George Hirst Saga..

[Geoffrey]

53 minutes ago, darra said:

 Happens all the time.

No it doesn't. The other 91 clubs don't stop their prospects training with their peers and playing football for a full season.

[darra]

20 minutes ago, Geoffrey said:

No it doesn't. The other 91 clubs don't stop their prospects training with their peers and playing football for a full season.

If they are saying they want to leave at the end of the season or before they probably do

[S6 Lifelong Owl]

The only person preventing George Hirst from playing for the club is......

George Hirst. I understand that he has turned down a very generous contract for an unproven youngster and whilst in dispute with the club he is not aĺlowed to represent the Club. I also understand that the Club have bent over backwards to try and keep him but his demands are totally unreasonable .imo he's been got at by his dad and unscrupulous agents.

[cowl]

6 minutes ago, S6 Lifelong Owl said:

The only person preventing George Hirst from playing for the club is......

George Hirst. I understand that he has turned down a very generous contract for an unproven youngster and whilst in dispute with the club he is not aĺlowed to represent the Club. I also understand that the Club have bent over backwards to try and keep him but his demands are totally unreasonable .imo he's been got at by his dad and unscrupulous agents.

 

Nope, pretty sure it's actually the club that's preventing him from playing.

 

I suppose this "sit on your arse then" ultimatum works when it's Coutinho (contracted till 2022) or van Dijk (contracted till 2020), because although it'd be unlikely that their clubs would genuinely be prepared to miss out on the massive trading profits that their sales would guarantee, there's nevertheless enough bite in their threat to force a player to come to their senses. But there isn't in ours. Hirst will sit things out while next summer, sign for another club and get on with a career that will be as great or as so-so as it probably was ever going to be.

[S6 Lifelong Owl]

9 minutes ago, cowl said:

 

Nope, pretty sure it's actually the club that's preventing him from playing.

 

I suppose this "sit on your arse then" ultimatum works when it's Coutinho (contracted till 2022) or van Dijk (contracted till 2020), because although it'd be unlikely that their clubs would genuinely be prepared to miss out on the massive trading profits that their sales would guarantee, there's nevertheless enough bite in their threat to force a player to come to their senses. But there isn't in ours. Hirst will sit things out while next summer, sign for another club and get on with a career that will be as great or as so-so as it probably was ever going to be.

Well by not signing his more than generous contract he is surely indicating that has no intention of staying with us so be it. 

 

[cowl]

15 minutes ago, S6 Lifelong Owl said:

Well by not signing his more than generous contract he is surely indicating that has no intention of staying with us so be it.

 

Do you honestly think this is the way the club should proceed from now on with any player that despite having a year left on their contract have expressed that they wish to see their contract out and move on? The last of year of their contract we essentially pay them to just sit on their arse.

 

I'd love to know how this even helps us. The kid was probably going to go, and now he'll definitely go, and on bad terms too, not to mention the bad press that'll be generated from it. Well played, DC, I can see you used all your experience in the world of football there.

[Sonny]

Depends on how negotiations have gone. You make the mistake of assuming it’s a simple case of... Last year of contract > Offer new contract > Reject new contract > Not allowed to play... and so the situation would be replicated with any youngster who rejects. This takes no account of any tactics that may have been employed which have aggravated the situation, like talking to other clubs whilst under contract, for example.

[Jennz]

3 hours ago, cowl said:

 

Do you honestly think this is the way the club should proceed from now on with any player that despite having a year left on their contract have expressed that they wish to see their contract out and move on? The last of year of their contract we essentially pay them to just sit on their arse.

 

I'd love to know how this even helps us. The kid was probably going to go, and now he'll definitely go, and on bad terms too, not to mention the bad press that'll be generated from it. Well played, DC, I can see you used all your experience in the world of football there.

 

Why do people keep laying blame...no one knows what's happened or been said, certainly no one on here seems to know definitively....until we do, which will probably be January IF anyone decides to tell us can't we just wait & see.

 

One thing I'm fairly sure about is that if George wasn't David's son it wouldn't have caused half the commotion it has....do we deserve to know all the ins & outs of it as fans, I'm not sure but purely from the point of view of being nosey I hope someone can tell us at some point.

Edited December 1, 2017 by qantas

[Geoffrey]

11 hours ago, darra said:

If they are saying they want to leave at the end of the season or before they probably do

Other than Sheffield Wednesday, name one club that has prevented a prospect playing for a whole season.

[matthefish2002]

Although I suspect George Hirst and his advisors are asking too much I think preventing him playing is a bit petty.

Even if leaving now at end of season let the lad play and help him in his career. Sends out the wrong message to other parents of talented young footballers that we are not a generous or warm club to play for weather true or not.

[Guest Xxxxxxxxcxcc]

2 hours ago, matthefish2002 said:

Although I suspect George Hirst and his advisors are asking too much I think preventing him playing is a bit petty.

Even if leaving now at end of season let the lad play and help him in his career. Sends out the wrong message to other parents of talented young footballers that we are not a generous or warm club to play for weather true or not.

It would be nice if football could revert to those old good days. The Bosman ruling put the power in the hands of the players (and representatives) and boy are they using this to get their pound of flesh and more. Money flushing out of clubs, the game and into players' (and others') bank accounts. George has possibly turned down money that ordinary folk can only dream about. He's operating in a grown man's world and utilising all the negotiating tools at his disposal. Nothing wrong in that but conversely the club's primary motive now is to protect it's own position not the 'lad's' future career. It would be nice if both were compatible. Some would argue that they are; the club it seems sees it differently. DC's actions ( I'm assuming rightly or wrongly that he is the key driver in this) may, or may not, cost him and the club. That's his prerogative. He's underwriting the bills including wages.

 

With regards to sending messages I'm not sure that many in the game put generosity and warmth above the lure of riches..... possibly not most players/parents/agents. That ship seems to have sailed long ago. I do wonder if the FF incident is having a bearing too; a players who apparently was happy with his contract until another/other was recruited on better terms. There are other talented youngsters at the club. Penney, Preston and Lonchar are seen by some as even better prospects (without the goals or emotive name). One wonders what they or their agents' actions would be if GH secured a contract that made their remuneration look like chicken feed. Actions invariably have reactions/ramifications.

 

 

Edited December 1, 2017 by Xxxxxxxxcxcc

[Corneliusreeve]

3 hours ago, Geoffrey said:

Other than Sheffield Wednesday, name one club that has prevented a prospect playing for a whole season.

Name one that hasn't. 

[BIG D]

11 hours ago, cowl said:

 

Nope, pretty sure it's actually the club that's preventing him from playing.

 

I suppose this "sit on your arse then" ultimatum works when it's Coutinho (contracted till 2022) or van Dijk (contracted till 2020), because although it'd be unlikely that their clubs would genuinely be prepared to miss out on the massive trading profits that their sales would guarantee, there's nevertheless enough bite in their threat to force a player to come to their senses. But there isn't in ours. Hirst will sit things out while next summer, sign for another club and get on with a career that will be as great or as so-so as it probably was ever going to be.

 

Yeah but it’s his ‘dream’ to play for his club. 

[TrickyTrev]

3 hours ago, matthefish2002 said:

Although I suspect George Hirst and his advisors are asking too much I think preventing him playing is a bit petty.

Even if leaving now at end of season let the lad play and help him in his career. Sends out the wrong message to other parents of talented young footballers that we are not a generous or warm club to play for weather true or not.

But surely we'd be better developing another young striker who does want to play for Sheffield Wednesday as opposed to one who doesn't.

 

Playing Hirst in the Under 23's would be taking a place in the side from somebody else, I'd sooner we develop players who want to be here as come next summer (or even after this transfer window) the development of George Hirst will not be our concern.

[matthefish2002]

2 minutes ago, TrickyTrev said:

But surely we'd be better developing another young striker who does want to play for Sheffield Wednesday as opposed to one who doesn't.

 

Playing Hirst in the Under 23's would be taking a place in the side from somebody else, I'd sooner we develop players who want to be here as come next summer (or even after this transfer window) the development of George Hirst will not be our concern.

 

Think that maybe by letting him play there is a chance that him his advisors and the club can find some common ground towards him staying. But now feel there is no good will to find a compromise and he will be off.

Wont know if this is a good decision or not until we see how George Hirst career develops over the next few years.

[Guest Xxxxxxxxcxcc]

23 minutes ago, matthefish2002 said:

 

Think that maybe by letting him play there is a chance that him his advisors and the club can find some common ground towards him staying. But now feel there is no good will to find a compromise and he will be off.

Wont know if this is a good decision or not until we see how George Hirst career develops over the next few years.

This is possible but equally possible too that something went off in the talks that burnt bridges before the current no-play situation and the decision to leave was pretty much made then. The loss of goodwill might have been the cause of the current situation. It may be that something happened that was as unacceptable to the club as the no play situation is to the player. Conjecture either way. 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 1, 2017 by Xxxxxxxxcxcc

[MAL]

12 hours ago, cowl said:

 

Do you honestly think this is the way the club should proceed from now on with any player that despite having a year left on their contract have expressed that they wish to see their contract out and move on? The last of year of their contract we essentially pay them to just sit on their arse.

 

I'd love to know how this even helps us. The kid was probably going to go, and now he'll definitely go, and on bad terms too, not to mention the bad press that'll be generated from it. Well played, DC, I can see you used all your experience in the world of football there.

 

58 minutes ago, TrickyTrev said:

But surely we'd be better developing another young striker who does want to play for Sheffield Wednesday as opposed to one who doesn't.

 

Playing Hirst in the Under 23's would be taking a place in the side from somebody else, I'd sooner we develop players who want to be here as come next summer (or even after this transfer window) the development of George Hirst will not be our concern.

 

[Guest]

This thread is ridiculous 

 

George Hirst does not want to play football for Sheffield Wednesday

[Guest]

Pretty sure he’s got a similar record at youth level to plenty of other lads who never made it in league football, why on earth should we pay him fortunes when he’s proved absolutely nowt at first team level ?   All this pathetic sympathy for the boy is down to his surname and his surname alone 

 

get a grip of yourself George, have a look downstairs find urself a pair of balls and sign a contract to play professional football, if your as good as you and your dad think you are then you big money pay day will arrive regardless , so what exactly are you crying about ? 

[cowl]

1 hour ago, MAL said:

 

 

 

So, you think part of DC's thinking here is that it's so unfair on the other development lads if George Hirst plays instead of them whilstever he won't sign a new contract, and so this is the reason why he's stopped him from playing with the U23s?

 

I doubt this even entered into DC's thinking.

 

Besides, if he was primarily concerned about the development of the younger players then why doesn't he just send Hirst out on loan anyway? Borrowing clubs were prepared to pay his current wages, so problem solved.