I don't really think this will be a popular view, but if a kid refuses to sign a contract extension you don't bother with his development any further. You can't allow any young player to think they are bigger than the team and the club. The long game is having kids develop, a number becoming club stalwarts and hopefully some earning transfer fees and going on to play for NZ. We cannot compete with the bling clubs for money and imports, so this is our club game plan. Develop kids and do it better than anybody else. You don't balls that all up by letting one kid take you for a ride and encouraging every next kid to say, nah, want to be a free agent, and at the same time thinking they can still get shop window game time.
No idea if any of that applies to Boyd, but that's how I'd play it if I was running the club and that situation arose.
I don't have a problem with a player playing hard ball with the club and refusing a contract. If they think that is best for their career then they have every right to make that call. They just need to understand, at that stage, that hard ball works both ways and the club then owes them nothing and should get on with the clubs future and not distort it's culture and strategy to continue playing them. You simply cannot afford to encourage kids to refuse contract extensions.
And, no, I don't care if it might jeopardise a championship crack. Clubs are more than one good year. You earn your title consistent with your culture, or you risk all. That's how you build strong clubs. Not by bending with the wind for short term gains.
I like this post.
It does go both ways and there is no such thing as loyalty as much as we would like to thing there will be. At some point, a young kid will want to be signed and he will want security and to be coached and developed. The club commit to that (look at Rufer and Ridenton). By the same token, if the kid develops and is ready to move on, if he fulfils the terms of the contract, then good on him. If you make noises that you are looking to move on, don't expect the club to invest in you any more. The smart ploy is to keep your gob shut for as long as possible and knowing the ego behind him that guides him, that's never gonna happen. Boyd has probably made the mistake that Tommy Smith did in talking when he should have shut up (and I reference the part about possibly making himself available for USA). If you are under contract, why blatantly shop yourself about? I get that you have the right to do that, but what message does that send to your current coach/employer?
For me, I think Ernie is entitled to play this anyway he likes - he is the coach and if he fudges it up, he will hear about it and it could mean his job (extreme but follow me on this). If he thinks Boyds got an ego/crap attitude and is looking to move on, would you really bother with him regardless of what it means to the club and results? I would not. At the moment, we are 4th without Boyd playing. If he had played more would we be higher? I would say more unlikely than likely but we will never know.
I think we are arguing over a player that probably would not make a difference to our form (and the Adelaide match makes me look foolish) and a player we are unlikely to miss when he moves on.
COYN 