Alan McCafu

[rob_bridge]

On the surface this is utter madness.

However it depends on the terms of the deal and whether he has had a reduction in salary / performance / appearance targets written into the contract.

In the few months before he joined us he seemed to slide from Spuds first choice to third choice RB and he was utterly abject in McDoom's season. That 'tackle' on Long was appalling. So something was clearly not right.

Was he one of the ones involved with the bouncer scuffle?

If you take that into account and the fact he was on 40k per week it's no wonder he was encouraged to find alternative employment.

[john e]

bonkers deal, fair play to Hutton but 12 month extension would have been more than sufficient.

Which he would have probably turned down and gone somewhere else.

Yes because clubs have been Queing up for him the last 18months, they would be battering the door down if they thought Hutton was available

[Clampy]

I think the fact that it's a three year deal rather than say a two year one which has raised a few eyebrows. It does also indicate we're in a better place financially which is encouraging though.

[pauliewalnuts]

We don't know the value of the deal. My guess would be that it is substantially lower than he was on before, and at a level that would have attracted other clubs.

Still, 4 games in is bloody quick.

Hutton is also not on anything like the reported 40k - from someone who would know such things.

[bob]

I know what Lambert said, but as with all the bomb squad they were not producing for their wages,
He is the only one who has made it back to any great degree, And credit to him, he has proved me totally wrong and I dare say many of the management team as well

How are they meant to "produce" when they're not even being considered for selection?

And if we're going to start pointing at players who don't produce, that would have meant almost the entire squad after the McLeish year.

None of them were producing before they were ostracised. I was of the impression that they were some toxic influence on the rest of he squad. We had not long had Dunne and Collins behaving badly, and Warnock was a well-known moaner. I thought it was hinted that we were removing the bombsquads so they didn't tarnish the youngandhungries.

Now Faulkner has left and no-one seems to know why any of it ever happened.

He's also not the only one to make it back. Given is the number two goalkeeper and Bent is available for selection and has featured this season.

Whilst Given and Bent are available for selection, and N'Zogbia has made several appearances, Hutton is the only one to have made a positive contribution to the first team.

[pauliewalnuts]

I know what Lambert said, but as with all the bomb squad they were not producing for their wages,
He is the only one who has made it back to any great degree, And credit to him, he has proved me totally wrong and I dare say many of the management team as well

How are they meant to "produce" when they're not even being considered for selection?

And if we're going to start pointing at players who don't produce, that would have meant almost the entire squad after the McLeish year.

None of them were producing before they were ostracised. I was of the impression that they were some toxic influence on the rest of he squad. We had not long had Dunne and Collins behaving badly, and Warnock was a well-known moaner. I thought it was hinted that we were removing the bombsquads so they didn't tarnish the youngandhungries.

Now Faulkner has left and no-one seems to know why any of it ever happened.

He's also not the only one to make it back. Given is the number two goalkeeper and Bent is available for selection and has featured this season.

Whilst Given and Bent are available for selection, and N'Zogbia has made several appearances, Hutton is the only one to have made a positive contribution to the first team.

We're only four games into the season, and they're guaranteed to be here till January at least. As they are now making the bench or starting matches, they'll at least have the chance. Given is the number two keeper, and Bent is also making squads.

Not many of the squad were producing, full stop, at the end of the McLeish season.

The toxic influence thing doesn't stand up to examination - Lambert has said several times that Hutton's attitude is perfect, and Shay Given a toxic influence? I find that hard to believe, he's generally seen as a model professional.

That just smacked of people looking for an excuse. Lambert himself said that it was about the wages.

[Karl Bridges]

bonkers deal, fair play to Hutton but 12 month extension would have been more than sufficient.

Which he would have probably turned down and gone somewhere else.

and?

If we are to be anyway competitive as a football club we will need a better full back than the re-packaged Alan Hutton.

We seem quite competitive so far with him as a full back.

Although just confirm what level are you expecting us to compete at?

[Olof's Beard]

I thought three years was a bit bonkers at first but having reflected upon it, it's sensible.  I think Lambert wants to instil a stable defensive unit that will be in place for a few years.  The players that we have now look good and are working well together, there's decent competition for places and back up options and hopefully we can avoid this endless accumulation of full backs.  There's still a big question mark over Vlaar and to be honest, I personally think we will lose him but by then Okore will be ready to step up and we will know whether Senderos has been able to maintain is form long term.

If we could be in a position whereby the defence doesn't need much, if any, maintenance over the next few windows then Lambert can concentrate on improving things further forward with whatever cash he has available.

[bob]

I know what Lambert said, but as with all the bomb squad they were not producing for their wages,
He is the only one who has made it back to any great degree, And credit to him, he has proved me totally wrong and I dare say many of the management team as well

How are they meant to "produce" when they're not even being considered for selection?

And if we're going to start pointing at players who don't produce, that would have meant almost the entire squad after the McLeish year.

None of them were producing before they were ostracised. I was of the impression that they were some toxic influence on the rest of he squad. We had not long had Dunne and Collins behaving badly, and Warnock was a well-known moaner. I thought it was hinted that we were removing the bombsquads so they didn't tarnish the youngandhungries.

Now Faulkner has left and no-one seems to know why any of it ever happened.

He's also not the only one to make it back. Given is the number two goalkeeper and Bent is available for selection and has featured this season.

Whilst Given and Bent are available for selection, and N'Zogbia has made several appearances, Hutton is the only one to have made a positive contribution to the first team.

We're only four games into the season, and they're guaranteed to be here till January at least. As they are now making the bench or starting matches, they'll at least have the chance. Given is the number two keeper, and Bent is also making squads.

Not many of the squad were producing, full stop, at the end of the McLeish season.

The toxic influence thing doesn't stand up to examination - Lambert has said several times that Hutton's attitude is perfect, and Shay Given a toxic influence? I find that hard to believe, he's generally seen as a model professional.

That just smacked of people looking for an excuse. Lambert himself said that it was about the wages.

Only later on. At the time no reason was given. Of course people will look for reasons, as it didn't make sense.

[Gregorys Boy]

Three years does seem a bit much to me.  Still if we are preparing someone to replace him long term, and he is happy not playing every week then this could work.

[fredm]

Does the 3 years start from now, therefore including the current year he has left, so in fact it is only a 2 year extension?

[rob_bridge]

Also does anyone ITK know how much his original deal was worth v the new deal?

Same goes for Gabby - does anyone have a decent idea?

[simon ward 50]

It will be to do with the Scottish referendum I tell you!

[supertom]

I think the fact that it's a three year deal rather than say a two year one which has raised a few eyebrows. It does also indicate we're in a better place financially which is encouraging though.

I think perhaps it just gives us the option to get 2 years out of him, by which time he'll be coming up 32, and then depending on what sort of situation we're in, we may be able to sell him for a nominal fee. I don't reckon he'll be here at the end of that contract. I think it'll just be that it gives us the chance, when he gets to an age he won't be playing week in, week out at this level, that we could flog him off to a championship club and get just a little return, as opposed to him walking away for nothing. That may well still happen of course, but we'll see. We may sell him 1-2 years down the line.

[supertom]

Also does anyone ITK know how much his original deal was worth v the new deal?

Same goes for Gabby - does anyone have a decent idea?

I'd guess the money has stayed the same, and it's the length of the deals that were the bigger selling point. I don't think, certainly in Huttons case, we'd have upped the pay.
Gabby must be on a fair bit too, so I think he's probably just maintained parity, which for 4 years is good going.