Garry Monk, Andy Gurney and recently Willy Geuret have been beneficiaries of the kind of long-term deal rarely handed out at the lower levels of the game these days. Since the collapse of ITV digital, the vast majority of clubs have been forced to cut their cloth according to income. One or two have succeeded handsomely, the best example probably being Lincoln, who recently posted record profits of over 700k.

Are the board of directors at the Vetch justified in bucking the current trend, and making more of a commitment to players than is the norm these days? Or are we risking an awful lot given the well-documented financial strife that we have only recently recovered from?

Personally speaking, I think that stability breeds success, both on and off the field. From the football side, a team consisting of players on longer deals who have a chance to grow together as a side, getting to know each others strengths and weaknesses, and to develop a kind of team spirit that cannot exist when half of them do not know where they stand from one year to another. An example of this is Man Utd's all conquering side of the 1990's, where half of the team had grown up together through the clubs youth development systems, and knew each others game inside out. This made them a far more effective unit. On a more relevant point to your average lower league pro, the financial commitment and security to relocate family to the area can only help a player to become more settled and comfortable, an issue that might have cost Brian Flynn his job last season. Adrian Forbes has been one who has noticeably increased in confidence since his family joined him in Swansea.

As far as off the pitch activities go, longer deals can help the management structure of the club plan further ahead than they might generally be able to do. To use an example from my working life, a three-year civil service pay deal has been agreed with the Treasury. This gives all parties an increased confidence of where they stand or will stand in a year or so down the line. A similar principle must also exist at the club. We can budget for these deals now, in the knowledge that the increased revenues likely as we move to the White Rock will only strengthen our financial position. Kenny can also plan his team building on more than a year-to-year basis.

Short-term deals can certainly still have a place as a means of evaluating a player. Andy Robinson last season, and Ijah Anderson this, have both proved that these deals are no barrier to earning something longer, whereas Dennis Oli is an example of the flip side of the coin.

There are downsides of course. A mediocre player on a tidy deal can be hard to shift (Fisken anyone?), and given some clubs abysmal financial management many may bite off more than they can chew, but taken as a whole, the pros far outweigh the cons for me.

Do you fancy sharing your thoughts with the world through an article on the site. Just pen your thoughts and e-mail them to us here