cutting players' wages for not performing is fraught with difficulty because some of  'performing' is out of their hands - it depends on being selected, and in which position, and how they're asked to play, and who's around them, and how those players are asked to play, and the overall tactics, and "effective" training being provided. So in case of disputes every employment contract would need a description of what 'performing' means and how the training must go and what tactics they'll be asked to play. Which limits the manager from responding to problems by playing a player in a different formation which doesn't let them shine. V few people would accept such a condition of employment cos it's too subjective, the target performance isn't really solely under their control.  Financial punsihments for discipline problems are possible but not for 'am I performing OK, and is the reason just me?' cos so many wouldn't accept it. Rightly too, it lets a poor man-manager punish people he doesn't get on with.
The other way around works to a degree, pay as low as poss and provide bonuses for achievement. But that for teams, can't see many contracts doing that for an individual tho cos imagine being a striker asked to score 20 a season then you don't give him the ball, or a defender offered a bonus for achieving clean sheets then you ask him to play outside of the defence, how would the discussion about them not having earned their bonus go?

Last edited by anders (3/19/2020 12:52 pm)

Aberdeen ready to cost cut now too.