Logically they aren't going to give someone a three year deal if they've only pencilled him in as 'cover'.
The thinking must be that he will play regularly, at least over the next two years OR that they believe some club will be in for him and they will have to pay top dollar for him because he has three years left to run on his contract - clearly that scenario won't be happening.
So maybe the thinking is that the back three will rotate over the season - possibly on a horses for courses type thing dependant on who we play and what style football they play OR alternatively maybe they would be expecting one of Rico, Johnston, Toal or Iredale to be sold soon perhaps?
We do seem to have a solid back three (from those five players) for the division we are in but if we are really looking to go up next season is it really good enough for the Championship with players like Jones still having two years of his three still to run?
Going off at a tangent somewhat, it seems we are now handing out three year contracts to tie players to the club, so I guess FV are budgeting to be around here for the next three years?
Maybe they are - but it conflicts with Sharon's statement that her original plan was to stay just for 3 years (we are now on the fourth) or perhaps a little longer.
The club is still not financially sustainable and will make a trading loss for last season and no doubt will again for this season coming.
The development of the land around the Reebok (Tough Sheet) has seemingly gone very quiet - as far as I know at least - anybody seen any construction work going on?
So what exactly is the plan - and how do the likes of Luckock and the Swiss investors get a return on their investment (assuming Michael Jones and Sharon are in it for the long run)?
I've said all along that I don't see what the end plan is.
Seems though whatever it is, is now (presumably) budgeted (and financed?) for at least the next three years - hence the current plan to tie down 'key' players for that length of time.