Carl Baker's new contract (2 Viewers)

[shy_tall_knight]

Sorry if this has been discussed already but gobsmacked about Carl Baker being offered a contract for the next 4 seasons. He joined us as a 27 yr old with little league experience having played mostly in the non-league, a £300k gamble on a potential rough diamond. Despite glimpses of skill, he has just confirmed that he isn't really capable of commanding a place in a team that has finished in the bottom 6 both seasons he has been with us.

He will be 29 in December, I think if there was any potential it would have been seen by now. He would probably be more effective in League 1 and I just wonder if the puppet masters SISU are planning for that eventuality.

As a fan you live in hope, I hope in 2 seasons times we are a better and stronger club, just don't see hope Baker would fit into a stronger club he just isn't good enough.

Nice guy know all about the family issues its not personal just don't rate him, don't look forward to another 4 years of him (or Bell for that matter, McFake don't count as he will be injured for the next 4 years anyway). If he stays at the club to the end of his contract he would have been at the club the same amount of time as Dave Bennett - I doubt he will attain his legend status.

 

---

[Macca]

await an over reaction counter thread titled "I can't believe you want baker burnt at the stake and disembowelled"

 

[rob9872]

Tricky one this for me. I doubt he is on much money and I doubt we could get much better in our current state. Thorn is probably scared that if we don't get him signed we will lose him and no replacement. No world beater and not difficult to replace but the budget for his wages would disappear as no real resale value to him. He is an honest, hard working pro who for one reason or another hasn't had the sustained run he needs or quite filled his potential/. HE was excellent when he first came in but looks like he lost his confidence and probably AB was partly responsible in asking palyers like him and Sheff to work back and defend when its not really what they're about. Probably worth a contract extension to give us more time but like Bell's its the length in four years that I find most amazing.

 

[shy_tall_knight]

As fans we live in hope, I hope in 2 seasons time I'm not watching Baker. At least Bell is a first team regulatr (don't rate him at all a shaw pony but that's a separate thread) hence the manager rates him as he picks him regularly and thus tries to sign him up, Baker isn't a regular so as not first choice why do we want to sign him up for another 4 years.

It shows lack of ambition I'd rather we have gamble on another lower-league player who may have potential rather than signing up someone who has had the opportunity and not delivered.

 

[Grendel]

At 27 the best he could do is make it at Stockport County. When we have to sign up players like him it says it all. Soon O'Donavan will be given another 3 years.

I've seen the quote that it improves our balance sheet - I do not understand that. To me it is just another liability.

 

[SkyBlueScottie]

I dare say these new deals have some sort of contingency in them relating to the potential relegation we face, I would imagine it gives the players releagation fee clauses while no doubt giving them a raise and also ensure we at least recoup some cash, or we are left with players that most league 1 side would like to have.

its the one thing I didnt understand about Ransons tenure, why on earth did we let so many players run deals down, I could understand KIng given the baggage he came with however we all thought we would give him him a chance, only to see him bugger off elesewhere, I would like to think we at least investigated the possibility of an option on him had he performed and behaved like we wanted him too. sadly I dont think that was the case.

 

[bamalamafizzfazz]

I dare say these new deals have some sort of contingency in them relating to the potential relegation we face, I would imagine it gives the players releagation fee clauses while no doubt giving them a raise and also ensure we at least recoup some cash, or we are left with players that most league 1 side would like to have.

its the one thing I didnt understand about Ransons tenure, why on earth did we let so many players run deals down, I could understand KIng given the baggage he came with however we all thought we would give him him a chance, only to see him bugger off elesewhere, I would like to think we at least investigated the possibility of an option on him had he performed and behaved like we wanted him too. sadly I dont think that was the case.

I agree, why did they have a clause in the contracts of both McSheffrey and Platt giving them extensions after 'X' amount of games and not King?

As for Baker, I do think he has something and at times he has looked ok in the Championship. I still believe he performs best as a wide man but when he has played under thorn he has been in his preferred position of behind the front two and has produced very little.

The one thing you can't knock about him though is his work rate, his attitude and his appreciation of being a professional footballer and playing for our club. Four years may be a little long as he lacks the quality to be consistent at this level but what is the point in only offering him only two years when we will get nothing for him at anytime that his contract expires.

It may show a lack of ambition to us fans but from a club perspective signing players up to long term deals at low wages will do little damage and will contribute towards a move to financial stability in the future.

 

[Sub]

i think its just a plan to increase there value so come january when players are sold they will be worth more because they are on longer contracts:thinking about:

 

[Mumford and Daughter]

Preparing for league 1 football next season, baker is league 1 player along with Bell

 

[CovKingChris]

I hate how a number of people have said he's league 1 at best.

Is he not the player that was exceeding at league 1 level in a poor team? I think he scored 14goals in half a season, for a team that were relegation candidates.

 

[pusbccfc]

I hate how a number of people have said he's league 1 at best.

Is he not the player that was exceeding at league 1 level in a poor team? I think he scored 14goals in half a season, for a team that were relegation candidates.

I agree with you chris, he's had a hard time at cov.
Aidy knocked all his confidence and playing long ball wouldn't help him.
Get him in the correct position he could be a half decent player.

 

[Mumford and Daughter]

I hate how a number of people have said he's league 1 at best.

Is he not the player that was exceeding at league 1 level in a poor team? I think he scored 14goals in half a season, for a team that were relegation candidates.

So you’re basing your opinion on half a season of football which you never seen?

I am basing mine on 2 seasons in a city shirt. Where he’s been mediocre to say the least,

 

[skybluesteve76]

He will be a top league one player next season if we go down!

 

[oldskyblue58]

I find it strange that we give him 4 years when he has failed as yet to perform at this level on a consistent basis. Same with Bell & McPake. If he cannot perform in the Championship we have locked him into a contract at championship wages. More importantly the club are locked in too. That makes him harder to sell on if he isnt up to Championship level in much the same way as Freddy. I dont see the arguement that it adds to the worth of the club either, the club has a binding 4 year contract to pay championship wages to a player who might not make it at this level and should we be relegated would be too expensive for League 1 - that implies liability not asset to me

How long is AT's contract ?

I dont see the Club's plan in all this - but should I really be surprised by that ???? !!!

 

[DiveDiveWhereverYouMayBe]

On current form, he would appear to be a League 1 player. He did exceptionally well at Stockport and brought a little bit of excitement on arrival with his ball retention skills and almost Adebola-esque dribbles (slow, but keep ball). Since then, he has been poor and lost the confidence to take players on. I think giving Baker, Bell and McPake (who I rate highly, but is starting to look in line to be the next McNamee) long term deals, is a tacit admission that the new signings and quality of player we would all like to see are not coming. We are gearing up with the goal of retaining our status as mediocre - poor Championship level (more towards poor, truth be told). I actually think, given our financial situation and the fact the idea of new signings involves pie in the sky optimism, that giving Bell and Baker new deals was the right idea. I would have been looking at 1-2 year deals for both, though.

 

[TheParsonsHose]

On this basis perhaps we should offer thorn a 5 year deal.