- Aug 31, 2012
- 4,146
- 6,772
It's surely neither.
Players have to be offered a contract of a determinate length rather than being given permanent employment. The directors may have in mind to sell the player before the end of it to recoup some of the investment but - as with the initial contract negotiations - such a course of action needs to be agreed by both parties. If the player doesn't want to go, that isn't directorial mismanagement; it's just a contingency plan not coming to fruition because of circumstances beyond the directors' control.
There are two choices for directors when signing a player: a shorter or longer term contract. Both have potential risks and rewards. Levy has usually got this right. It is unfortunate for him that at this time several players - from all of whom the club has undeniably received its money's worth - have decided at the same time to see out their contracts and, by doing so, not allow the club to cash in.
it's not "unfortunate". While he's been largely powerless to stop the problem, he could have alleviated it by investing more in the past two years in competition for the places of those who are simply exercising their right. We needed another AM, and a ball playing CB. The FBs are a slightly different problem, but with the same solution.
But, in spite of whispers leaking from one side or the other, it's impossible for us to determine whether the lack of investment and competition is down to Levy, Poch or both. The only thing we do know is who will end up carrying the can.