Zat Knight to get new deal?

No, this isn't an April fool's btw!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Makes sense if the deal is right. What's that about six week contracts though? Didn't understand.

wanderlust wrote:Makes sense if the deal is right. What's that about six week contracts though? Didn't understand.

I think Dougie was perhaps hinting how well Knight had played in the last six weeks or so. 

My problem with Knight, is that he can be great, like he has been recently, but you just know he's going to be a car crash waiting to happen and he isn't going to change at his age.

Culcheth_White wrote:

wanderlust wrote:Makes sense if the deal is right. What's that about six week contracts though? Didn't understand.

I think Dougie was perhaps hinting how well Knight had played in the last six weeks or so. 

My problem with Knight, is that he can be great, like he has been recently, but you just know he's going to be a car crash waiting to happen and he isn't going to change at his age.

It's true. I guess the question is whether or not we could get a better CB at the price we could get Knight for - which is perhaps unlikely as there would be no transfer fee for Knight.

Although I think it's partly been a strategy to manage Wheater's fitness and partly the fact Ream often has to play LB one of my main issues with Dougie's selections is swapping the back 4 about. I think next season he needs to settle on a partnership (mine would be Ream and Wheater) and let them play every week possible. If Knight was kept on as back up/ an option to help see a result out then he's worth a contract on reduced terms.

He's too risky for first choice all season for the reason Culcheth mentions.

bwfc1874 wrote:Although I think it's partly been a strategy to manage Wheater's fitness and partly the fact Ream often has to play LB one of my main issues with Dougie's selections is swapping the back 4 about. I think next season he needs to settle on a partnership (mine would be Ream and Wheater) and let them play every week possible. If Knight was kept on as back up/ an option to help see a result out then he's worth a contract on reduced terms.

He's too risky for first choice all season for the reason Culcheth mentions.

Agree - but don't forget Mills is coming back and Bolger should be targeting a breakthrough next year so maybe Knight won't be needed? It would be daft to keep him on as a back up as even on reduced wages it would probably be as much as the others, so I'd imagine Dougie would only consider offering him a new contract if he thought that Knight was a serious contender for a regular spot - or he feels we'll need to rotate at some stage.

Why do all players play-out-there skin, just before a new contract, then when they've signed it, play utter wank or always injured.

Everyone should be on a six month contract.

Full article here:

Bolton Wanderers manager Dougie Freedman hints at new deal for defender Zat Knight

Zat Knight’s fine late-season form could tempt Dougie Freedman into offering him a new deal.

The club captain was expected to leave Wanderers this summer after five years but after regaining his place in the side, the 33-year-old has been one of the Whites’ outstanding performers.

Freedman admits the club will be unable to offer the kind of salary Knight and many like him were earning in the Premier League days.

But after watching the big centre-half impress against Wigan on Saturday, the Scot hinted talks could be in the offing for the ex-England international.

“Big Zat Knight is playing the best football I have ever seen him play and he’s fighting for the cause – whatever that might be, he’s fighting for it,” he told The Bolton News.

“He wants to sit down and he’s doing himself no harm at all. I’m forming that idea with one or two players right now in my mind.

“If that’s the way it’s going to go I’ll be giving Zat six-week contracts from now on because he’s been outstanding.”

Knight has been strongly linked with a move to Philadelphia Union in the United States, although Freedman has denied any contact had been made by the MLS club.

The Solihull-born defender would be free to move for nothing at the end of his contract, along with Stuart Holden, Chris Eagles, Tyrone Mears and Andre Moritz.

Whether the club can afford a deal to suit Knight is another matter – but Freedman has been pleased with the player’s attitude since coming back into the first- team frame in the last couple of months.

“I can’t lie – I’m in a position at the end of this season where financially I have to make some difficult decisions on who to keep and who to release,” he said. “But if he keeps playing like that then you know the answer.

“There are several factors to it but you can do yourself no harm by doing exactly what Zat has done and showing what you are capable of.”

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

One year contract would be ok depending on how many CB's we have on the books after the clear out. We might be better off going with a younger lad though in the long run.

The club is mental if they give him another contract, absolutely mental.

Natasha Whittam wrote:The club is mental if they give him another contract, absolutely mental.

     

i can't see him agreeing to a big drop in wages when he can probably get one more big pay day in the States.

His form has improved recently but we need to be looking forward now and bring in younger players, so i would let him go.

Norpig wrote:His form has improved recently but we need to be looking forward now and bring in younger players, so i would let him go.

This bit.