The "30 year old" rule.

[mav]

That is, players only getting a year contract over the age of 30.


What do you think about it?


Personally, I think the days of players being past it at 30 is over, especially when you are talking about the championship.

[weasel]

Despite Bamba I think it makes sense. It is very easy for a player to decline quickly the older they get due to inury and we have seen many oldish players in recent years come to us and look good for 6 months but then be a liability for the remaining 2.5 years of their contract. Kisnorbo is a great example who went from player of the year to not being able to recover from injury whereas a younger player might have had a better chance of recovering and getting going again.

Something like a rolling contract which would be triggered based on appearances would appear to be the best option.

[theleedsmango]

It's a policy which will undoubtedly have exceptions, therefore should not be a rule at all. Any player can be an injury prone nightmare despite age, any player can lose form and confidence, etc. Age is perhaps one attribute to be based on, along with experience, injury history, potential, ability, form, attitude etc. Therefore, unless we start looking at complicated, formulaic policies to determine how many months we should offer player X, just get rid of the policy.

If we do want to be strict, then up it to 35. I don't think we should be signing players over 35 on anything over a year. 30 though? 30 is no age. Show confidence in our good players.

[Dons Legends]

If we sign a player say, aged 27 on a 3 year contract and his form has been good, then it's fairly safe to give him another 2 year contract at 30. What I don't like is us signing half decent players when they are 30, because has what happens regularly, they seem to have just come for one big last pay deal and their heart doesn't seem to be in it. Not all the time, hopefully Bamba bucks the trend, plus I've liked Antenucci.

[Genghers]

I think the idea of contracts with clauses based on appearances in final season/some other attribute are a good idea once a player reaches 30, that way you can keep them on while they are still useful, but don't keep them as a burden if their form/game goes to pot.

I'd offer Austin a further year at least (I think his contract is running out in Summer?) as he's been excellent for the last few games and I think he has the older head/motivation that could help the younger players through.

[andywatson]

Now put yourself in the position of the 30 year old player.

Which club would you sign for?

Club A offers you £15k per week for 3 years.

Club B offers you £15k per week on a 1 year contract with a £100k bonus for making 30 appearances in a season, with the promise that it will be renewed on the same terms in 12 months.

I know which one my wife would be telling me to sign, and my agent.

All this "rule" would do is ensure that any decent 30 year olds go elsewhere. We would lose out on lots of potentially great players. Just imagine what would have happened 5 years ago at Anfield if they had said this to Gerrard, or Chelsea had said it to Lampard 6 years ago.

There is a simple solution- only sign players over 30 that we feel are so good they are worth breaking the rule for. If they aren't good enough to break the rule for, they probably aren't good enough to sign anyway.

[YorkshireSquare]

We should look to invest in youth over journeymen as our previous two managers have done but when players over 30 of a certain quality are available we shouldn't hesitate to sign them and offer them the security of a longer term deal.

I see players of 36/37 playing in the Premiership and Champions League why not the Championship?