But why have we given him and rose such long deals just because they are worth something now. Kane and Rose will still be at the club in 5 years time and we will not be able to sell them.
But why have we given him and rose such long deals just because they are worth something now. Kane and Rose will still be at the club in 5 years time and we will not be able to sell them.
It's standard club policy to give long deals as it protects the investment the club has made in these players. At the very least it pushes up their sale price. As these are both still young players who are improving why would we not offer long deals?
If we take these individuals out of the equation the question regarding the length of the contract is a good one.
It's o.k. to buy high (length of the contract) so long as you don't end up selling low. Bentley and Hutton are fine examples of wasted money, just to name two.
A five year contract is nothing new, but at their age three years should determine if they can cut the mustard, five years is being very generous. This is not a personal attack on either Rose or Kane just an observation on our past contract catastrophes.
Yes three years would be long enough to see if they are up to it. But 5 years means the club can ask a larger fee if deciding to sell.
How much did we get for Hutton and Bentley?