George Hirst Saga..

[MAL]

1 minute ago, cowl 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.

 

I don't know what DC is thinking, nor do you.

 

I don't know what GH is thinking, nor do you.

 

Borrowing clubs were prepared to pay his wages, do you know which clubs?

 

Did he want to go to these clubs, no point if he has said i am not going out on loan to these clubs, or even go out on loan at all?

 

 

[cowl]

Just now, MAL said:

 

I don't know what DC is thinking, nor do you.

 

I don't know what GH is thinking, nor do you.

 

Borrowing clubs were prepared to pay his wages, do you know which clubs?

 

Did he want to go to these clubs, no point if he has said i am not going out on loan to these clubs, or even go out on loan at all?

 

 

 

Rotherham, Chesterfield, and Notts County at least. County weren't prepared to pay what would be the wages of his new contract, and I've read before that Rotherham were still prepared to pay the wages of his new contract.

[MAL]

Doesn't matter if they were going to pay triple his wages, if he doesn't want to go, he won't go.

[cowl]

8 minutes ago, MAL said:

Doesn't matter if they were going to pay triple his wages, if he doesn't want to go, he won't go.

 

Why on earth wouldn't he want to go?!

[darra]

1 hour ago, cowl said:

 

Why on earth wouldn't he want to go?!

Why on earth wouldn't he want to sign his new contract? Contracts aren't worth the paper their written on these days if a player wants to move. 

[cowl]

Just now, darra said:

Why on earth wouldn't he want to sign his new contract? Contracts aren't worth the paper their written on these days if a player wants to move. 

 

Because he thinks he can better elsewhere, presumably.

[cowl]

11 hours ago, Sonny said:

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.

 

Let's be right though here, this will most probably have happened for the simple reason that it happens all the time. It's only natural for someone to want to know what else is out there, irrespective of their profession. In fact, for players over 24 they're allowed to talk to other clubs once they've entered the last half year or so of their contract. That this isn't mirrored for players younger than 24 hardly makes it reasonable then that a club should come down like a tonne of bricks on a player under 24 who does speak to other clubs whilst under contract.

 

It's obviously frustrating for any club if they're being priced out of agreeing a contract with a player, but what a reaction by the club! Is everyone genuinely okay that the club would take such punitive measures against a player merely because they want more than we are prepared to offer? It's an over-reaction to a commonplace scenario in an employment contract negotiation that the prospective employee will have a notion of what their value is in the job market, and that they'll use this knowledge to drive up the offer from the prospective employer.

 

I don't expect anyone to feel sorry for George Hirst. I certainly don't. By next summer he'll sign a contract somewhere that'll no doubt put him on very good money. But the bigger issue for me here is how we've dealt with this situation. We seemingly reach an impasse in a contract negotiation, and we then take actions which almost certainly see to it that there'll never be an agreement despite the fact that there's almost a whole year of his contract still to run. There were other options to keep this 'alive'. We could have sent him out on loan anyway, as there's no reason to make sending him out on loan contingent upon him signing a new contract, we could have saved that gambit for January (as we did with Palmer a few years ago), and in the meantime send him out on loan somewhere until January.

 

Of course there's a concern that should another youngster reject a contract offer from us we would handle it in the same way because should another youngster reject a contract offer from us it'll be most likely because they have an idea of what they can get elsewhere, i.e., an idea that they "shouldn't" have. I've no confidence that the same inputs won't produce the same outputs with DC. He's not adapted to the outcry over the stripes, he's not adapted to the outcry over the matchday ticket prices, and he's not adapted to the criticism over the corporate boxes.

[Sonny]

All reasonable, but the point was that you don’t know what has influenced the decisions of either side. You can’t have any confidence in the same inputs producing different outputs because you don’t know what the inputs are. That’s really the only ‘let’s be right’ about it.

[Guest Xxxxxxxxcxcc]

13 hours ago, Sonny said:

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.

Agreed and that is just one potential reason for the club's hard stance. Some assume that it is the club that has burnt bridges. It could just as easily have been the player/representatives that burnt bridges with the club. Some assume that the club's action will have stymied any chance whatsoever of agreement on a new contract. It is entirely feasible that this happened as a result of player/advisers action before then. We don't know. 

 

The club might take the view, as has been suggested by others, that it is now best utilising development resources including playing time on players that appear to be committed to the club beyond next summer.

 

Loaning out is an option but if the player struggles as often happens with youngsters in the senior game then rather than increase his value it could diminish it..... and that's without factoring in potential serious injury occurring whilst on loan. In short the club might just be protecting its own interests as it best sees fit.

 

If the club has broken any employment laws or contravened any FA rules then it'll be brought to book. I have no worries personally regarding the club's action(s) on ethical or moral grounds based on the hard facts currently in the public domain.

 

Whether the club's strategy proves to be prudent will become evident only with the passage of time and even then it'll be open to subjective opinions surrounding things such as compensation payment(s) including sell on fees offset against the career George eventually carves out for himself and there are no guarantees there. 

 

It appears that George sees his future elsewhere and will most likely exercise his right to seek pastures new at the end of his contract. Good luck to him. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 1, 2017 by Xxxxxxxxcxcc

[markowl]

5 minutes ago, Smegheadowl said:

Just offer him 4k a week and have done with it, then loan him out.

[markowl]

Just now, Smegheadowl said:

It wasn't a joke.

I know...

 

[markowl]

14 minutes ago, Smegheadowl said:

Why you laughing then.

Because what you suggested was funny 

[markowl]

1 minute ago, Smegheadowl said:

Why's that then.

Well for a start you don't know how much  he has been offered. For all you know the club might have offered him ten grand a week already.

 

Plus, if they haven't, and we do whst you suggest, what's to stop every other youth player expecting 4 grand a week if George is getting it?

[darra]

32 minutes ago, Smegheadowl said:

Just offer him 4k a week and have done with it, then loan him out.

Depending on who you believe he's been offered more than double that and turned it down 

[Guest Hillsborough Mole]

15 minutes ago, markowl said:

Well for a start you don't know how much  he has been offered. For all you know the club might have offered him ten grand a week already.

 

Plus, if they haven't, and we do whst you suggest, what's to stop every other youth player expecting 4 grand a week if George is getting it?

 

 

What's to stop every first team player wanting £65k a week if Rhodes is getting it?

[Bladeor]

Heard we are interested at Bramall Lane. Sounds like he'd be decent back up. 

[cowl]

43 minutes ago, Sonny said:

All reasonable, but the point was that you don’t know what has influenced the decisions of either side. You can’t have any confidence in the same inputs producing different outputs because you don’t know what the inputs are. That’s really the only ‘let’s be right’ about it.

 

There seems to be an aversion here to go beyond any of the facts that we know for certain, which on the face of it seems reasonable, but upon inspection, it seems heavily biased towards an assumption that DC can't have done anything wrong here and so therefore there must be something missing. Something that would cast a reasonable light on why DC has prevented the lad from playing.

 

I am certainly concerned that there actually are no other missing factors that would show that DC has behaved reasonably by preventing the lad from playing. You suggested one - that Hirst's side may have spoken already to other clubs. I don't think this alone would justify DC's reaction, and if you still think it does well we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. If you also think Hirst's side talking to other clubs wouldn't justify DC's reaction, then perhaps you can reasonably suggest something that Hirst's side may have done that would.

[theowlsman]

Has he signed yet Dad?

[Road Runner]

1 minute ago, Bladeor said:

Heard we are interested at Bramall Lane. Sounds like he'd be decent back up. 

 

 

You're skint though. 

[Sonny]

12 minutes ago, cowl said:

 

There seems to be an aversion here to go beyond any of the facts that we know for certain, which on the face of it seems reasonable, but upon inspection, it seems heavily biased towards an assumption that DC can't have done anything wrong here and so therefore there must be something missing. Something that would cast a reasonable light on why DC has prevented the lad from playing.

 

I am certainly concerned that there actually are no other missing factors that would show that DC has behaved reasonably by preventing the lad from playing. You suggested one - that Hirst's side may have spoken already to other clubs. I don't think this alone would justify DC's reaction, and if you still think it does well we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. If you also think Hirst's side talking to other clubs wouldn't justify DC's reaction, then perhaps you can reasonably suggest something that Hirst's side may have done that would.

 

I’d say it’s actually heavily biased towards an assumption that DC has done something wrong. I’m simply saying you don’t know and I’m saying that because you don’t know.