I expect that by bringing Managerial ability into it, all we'll conclude is that we'd be happy for good and talented managers that we approve of to hand out 3 or 4 year contracts, whereas those we don't rate and don't like....well, given the rubbish they're likely to sign, make it 12 months at most.
The point about Hargreaves budget, was the percentage of it already allocated by the previous Manager to players signed by that previous Manager. Hargreaves in the job, but constrained by Knill's decisions determining on who, and in what amounts, it should be spent. Ding Dong might have more inside knowledge about Hargreaves motivational abilities, but it wouldn't take many months before the new players brought in by Hargreaves in the Summer got to find out that the useless Knill signings who were sat in the stands every match day,were earning substantially more than those out on the pitch slogging their guts out for the team. It just has to have a detrimental effect on motivation, and was part of a situation that Hargreaves inherited, and where the blame can't be fairly laid entirely at his door.
Farther up the leagues, a player might only be willing to join on a short contract as he will prefer to move again and collect a fresh signing on fee.
Plus the added bonus that if he's out of contract there will be no large transfer fee to pay (age dependent etc) to acquire his services and so the club signing him can afford to be more generous as regards wages.
I don't see that a black and white rule will be possible to agree on. Different solutions will fit different situations. The much discussed Nathan Blissett situation for instance. Insist he sign a 2 year contract and he wouldn't have extended at all in the Summer of 2016. With the combined talents of Kev, the General Manager, and Clarke Osborne, we surely pitch our contract offers spot on these days
