Andreas Weimann

[German James]

... we've been bemoaning the foolishness of having put parasites like Beye, Dunne, Ireland, Hutton et al on 4 or even 5 year deals?
Can't have it both ways.

This.

It's a result of not giving out stupid contracts that players will no longer be trying to milk them for as long as possible.

And this, as well.

[Tuscans]

Personally I'll wait until I see something official.

[Greg N'Ash]

Don't see the problem with only three years. He's not the finished article yet and like Baker needs to prove he can progress to the next level and sustain his current progress. There's really no point in handing out long term deals to players who may just be average premiership players or worse unless that's where the club see themselves long term.

 A few years back I got some stick on here for criticising the club for not opening contract negotiations early enough with some players who left eventually - the general feeling at the time being that it was too early to offer new contracts if they had 2-3+ years left. I didn't agree, and I still don't agree. The whole process should be continuously on-going and if Weimann continues doing well next season then adding a year or more should be considered before next summer.

[Phil from the upper holte]

It's going to be like a new signing I'll get me coat

[rob_bridge]

Don't see the problem with only three years. He's not the finished article yet and like Baker needs to prove he can progress to the next level and sustain his current progress. There's really no point in handing out long term deals to players who may just be average premiership players or worse unless that's where the club see themselves long term.

 A few years back I got some stick on here for criticising the club for not opening contract negotiations early enough with some players who left eventually - the general feeling at the time being that it was too early to offer new contracts if they had 2-3+ years left. I didn't agree, and I still don't agree. The whole process should be continuously on-going and if Weimann continues doing well next season then adding a year or more should be considered before next summer.

Totally agree Greg.

[pauliewalnuts]

Whilst I'm pleased he is staying, these 3 year deals are a joke, we never seem to learn. All this means is we will be forced to cash in on him next summer or risk selling him for peanuts the following year. At 21 years of age he should be made to sign for 5 years, they should never have let him get to within a year of this contract.

That's one of the ways we got ourselves in this mess in the first place.

He's a young player with one season of regular PL appearances under his belt. At this point, just as he could turn out to be a top flight player, last season could turn out to be a one off.

The contract length reflects that - give him five years and the last season turns out to be the exception rather than the norm, and we're paying him for five years, like it or not.

[Brend'Watkins]

A 3 year contract is fine and is more favourable for the club.  If he has another good year we may wish to reward him with an improved contract with an extension to the term.  If he's average, then we only have a few more years of his contract to run giving us time to off load before other clubs wise up. 

I'm all for optimism regarding our younger players but we need to be business like where extending contracts is concerned.  Too often have we been lumbered with high earners who are not doing it and who will quite happily sit out their contracts.  There are exceptions when a real gem comes along, but the reality is, even if we do tie such a player down for the long term we still end up letting them go if the offer is exceptional.

[PeterWithesShin]

What would be ideal would be a 3 year contract with a club option for an extra 1 or 2 years that we can trigger. No idea how viable that is.

[ozzjim]

What would be ideal would be a 3 year contract with a club option for an extra 1 or 2 years that we can trigger. No idea how viable that is.

I would have liked a 3 year with a further 12 month option trigger, but 3 as opposed to 5 is much more sensible for Weimann.

If Benteke wants 5, then that would be a different matter entirely!

[OCD]

There might be an option for an additional year for all we know, it would still be called a 3-year contract.

[Toronto Villa]

A three year deal is perfect. It essentially gives the player 2 solid years to prove to the club he isn't a flash in the pan and worth something more. It gives the club an opportunity to prove to the player they will be competing at a level to retain the player's interests. It's not too long for either side and as has been pointed what we don't know is if there are any clauses to extend the deal. It's just good to get this one out of the way and we'll all celebrate once the big man has also put pen to paper.

[Concrete John]

Don't see the problem with only three years. He's not the finished article yet and like Baker needs to prove he can progress to the next level and sustain his current progress. There's really no point in handing out long term deals to players who may just be average premiership players or worse unless that's where the club see themselves long term.

 A few years back I got some stick on here for criticising the club for not opening contract negotiations early enough with some players who left eventually - the general feeling at the time being that it was too early to offer new contracts if they had 2-3+ years left. I didn't agree, and I still don't agree. The whole process should be continuously on-going and if Weimann continues doing well next season then adding a year or more should be considered before next summer.

It's not really a matter of how long the contract is, but rather how near to the end if it you start negotiating.  I think 2 years is about right, with the goal of then having it tied up before he enters that dangerous 12 months left period.

Players like Benteke are the exception to that where they are on comparatively low wages compared to their contribution and genuinely warrant an increase.

[Dante Lavelli]

Isn't Michael Johnson still getting a ludicrous amount of money off man city after one good season?
It's a fine balance between showing comittment to the player and making them think they've already made it.

Whichever option the club choose they're going to be wrong from some fans's perspective.

[Concrete John]

Isn't Michael Johnson still getting a ludicrous amount of money off man city after one good season?
It's a fine balance between showing comittment to the player and making them think they've already made it.

Whichever option the club choose they're going to be wrong from some fans's perspective.

More a of being wrong if it goes wrong.  Hindsight and all that!

[PeterWithesShin]

Isn't Michael Johnson still getting a ludicrous amount of money off man city after one good season?
It's a fine balance between showing comittment to the player and making them think they've already made it.

Whichever option the club choose they're going to be wrong from some fans's perspective.

They finally managed to get rid of him tail end of last year.