Celtic Trusted Ange's Vision But Not Enough For An Initial Multi-Year Contract.
There is no doubt whatsoever that Celtic trusted Ange Postecoglou when they appointed him boss. The man had wowed them during the interviews, and when he asked for full control he got it. The man was backed in the transfer market like no other manager in our lifetimes; indeed, he is the most backed Celtic boss of all time in that regard.
But Ange's appointment was a risk and those in charge of the club knew it. I still don't think they knew exactly what they were getting and so in some ways it was exactly what I thought it was at the time; a mad desperate punt after our first choice had left us in the lurch. Nevertheless, the club doubled down and gave the boss unequalled support.
Yet for all that, we acted appropriately when it came to his contract length. We handed him a 12 month rolling deal, and the structure of that deal is obviously still one that all the parties are perfectly comfortable with. Ange could have asked for a longer term deal and Celtic could easily have given one to him. But there is respect and trust and as long as there is then the one year rolling contract is one that suits all concerned.
I personally think we should give him a long term deal. I think it will give us all a bit of additional security, and I have little doubt that it's been discussed inside the walls. I believe that Ange will sign such a deal before this campaign is over.
Celtic will protect its own interests, as Celtic always does. It's for this very reason that we did not give Ange the long term deal in the first place. Rolling contracts offer the most basic protection that there is. A club only owes a manager one year's salary in the event that he fails. This is smart and sensible strategy. Ibrox on the other hand …
There is barely a supporter who did not think it was mad folly to give Gerrard a long term deal when he had no managerial experience. They will argue that this one worked out; they would have been singing a different song had COVID not shut our nine in a row season down before all the games had been played in it. When he left for Villa they got good money for he and his staff.
But giving a similar deal to Van Bronckhorst was expensive, and has sucked up much of the money that they recouped from the former Liverpool captain. That they've had to pay out even more to bring his assistant back to the club is doubly mad.
That they have handed him a three-and-a-half-year deal, and presumably given the same to his backroom team, is madness of a kind only Sevco could produce. The guy doesn't even have six months as a first team manager … he has done nothing to earn that sort of job security and they are out of their minds handing it to him.
Bob (original) says:
Sorry, but disagree with the Ange contract strategy.
Yes, as a relative 'unknown', Ange should have initially been offered a 12 months rolling contract – same as Lennon?
However, immediately after the league was won, Ange should have been offered a 3 years deal, or similar. By that point the fans knew Ange got the club, and could have a long term impact on the club: from top to bottom.
Ange might have chosen not to sign a long term deal – but the Board failed, by not offering him one in writing.
With the rolling contract, it also means that Ange is even more appealing/affordable to other clubs, for the reduced compensation payable.
And whenever Ange does leave, our club could be right back in the same position when Lennon left: our Board could cock up the recruitment process yet again.
Didn't we do the same rolling one year deal thing with Martin O'Neill? Long term contracts mean absolutely nothing nowadays, one year or five years is irrelevant if some superclub comes in for a player or coach and they want to go. All that is affected is the level of compo we'd be due and for a Celtic coach that's not going to be Dembele dollars is it? I'd love to know what the ratio is of coaches leaving to go to other clubs compared to those who are fired? I get the impression that season after season you hear of more coaches getting the boot for being keech than getting big-money moves for being excellent so I'd say Celtic are being very smart about their managerial contracts….
GAV says:
We got 9M for the Rat
Did we? I had no idea it was such a high pay-off. Still, in terms of risk/reward I'd say 9 times out of 10 the risk of paying off the rest of a manager's contract is the more likely.