Jump to content

George Hirst Saga..


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Dirkster said:

No one on here knows the nature of what's gone on in the negotiations; what's been said and how each side has acted in those discussions. The player might have said I'm off now come what may. Final; end of discussions. That might be why the club is investing more in the other developing players hence GH being left out of things. We just don't know. 

 

Then why don't we just loan him out? Since he'd be on his current contract then the borrowing club would only have to pay his current salary. If he scores goals and does well it can only boost what compensation we would be due should he go to another English club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Xxxxxxxxcxcc
6 minutes ago, cowl said:

 

Then why don't we just loan him out? Since he'd be on his current contract then the borrowing club would only have to pay his current salary. If he scores goals and does well it can only boost what compensation we would be due should he go to another English club.

It may be that clubs are baulking at paying even his current salary. I have no idea what he's paid at the moment though.  I would agree with your second point . This may be more about money though. We don't know.

Edited by Xxxxxxxxcxcc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dirkster said:

It may be that clubs are baulking at paying even his salary. I would agree with your second point . This may be more about money though. We don't know.

 

They're not baulking at his current salary though. Some were baulking however at the salary they would have to pay him should he sign his new contract (Notts County, for example).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Xxxxxxxxcxcc
Just now, BIG D said:

Does the fact that we've turned down £2M come into play if we get compensation?

Probably a factor but I understand that it doesn't guarantee anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Xxxxxxxxcxcc
Just now, cowl said:

 

They're not baulking at his current salary though. Some were baulking however at the salary they would have to pay him should he sign his new contract (Notts County, for example).

That would make sense to be fair. Which other clubs offered to pay his current salary? I suspect there are reason's from the club's side that go beyond money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dirkster said:

That would make sense to be fair. Which other clubs offered to pay his current salary? I suspect there are reason's from the club's side that go beyond money.

 

Rotherham and Chesterfield at least. There may be others, and I would be surprised if there weren't.

 

I did read somewhere once that Rotherham were prepared also to pay his salary even if it was that of his new contract, but who knows whether that's true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Xxxxxxxxcxcc
Just now, cowl said:

 

Rotherham and Chesterfield at least. There may be others, and I would be surprised if there weren't.

 

I did read somewhere once that Rotherham were prepared also to pay his salary even if it was that of his new contract, but who knows whether that's true.

As I said I suspect that there's more to this whole business than just money though no doubt that's where the roots are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Hillsborough Mole

Clubs don't pay the players salary. They remain employed by the club that holds their registration.

 

Clubs pay a loan fee. That fee doesnt necessarily reflect the players salary - it can be more or less. The fee is determined by the club. The player is effectively invoiced out to the loaning club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dirkster said:

As I said I suspect that there's more to this whole business than just money though no doubt that's where the roots are.

 

There's clearly something missing that we don't know; something that precipitated DC's decision to prevent Hirst from playing.

 

We don't know what this is, but we can answer for ourselves what we would consider that event may have been such that we would then say DC's response is understandable and appropriate. I get stuck here because I can't think of anything (within the realms of a negotiation) that I would say would render DC's response appropriate.

 

Of course, at this point, you may be lead to think that on the balance of probabilities, DC's response may simply be inappropriate, which is where I am on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hillsborough Mole said:

Clubs don't pay the players salary. They remain employed by the club that holds their registration.

 

Clubs pay a loan fee. That fee doesnt necessarily reflect the players salary - it can be more or less. The fee is determined by the club. The player is effectively invoiced out to the loaning club.

 

But DC has said that he won't loan out players unless the borrowing club pay all the player's wages.

 

However it is put through the books, the player's wages will be effectively payed by the borrowing club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Hillsborough Mole
Just now, cowl said:

 

But DC has said that he won't loan out players unless the borrowing club pay all the player's wages.

 

However it is put through the books, the player's wages will be effectively payed by the borrowing club.

Or the club can invoice MORE than the players salary

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Xxxxxxxxcxcc
4 minutes ago, Hillsborough Mole said:

Clubs don't pay the players salary. They remain employed by the club that holds their registration.

 

Clubs pay a loan fee. That fee doesnt necessarily reflect the players salary - it can be more or less. The fee is determined by the club. The player is effectively invoiced out to the loaning club.

I think that 'necessarily' is a key word here though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Xxxxxxxxcxcc
18 minutes ago, cowl said:

 

There's clearly something missing that we don't know; something that precipitated DC's decision to prevent Hirst from playing.

 

We don't know what this is, but we can answer for ourselves what we would consider that event may have been such that we would then say DC's response is understandable and appropriate. I get stuck here because I can't think of anything (within the realms of a negotiation) that I would say would render DC's response appropriate.

 

Of course, at this point, you may be lead to think that on the balance of probabilities, DC's response may simply be inappropriate, which is where I am on this.

I can but stating on here would just open up a can of worms as some might choose to interpret it as fact though I will suggest that it could be words/behaviour within actual discussions or even outside the face to face discussions.

I respect your view and that might be the case. I'm not confident either way personally. The snippets leaking out from the player's 'side' is at best 'unfortunate' in my opinion though. 

Edited by Xxxxxxxxcxcc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dirkster said:

I can but stating on here just opens up a can of worms as some would interpret it as fact though it could be words/behaviour within actual discussions or even outside the face to face discussions.

I respect your view and that might be the case. I'm not confident either way personally. The snippets leaking out from the player's 'side' is at best 'unfortunate' in my opinion though. 

 

I can think of examples that would make DC's response understandable; if, for example, Hirst, or anyone from his 'side', started being verbally abusive - and this is purely an example (and I would imagine unlikely) - then you could say that DC's response to prevent him from playing is understandable (at least in a ***-for-tat sense), but I still wouldn't say that it was appropriate.

 

And since 'appropriate' in this case would imply 'understandable', then the main criteria here ought to be that it can merely be said to be appropriate for it also to be understandable, and indeed, acceptable. Furthermore, if this is the case, then DC ought to think seriously about giving his version of events, since this matter will continue to dog him.

 

As for the snippets coming from the Hirst camp, only the ones that preceded DC preventing him from playing would I consider to be bad form - but I don't believe there are any of those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, cowl said:

 

Rotherham and Chesterfield at least. There may be others, and I would be surprised if there weren't.

 

I did read somewhere once that Rotherham were prepared also to pay his salary even if it was that of his new contract, but who knows whether that's true.

Would make sense, ties in with what was said back in August as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...