Josh Doig -2026

[mutley]

Extension for Josh too .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Rumble de Thump]

Where is the ambition? :)

[gbhibby]

Good news still time for another 5 or 6 before tomorrows match.

[Pretty Boy]

Good move.

Unlikely he will be here until anywhere close to 2026 but it protects his transfer fee if he continues to develop.

[Hibee ultra]

Excellent news great player and with a long contract when he goes we should get a few quid


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CMurdoch]

Pay rise in exchange for another year on the contract.

However, Porteous contract is still the burning issue

[Coco Bryce]

Pay rise in exchange for another year on the contract.

However, Porteous contract is still the burning issue

Yeah. Looking to move on seemingly.

[JohnMcM]

Keep these announcements coming Hibs.:greengrin The set of announcements to me smack of (a) long term planning (b) a good business head has been in action (c) Jack Ross being listened to and decent player-club relations.
:flag:

[SHODAN]

2026??????????????

[Stuart93]

2026??????????????

Yea the year

[Hibees1973]

Good work again by Hibs.

As the silly money offer did not materialise in the summer he stayed.

Think all of us feel Josh has a bit of work to do on the defensive side of his game, so for him to move on it's still a bit early.

We can now watch him develop, with the odd error thrown in which we will need to accept for the next year or so.

Hope he stays injury free and realises the potential that is obvious.

[Ronniekirk]

Yeah. Looking to move on seemingly.

Hopefully not in January window


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stevie Reid]

Good move.

Unlikely he will be here until anywhere close to 2026 but it protects his transfer fee if he continues to develop.

Wish I shared the confidence of others that he will eventually leave for big money, but this is a sound move regardless - whether he moves on for a good fee, or is good enough to be our first choice left back for the next five years.

[jeffers]

Don’t have an issue with him getting a rise to reflect his status as a first team regular, but don’t see the point in the additional year. I’ve seen nothing to suggest he’s anything more than a promising youngster who is nowhere close to the value we supposedly placed on him.

[the tornadoe]

Pay rise in exchange for another year on the contract.

However, Porteous contract is still the burning issue

I thought Porteous was under contract for a good few years yet.... anyone know the details of length of time he has left ?

[Alfred E Newman]

Yet another on the old Gravy Train!

[HoboHarry]

Petrie....*"+*"!!**......

[dchibs]

I'm sure I read on sicback Ron the con was desperate to sell all our players and pocket all the money.:greengrin

[Since452]

Ron the Con out

[Rumble de Thump]

Don’t have an issue with him getting a rise to reflect his status as a first team regular, but don’t see the point in the additional year. I’ve seen nothing to suggest he’s anything more than a promising youngster who is nowhere close to the value we supposedly placed on him.

You saw he was a first team regular.

[Keith_M]

He's still only nineteen and shows a lot of promise, so I'm really pleased about this.


:top marks

[MWHIBBIES]

Don’t have an issue with him getting a rise to reflect his status as a first team regular, but don’t see the point in the additional year. I’ve seen nothing to suggest he’s anything more than a promising youngster who is nowhere close to the value we supposedly placed on him.

So we give him more money for the same contract length? Genius.

We got offered over 2 million for him. So he is worth at least that, and more as he improves.

[ancient hibee]

Don’t have an issue with him getting a rise to reflect his status as a first team regular, but don’t see the point in the additional year. I’ve seen nothing to suggest he’s anything more than a promising youngster who is nowhere close to the value we supposedly placed on him.
For a start he’s a first choice first team player. But even if he is just a promising youngster we’ve already turned down £2M.Be a bit daft to offer him more money for the same length of contract.

[jeffers]

So we give him more money for the same contract length? Genius.

We got offered over 2 million for him. So he is worth at least that, and more as he improves.

No need for the smart arse comment. He’d have been on sweeties before, he’s regularly playing in the first team so he should be getting paid a wage that reflects that. Doesn’t have to equate to a longer term.

Whether anyone watching him now would offer £2m for him is another story.

[MWHIBBIES]

No need for the smart arse comment. He’d have been on sweeties before, he’s regularly playing in the first team so he should be getting paid a wage that reflects that. Doesn’t have to equate to a longer term.

Whether anyone watching him now would offer £2m for him is another story.
I've never ever heard of a wage rise without contract extension in football. It's completely pointless for the club. Nothing in it for them at all.

[tmb1875]

There is if it makes the player happier, removes a clause we didn’t like, inserted a clause we wanted to or any other number of reasons. I wouldn’t really be bothered about losing any player from that team bar porteous or Allan but got to give the club credit for nailing down the players the manager wants to keep and hopefully shipping out the ones he doesn’t asap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CapitalGreen]

No need for the smart arse comment. He’d have been on sweeties before, he’s regularly playing in the first team so he should be getting paid a wage that reflects that. Doesn’t have to equate to a longer term.

Whether anyone watching him now would offer £2m for him is another story.

How would he have only been on sweeties before? He signed his previous contract only 8 months ago while a first team regular.

[jeffers]

How would he have only been on sweeties before? He signed his previous contract only 8 months ago while a first team regular.

So you think he’d have been on big wages ? Explain the logic then please ‘cos one additional year on his contract makes little difference when it still had 4 years to run.

[scoopyboy]

So you think he’d have been on big wages ? Explain the logic then please ‘cos one additional year on his contract makes little difference when it still had 4 years to run.

The difference could be significant in a few years if still here, big difference if a player has one year left on his contract as opposed to two.

Hibs had nothing to lose by giving the one year extension and i suspect without the 2026 bit he wouldn't have got extra money.

[jeffers]

The difference could be significant in a few years if still here, big difference if a player has one year left on his contract as opposed to two.

Hibs had nothing to lose by giving the one year extension and i suspect without the 2026 bit he wouldn't have got extra money.

Maybe a change of mindset on our part given we were keen to sell him during the last window.

I still have think back to Billy Findlay’s 5 year deal, it’s not always a great idea offering a contract of that length….

[scoopyboy]

Maybe a change of mindset on our part given we were keen to sell him during the last window.

possibly, seems to have worked going by the players quotes

[MWHIBBIES]

Maybe a change of mindset on our part given we were keen to sell him during the last window.

I still have think back to Billy Findlay’s 5 year deal, it’s not always a great idea offering a contract of that length….I don't think we were keen to sell him at all. We turned down multiple bids.


So you think he’d have been on big wages ? Explain the logic then please ‘cos one additional year on his contract makes little difference when it still had 4 years to run.

If McGinn had 1 more year on his deal we would've been looking at much more money.

[scoopyboy]

Maybe a change of mindset on our part given we were keen to sell him during the last window.

I still have think back to Billy Findlay’s 5 year deal, it’s not always a great idea offering a contract of that length….

Agreed but I think Josh Doig has shown a bit more than Billy Findlay ever did, I don't think we will find he sees that contact through to 2026

[jeffers]

I don't think we were keen to sell him at all. We turned down multiple bids.



If McGinn had 1 more year on his deal we would've been looking at much more money.

I disagree. We had a replacement lined up. We pulled him out of games fully expecting him to leave.

Not disputing the SJM situation, but there is a big difference between having one year left on your contract and 4 or 5.

[jeffers]

Agreed but I think Josh Doig has shown a bit more than Billy Findlay ever did, I don't think we will find he sees that contact through to 2026

No I agree SB, I very much doubt hibs expect him to be still be there in 2026.

[CapitalGreen]

So you think he’d have been on big wages ? Explain the logic then please ‘cos one additional year on his contract makes little difference when it still had 4 years to run.

No I think he was, and still will be, on the middle ground between sweeties and big wages.

[judas]

Great news.

Now get Porto signed. Most underrated centre half in the premier league.

[Iggy Pope]

Maybe a change of mindset on our part given we were keen to sell him during the last window.

I still have think back to Billy Findlay’s 5 year deal, it’s not always a great idea offering a contract of that length….

Billy Findlay. Even those of us old enough to know will struggle to see the relevance in that. Should’ve given Joe Baker that fiver a week and we’d be just great.

[jeffers]

Billy Findlay. Even those of us old enough to know will struggle to see the relevance in that. Should’ve given Joe Baker that fiver a week and we’d be just great.

You don’t see the relevance in there being a risk in giving a young player a 5 year deal. Fair enough then.

[CapitalGreen]

You don’t see the relevance in there being a risk in giving a young player a 5 year deal. Fair enough then.

There is risk in giving any player a deal as is there risk in not giving a player a deal. Having to think back nearly 30 years for a pertinent example of why it’s a bad idea doesn’t really strengthen your point, I imagine most people could come up with a list of times the club should have been more proactive in renewals.

[jeffers]

There is risk in giving any player a deal as is there risk in not giving a player a deal.

The fact I’ve had to go back that far would suggest typically the club don’t think it’s a risk worth taking.