it would be good for tisdale if we get promoted and we are still in negotiations because then in close season he could reasonably ask for better terms.
What you are in favour of is in fact the norm: the rolling contract was not the norm.As is well known on these pages, I am opposed to rolling contracts, especially if they are more than a year, on governance principles. The way this is being done now is IMO how it should have been handled in the past.
The manager has a contract, with a clear end date. When it get to a certain time before its expiry, the two parties can discuss an extension / revision / success clauses, if both are happy with progress and achievements under the existing contract. Both sides know where they are, and can concentrate on the day job.
Far preferable to a two year rolling contract under which it would presumably have been very expensive to terminate even in the event of poor performance or major disagreement (e.g. over strategy / budgets).
Serving notice of the rolling contract was therefore IMO good governance and justified. And the roof has certainly not fallen in, as some people predicted at the time. In fact the opposite, though personally I doubt if the two are connected: coincidence is not correlation, and correlation is not causation.
Excellent post and completely agreed.As is well known on these pages, I am opposed to rolling contracts, especially if they are more than a year, on governance principles. The way this is being done now is IMO how it should have been handled in the past.
The manager has a contract, with a clear end date. When it get to a certain time before its expiry, the two parties can discuss an extension / revision / success clauses, if both are happy with progress and achievements under the existing contract. Both sides know where they are, and can concentrate on the day job.
Far preferable to a two year rolling contract under which it would presumably have been very expensive to terminate even in the event of poor performance or major disagreement (e.g. over strategy / budgets).
Serving notice of the rolling contract was therefore IMO good governance and justified. And the roof has certainly not fallen in, as some people predicted at the time. In fact the opposite, though personally I doubt if the two are connected: coincidence is not correlation, and correlation is not causation.
Absolutely the correct approach. Rolling contracts are simply not good business for any club trying to live within its means.As is well known on these pages, I am opposed to rolling contracts, especially if they are more than a year, on governance principles. The way this is being done now is IMO how it should have been handled in the past.
The manager has a contract, with a clear end date. When it get to a certain time before its expiry, the two parties can discuss an extension / revision / success clauses, if both are happy with progress and achievements under the existing contract. Both sides know where they are, and can concentrate on the day job.
Far preferable to a two year rolling contract under which it would presumably have been very expensive to terminate even in the event of poor performance or major disagreement (e.g. over strategy / budgets).
Serving notice of the rolling contract was therefore IMO good governance and justified. And the roof has certainly not fallen in, as some people predicted at the time. In fact the opposite, though personally I doubt if the two are connected: coincidence is not correlation, and correlation is not causation.