliest. At the moment some are getting two years. ICT as a club needs flexibility with contracts in order to be able to move players on if required.

 

We are not a big enough club for all players to be on multiple year deals.

Maybe I'm being negative. It just worries me.

Your reasoning is spot on, but I think that Tremarco will not let us down. He puts 100% in every game.

These players have been offered extensions after they have joined, played and trained for a while. While you're right in what you say, it does represent a risk, i don't think we should worry too much as these lads have been with the club since the summer and have had a chance to show what they can do. If it was longer contracts straight off the bat then i'd worry alot more.

I'm all for a bit of stability......the revolving door policy that is endemic in Scottish football in particular is really risky: you only have to get it wrong once and you could be for the drop. Better the devil you know....

To attract players to Inverness, moving family, buying houses etc, there has to be a decent length of contract. Also the player will have a vested intrest in doing well longer term.

Our best periods of success have come at times when we've had most stability within the squad.

 

As well as stability on the pitch, it also allows for stability and planning off the pitch when creating business plans and spending forecasts etc.

 

All in all, far more positives to be taken from it than anything else.

I can't believe the people who contribute to many of the threads on this site. Not so long ago folks were complaining because we were giving short contracts and now they complain about long ones. Is it an Invernessian mannerism? Glass always half empty and all that.

I can't believe the people who contribute to many of the threads on this site. Not so long ago folks were complaining because we were giving short contracts and now they complain about long ones. Is it an Invernessian mannerism? Glass always half empty and all that.

I've never been so much a critic of short contracts, just of leaving it until the last minute to offer players, who have attracted outside interest, new deals. Hayes, Rooney, Shinnie all examples. If they had been offered deals the summer before they'd left (We all knew they were worth another year) then chances are they'd have signed as the mid term future was secure. Leaving it to January just leaves the door open for other clubs to turn their heads with a contract offer.

So yes, these players deserved another year on top of existing contracts, but I'd prefer 1 year with the option of a further year as opposed to 2 automatically.

 

I can't believe the people who contribute to many of the threads on this site. Not so long ago folks were complaining because we were giving short contracts and now they complain about long ones. Is it an Invernessian mannerism? Glass always half empty and all that.

A glass is always half empty and needs regular replenishment.

I can't believe the people who contribute to many of the threads on this site. Not so long ago folks were complaining because we were giving short contracts and now they complain about long ones. Is it an Invernessian mannerism? Glass always half empty and all that.

No.  It's people who don't like short contracts saying they don't like short contracts when short contracts are offered and people who don't like longer contracts saying they don't like longer contracts when longer contracts are offered. 

 

My take is that longer contracts should be offered for the better players.  It provides consistency and offers potential for income should decent offers come in. A longer contract is a real risk with fringe players (unless they are not being paid much) but the carrot of a longer contract should be there if they can prove themselves.

I agree with you Doofer. It's annoying when people get hypocritical like that but that's not my point. I've never been overly critical of 1 year extensions but I am of the timing of when they are offered (or at least when they seem to be offered).

And I agree that key players should get long term deals. This in my eyes includes McKay, Foran (he'll be a coach anyway, maybe more, so age is irrelevant), Warren, Meekings, Shinnie and Draper. The rest are 1st team squad member, most who I would not want to lose but are not "key" men in my eyes.

I certainly don't see Williams and Tremarco as key players. Quite important and not easily replaced but still, not key.

However I will concede that so long as the club has sufficient release clauses, and wage clauses in the contracts etc as a safe guard I'm fairly content.