Contract renewal question

[Lance]

OP, I'd play hardball on the first issue, no question, because it undermines your agreement up to this point (as well as being bad going forward). Second issue, I wouldn't necessarily care; either you can or cannot meet that requirement, but it's more than likely an over-zealous compliance/legal numpty.

you're almost certainly right on this aspect.
But a rate cut? Unless the client is having serious financial hardship I'd class a rate-cut as merely opportunistic and refuse it.

[jamesbrown]

I'd class a rate-cut as merely opportunistic and refuse it.

Good for you; all I'm saying is that you don't know the situation and the OP isn't a n00b.

[ladymuck]

Rather than compromise with "initially the BoS will be..." why not suggest they change it to something like "the Supplier's primary contact is ..."

I would want to know why they need the 100% ownership in there and a case law example illustrating it as a requirement. Most fold when you ask for that.

[ChimpMaster]

Rather than compromise with "initially the BoS will be..." why not suggest they change it to something like "the Supplier's primary contact is ..."

I would want to know why they need the 100% ownership in there and a case law example illustrating it as a requirement. Most fold when you ask for that.

Thanks, that change sounds good.

Will discuss the 100% ownership with them. They haven't had a problem with it for the past couple of years....

[ChimpMaster]

Good for you; all I'm saying is that you don't know the situation and the OP isn't a n00b.

Thanks JB.

He's on my ignore list because I don't have time deal with ignorant/trolling comments.

The rate cut is not the purpose of this thread but for those who are interested:

A 20% cut is of course a kick in the teeth but I've been an on "emergency" rate for the past couple of years because they needed me to stop the business going under when no one else could deal with the systems. Perhaps I became too accustomed to the high rate, but it's not realistic for me to be paid so much more than the other contractors here.

We discussed rate cuts of anywhere from 10% to 50%. I can deal with 20% but I will change to an almost 100% WFH model. If the contract runs the full 12 months I am looking to MVL and take things from there. I'm a bit young to fully retire and it's never great to have to take a step back but other doors will open. In the meantime I do have other sources of income.

[billybiro]

Thanks JB.

He's on my ignore list because I don't have time deal with ignorant/trolling comments.

The rate cut is not the purpose of this thread but for those who are interested:

A 20% cut is of course a kick in the teeth but I've been an on "emergency" rate for the past couple of years because they needed me to stop the business going under when no one else could deal with the systems. Perhaps I became too accustomed to the high rate, but it's not realistic for me to be paid so much more than the other contractors here.

We discussed rate cuts of anywhere from 10% to 50%. I can deal with 20% but I will change to an almost 100% WFH model. If the contract runs the full 12 months I am looking to MVL and take things from there. I'm a bit young to fully retire and it's never great to have to take a step back but other doors will open. In the meantime I do have other sources of income.

You're grossly underselling yourself here.

... it's not realistic for me to be paid so much more than the other contractors here ...

But...

... they needed me to stop the business going under when no one else could deal with the systems ...

I'd argue that you absolutely are more valuable than the "other contractors" and it's entirely realistic for you to be paid more as your remuneration is reflecting your value to the company (which should obviously be very, very high since you've stopped them going under).

If I were in this position, having previously and single-handedly saved a company from going under and continued to be a valuable resource going forward, I'd be expecting at least the same rate, if not negotiating for something higher.

[ChimpMaster]

You're grossly underselling yourself here.

But...

I'd argue that you absolutely are more valuable than the "other contractors" and it's entirely realistic for you to be paid more as your remuneration is reflecting your value to the company (which should obviously be very, very high since you've stopped them going under).

If I were in this position, having previously and single-handedly saved a company from going under and continued to be a valuable resource going forward, I'd be expecting at least the same rate, if not negotiating for something higher.

Thanks Billy, indeed it's a tough one. I had negotiated a 50% increase a couple of years ago (I've been here a while ) due to the situation you describe so well. So I'm looking at this objectively.

But it's not just about percentages, it's about the £. What's the rate that defines a "very, very high value" as you put it above? Again, it's subjective and will vary by client/industry/contractor. Some people want £1k/day whilst others will see £500/day as a lot.

BTW I didn't save the company single-handedly


I used both hands.

[SlipTheJab]

+1 Agree with that, its not just about the headline rate. I've just turned down an extension for a new gig paying 10% less, reason? it halves my commute, gets me exposure to new tech and I get to WFH 3 days a week

[billybiro]

Thanks Billy, indeed it's a tough one. I had negotiated a 50% increase a couple of years ago (I've been here a while ) due to the situation you describe so well. So I'm looking at this objectively.

But it's not just about percentages, it's about the £. What's the rate that defines a "very, very high value" as you put it above? Again, it's subjective and will vary by client/industry/contractor. Some people want £1k/day whilst others will see £500/day as a lot.

BTW I didn't save the company single-handedly


I used both hands.

Totally appreciate that the actual £ value in these situations is entirely subjective and will vary from client to client, but in your specific case you've been paid £x (whatever x is) and you are (or definitely should be) very highly valued to the client. The client has been happy to pay you £x for (as you've pointed out) at least a couple of years now therefore, unless the client is genuinely suddenly strapped for cash, any attempt to reduce £x at this stage has got to be seen as (at least) a slight insult as for the last two years, in the client's eyes, your "value" to them has been £x - the rate you're currently getting.

Let's put it the other way. Let's say client wants to renew you at the same rate you're on now and you decide, "Ok, Mr. Client, I'll accept renewal at same rate but from now on, I'm only going to to 50% of the work just because. Ok?" How would the client feel about this? If the client wouldn't be perfectly happy with this, then neither should you be perfectly happy with them trying to reduce a rate that they've been happily paying for the last two years.

[psychocandy]

Someone remind me why a client would want you to own the company 100%?

None of their business how I structure my company. I'd get that out for a start. Maybe tell them you'll sign if the MD only wears red socks to work every day.

20% cut, and fannying about with the contract. hmmm. I'd have to be desperate to stay there....