I wouldn't have thought Cahill, Ward and Clyne out-performed Townsend last year, or offered noticeable better value to wages.

Here's a thought...

I remember years ago Peterborough (under the ownership and guidance of Barry Fry) believed that they always needed to employ attack-minded managers who played open, skilful football. This was not because it was the most likely way of achieving promotion (any style of play can be effective), but because the club needed to sell the players it produced, and Fry reasoned that a promising young attacker would always fetch a far higher price than a promising young defender. If he employed a defensive-minded manager then his attacking players would not shine as much, and the business plan would not work.

Now, obviously promising young defenders can go for big money too (see AWB), but I think there's still some logic to Fry's theory.

I wonder if perhaps -in part at least- Cahill, Ward and Clyne are being offered new terms but not Townsend because the potential value of an exciting young attacker is greater than that of a young defender. If Olise, Rak-Sakyi or Omilabu prove to be good top flight players very quickly, they are far more likely to be worth a fortune than a young defender would be.

It might be as simple as Townsend having the misfortune to play in a position where we would benefit most from developing a young player, financially speaking.

Personally, I'd still keep him. If he was available on a free transfer from another club we'd all say he was a sensible signing. However, perhaps Parish and Freedman want to remove as many obstacles as they can from the paths of Olise, Rak-Sakyi etc so as to maximise the chances of increasing the squad value to its greatest extent.

Edited by TheBigToePunt (15 Jul 2021 4.31pm)

All possible of course, but Townsends tone whenever he is asked about his future on Talksport very much suggests a man who wants to remain at Palace and is waiting in the hope of a contract offer.

I wouldn't have thought Cahill, Ward and Clyne out-performed Townsend last year, or offered noticeable better value to wages.

Here's a thought...

I remember years ago Peterborough (under the ownership and guidance of Barry Fry) believed that they always needed to employ attack-minded managers who played open, skilful football. This was not because it was the most likely way of achieving promotion (any style of play can be effective), but because the club needed to sell the players it produced, and Fry reasoned that a promising young attacker would always fetch a far higher price than a promising young defender. If he employed a defensive-minded manager then his attacking players would not shine as much, and the business plan would not work.

Now, obviously promising young defenders can go for big money too (see AWB), but I think there's still some logic to Fry's theory.

I wonder if perhaps -in part at least- Cahill, Ward and Clyne are being offered new terms but not Townsend because the potential value of an exciting young attacker is greater than that of a young defender. If Olise, Rak-Sakyi or Omilabu prove to be good top flight players very quickly, they are far more likely to be worth a fortune than a young defender would be.

It might be as simple as Townsend having the misfortune to play in a position where we would benefit most from developing a young player, financially speaking.

Personally, I'd still keep him. If he was available on a free transfer from another club we'd all say he was a sensible signing. However, perhaps Parish and Freedman want to remove as many obstacles as they can from the paths of Olise, Rak-Sakyi etc so as to maximise the chances of increasing the squad value to its greatest extent.

Edited by TheBigToePunt (15 Jul 2021 4.31pm)