http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/764813/

What did I tell you Jamie?  :004:

I suppose thats Dons choice and Brewster needs to work on him now and try and get him to change his mind. The heartening thing for me is that the club wanted to start talks at the end of last season and have not, in fact, been sitting on thier hands as some would be led to believe.

Did Cowie not say a few weeks ago that he was happy here and that he would like to stay?

No surprise really.  Do any contract renewals ever go ahead straight away?  He/his agent will be testing the water, we have to make sure it's warm enough or he will undoubtedly head off to bigger and better things.  Thank you Jean-Marc Bosman.

I believe your right Caley100....but theirs nothing in the article to say he wants to go, just that he is keeping his options open.

However, as I said on the Ian Black thread....

If what I heard is correct then this is just Black being the first of the players who were promised improved contracts if/when Marius was sold coming out looking for what they were promised.

Cowie was allegedly offered a deal earlier in the year but rejected it as the wages weren't high enough and he was told that the only way we could match his demands was if we sold Marius, furthermore he was told that if a new contract couldn't be agreed then he would be sold as we wouldn't risk losing him for free next summer.

I have a gut feeling we could still lose either Black or Cowie before the window closes.

With any luck this is just Cowie looking to get the best offer he can from the club and they'll come to an agreement to extend his deal.  Don't think my sanity could cope with watching ICT making a dogs dinner of yet another outward transfer deal before the season starts.

This whole situation could have been avoided if the player was signed up on a longer contract than the usual 2 year ones which seem to be the norm at TCS.

These piddly contracts leave us wide open to problems like this. I'm not saying sign everyone up to 5 year deals but with a 2 year contract, all it takes is one good season (as in Cowies case) and six months later he can talk to anyone he wants losing the club a potential transfer fee and a good player to boot.  :008:

Did it ever occur to you that the player/agent might not agree to a longer contract as it is in their best interest.  Remember a two year contract is in effect a one year contract, the second year is the get out clause, don't extend let it run down, leave for nothing.  Not too many players with us will sign longer contracts as we will be seen as a feeder club, like it or not for those with more to offer.  Especially the up and coming players.  Easier to get the likes of Russell Duncan to sign a longer contract as nobody is exactly knocking down the door to get him.

It takes two sides to enter into an agreement.

Did it ever occur to you that the player/agent might not agree to a longer contract as it is in their best interest.  Remember a two year contract is in effect a one year contract, the second year is the get out clause, don't extend let it run down, leave for nothing.  Not too many players with us will sign longer contracts as we will be seen as a feeder club, like it or not for those with more to offer.  Especially the up and coming players.  Easier to get the likes of Russell Duncan to sign a longer contract as nobody is exactly knocking down the door to get him.

It takes two sides to enter into an agreement.

I worked with Richie Hart's cousin, they grew up in the same village, and I was told by him that it was ICT policy not to offer contracts longer than two years. I suppose it was because the club could use the same "get out clause" to get rid of players from the wage bill who are not performing to the standards expected  avoiding a repeat of Motherwell's deliberate administration.

Unless the manager knows in advance that the player is going to be an asset then shorter contracts are probably the better option. When the player has been assessed then get in with the longer contract, which is exactly what was hoped with Cowie. The way things are at the minute we could find ourselves up chit creek at the end of the season. All the youngsters who were given one year deals could turn out to be excellent and offski.

If that is the case why did barrowman get a 3-year deal?

thats caley for you tho,our best players stalling over offers,the offer was probably crap,trying to keep the wages down but one of our best players is not given good enough terms to stay despite the fact he wanted to stay a couple of weeks ago

so basically if he plays well he is off but if he doesn't get any better offers he'll sign

I'd sell him now and get someone else who will commit to a longer contract

as said previously these piddly 2 yr contracts are doing more harm than good

If we're not willing to commit to a player how can we then expect them to commit to us

getting sick of our club being used as a stepping stone  :008:

Did it ever occur to you that the player/agent might not agree to a longer contract as it is in their best interest.  Remember a two year contract is in effect a one year contract, the second year is the get out clause, don't extend let it run down, leave for nothing.  Not too many players with us will sign longer contracts as we will be seen as a feeder club, like it or not for those with more to offer.  Especially the up and coming players.  Easier to get the likes of Russell Duncan to sign a longer contract as nobody is exactly knocking down the door to get him.

It takes two sides to enter into an agreement.

i see where your coming from but for me it doesn't make financial sense if the club pander to such short contracts when it could be to the clubs potential detriment. the club is bigger than the player and should look out for itself first. While signing the player is obviously the priority, the club should look to protect its assets rather than leave them susceptible to leaving on Bosmans, this i feel would be accomplished by offering a 3 year deal in the beginning.

If that is the case why did barrowman get a 3-year deal?

i was suprised and pleased to hear this was the case

ICT are a selling club whether we like it or not, and we will be for a long time to come.

Selling players should be netting us far more in a season than we are realising at present...and that's because we are slow in sorting out contracts.

If we're only offering 2 year contracts as a general rule for new players...then for those, like Cowie, who have made an immediate impact then we should be going back to them after 6 months (18 months left on contract) and dealing with contract extensions and getting them signed up for 3 year deals as a minimum.

If a player isn't interested then it at least gives us 6 months to work on a deal or if we are selling so as not to lose on a free, then we have longer to look for replacements and garner interest from other clubs for the outgoing player.

ICT are a selling club whether we like it or not, and we will be for a long time to come.

Selling players should be netting us far more in a season than we are realising at present...and that's because we are slow in sorting out contracts.

If we're only offering 2 year contracts as a general rule for new players...then for those, like Cowie, who have made an immediate impact then we should be going back to them after 6 months (18 months left on contract) and dealing with contract extensions and getting them signed up for 3 year deals as a minimum.

If a player isn't interested then it at least gives us 6 months to work on a deal or if we are selling so as not to lose on a free, then we have longer to look for replacements and garner interest from other clubs for the outgoing player.

i concur

I would have thought that the offer of a three to four year deal would have always been the best option when signing a player. If you have a player tied up longer and he turns out to be a class signing (eg Cowie) then you have him on a smaller wage and it is then up to the player to ask for a rise in wages or a transfer, keeping the ball firmly in the club's court. If the player knows he can leave shortly then he has the upper hand in any negotiations.

Yet another case of the BoD bad policy making costing the club money (until the Barrowman signing)

Several players have been given 3 year deals over the last few years - Golly, Rankin, Hastings, Duncan as well as Barrowman, even Dean Macdonald was given a 2 year deal with an option on a 3rd year! Not sure how and why though

getting sick of our club being used as a stepping stone  :008:

Sadly pretty much every club in Scotland aside from the Old Filth (to an extent) are used as a stepping stone.

He's being very ungreatful and misleading. :018:

He made it quite clear he was intent to stay at the club but now this?

Suppose we could blame Christie for only signing him on a 2 year contract or would that be harsh? After all who would have thought Don would go on to be the player he's become?

Russell Duncan stalled last year over a contract (although he thinks he's better than he actually is). I would bide our time and see what happens.

It's not your typical "I want back to the central-belt" story because Cowies from Inverness.

This could be the agents doing, because Brewster said he hasn't actually spoken to Cowie yet.

Isn't Tom Callaghan the guy who was causing problems with the Rankin transfer?

It'll be Cowie's agent who is playing hardball and quite rightly trying to get the best deal for his client. I'm sure I read up until recently that Cowie didn't even have an agent and only employed one because he disliked doing the negotiating himself

Isn't Tom Callaghan the guy who was causing problems with the Rankin transfer?

I have heard the name before ..... cant remember if it was to do with Rankin or someone else - or whether he was the one who came on here ranting once - but I know he has represented the likes of Alex Burns, Kirk Broadfoot, and it would seem, John Carew. However, it is interesting to note that he is not registered as a football agent in Scotland according to both the SFA and FIFA websites. He does however appear to be employed by Graeme Rankin sports management and Graeme Rankin IS a licensed agent.

Sources:

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_footb...?curpageid=1219

http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/federation/a...iation=sco.html

Isn't Tom Callaghan the guy who was causing problems with the Rankin transfer?

I thought Rankin and Wyness were represented by Simon Stainrods company.

No way would I trust anyone with a name like "Stainrod" 

I thought Rankin and Wyness were represented by Simon Stainrods company.

Not sure Alex. I definitely recognise the name Callaghan from somewhere involving ICT and he caused a problem with a transfer before.

I think it was Callaghan with Rankin but he was merely trying to get the best contract / deal fer Rankin as everything behind the scenes had been agreed many months previous. I dont blame Cowie as he was on the receiving end of Brewster's arrogance last season, was played out of position on many occasions, was dropped for no apparent reason - apart from questioning Brew Almighty. We would have a better chance if Brew fecked off. Am I the only one that thinks that, given Cowies' potential that it would be worth getting him on board as we will probably make some spondoolachs in the long run - or perhaps that way of thinking is way past the level of the numpties in charge of the club.