The Great Leap Forward

Quoted from rancido

It's nothing to do with " an attitude like that ". Ok , so maybe I'm playing " Devil's Advocate " here and I would love to get MJ on a contract of at least 2 years , preferably 3. All I pointed out was  maybe MJ doesn't want a change of arrangement. Once again a poster has not read properly what was posted or chose to interpret it in a different way.

What difference does it make to MJ? Surely the certainty of a 3 year contract is better than only 6 months in terms of a pay-off if things go wrong? It cuts both ways. But then foresight has never been a priority for the GTFC board, has it?

If we new he was on a say 2 year contract, it might help with season ticket sales come July/August.........

Quoted from rancido

It's nothing to do with " an attitude like that ". Ok , so maybe I'm playing " Devil's Advocate " here and I would love to get MJ on a contract of at least 2 years , preferably 3. All I pointed out was  maybe MJ doesn't want a change of arrangement. Once again a poster has not read properly what was posted or chose to interpret it in a different way.

Probably because invariably in your case being Devil's Advocate involves agreeing with Fenty's take.

Quoted from KingstonMariner

Probably because invariably in your case being Devil's Advocate involves agreeing with Fenty's take.

FFS you still  don't get it do you! If you took the time to actually read my posts then you would know that I want JF to go as much as a lot of other posters on here. I have repeatedly stated on this site that I am no fan, supporter or any thing else that aligns with the man. BUT I am at least prepared to look at both sides of the situation unlike a lot of the posters on here. Like I said in another post it is impossible to be neutral on the subject of JF in the eyes of some posters on here.

Calm down dear

Quoted from rancido

FFS you still  don't get it do you! If you took the time to actually read my posts then you would know that I want JF to go as much as a lot of other posters on here. I have repeatedly stated on this site that I am no fan, supporter or any thing else that aligns with the man. BUT I am at least prepared to look at both sides of the situation unlike a lot of the posters on here. Like I said in another post it is impossible to be neutral on the subject of JF in the eyes of some posters on here.

Question is 'Do you think Michael Jolley's future at GTFC needs to be protected by tying him to a longer term contract?'

What the intercourse that has to do with being pro or anti John Fenty is beyond me.

Quoted from MuddyWaters

What difference does it make to MJ? Surely the certainty of a 3 year contract is better than only 6 months in terms of a pay-off if things go wrong? It cuts both ways. But then foresight has never been a priority for the GTFC board, has it?

He may want to keep his options open and be more free to move if and when the right suitor comes along.
I’m not saying he’s looking to move any time soon but if he’s confident and ambitious a less binding contract might suit him better.
Also if he’s tied down for 3 years maybe he would have less leverage when arguing/negotiating with the board for more budget for a particular target.

Quoted from AussieMariner

He may want to keep his options open and be more free to move if and when the right suitor comes along.
I’m not saying he’s looking to move any time soon but if he’s confident and ambitious a less binding contract might suit him better.
Also if he’s tied down for 3 years maybe he would have less leverage when arguing/negotiating with the board for more budget for a particular target.

He might. He might but I don't see Jolley as a gambler. He was pretty much unproven as a club manager when he joined so it could have easily gone mammaries up with no financial security. So odds are he would prefer a longer contract. As time goes on and he gets more established and builds his reputation, then his interests would be served by a shorter term contract. Which is precisely what people are concerned about. That's the point of maximum risk for the club.

Quoted from rancido

FFS you still  don't get it do you! If you took the time to actually read my posts then you would know that I want JF to go as much as a lot of other posters on here. I have repeatedly stated on this site that I am no fan, supporter or any thing else that aligns with the man. BUT I am at least prepared to look at both sides of the situation unlike a lot of the posters on here. Like I said in another post it is impossible to be neutral on the subject of JF in the eyes of some posters on here.

Nobody's questioning your right to be for, against or neutral. Just disagreeing with your point about the rolling contract. But if you what to play Devil's Advocate, and if you're perceived as always playing that role one way, you run the risk of being perceived as supporting a certain position.

Surely the point is that for all anyone on here knows he may already have been offered a longer term contract and turned it down to retain the flexibility of the rolling contract. At the end of the day it will be his decision to reject or accept such a deal and to be accusing the club of a failure to tie him down without knowing the facts is a bit short sighted.