• We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies from this website. Read more here

Tisdale's contract

iscalad

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
26,152
Location
Far away across the field
 

Anonymous

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Oct 22, 2008
Messages
6,019
Location
in yr internats
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.
 

elginCity

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jul 29, 2004
Messages
12,935
Location
Swindon
Either way it would be good for Tisdale if City get promoted.

Better terms offered by City, and an enticing prospect for a bigger club given they won't have to shell out any compensation.
 
Last edited:

ramone

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
7,262
Location
If i had to agree with you we would both be wrong
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.

Or have some sort of bonus in place when we get promoted ? Really wouldn't want to lose him over some minor detail in the new contract to another team who will offer anything he wanted.
 

John William

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
9,914
Location
Undisclosed
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.
 

IndoMike

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
34,044
Location
Touring Central Java...
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.
What you are in favour of is in fact the norm: the rolling contract was not the norm.
 

Terryhall

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2014
Messages
4,725
Location
You go me on the alarm clock
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.
 

DanceMagnet

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
978
Location
Tripping the light fandango
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.
 

Matt Russell

Active member
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
1,155
What was unfortunate about terminating the rolling contract was the timing of doing so. Whatever the wording of the AGM and the reasoning given by its author, it was bound to be linked to our poor home form and construed as censure. I'm also much happier with the idea of a fixed contract length and I'm not saying that there was ever "a golden moment" to make this change, but mixing results on the pitch with good governance concerns certainly muddies the water.
 

Terryhall

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2014
Messages
4,725
Location
You go me on the alarm clock
To be very clear, if the AGM motion had been voted down last year, and everything else happened exactly the same, then I would still be supportive of putting the exact same motion to this years AGM regardless of the fact that the form since that time has been excellent. As John William says, it is not a results question, it is a governance question.
 
Top