Ask The Chairman Part 13 - GEORGE HIRST

[SiJ]

13 minutes ago, Mrmason69 said:

Good for Georgie. If a player as potentially good as him cant get into a Wednesdays first team then it's time to quit the game and fry burgers. 

Hirst will never get anywhere at a second rate outfit like wednesday. Let's not pretend wednesday are anything but second rate. The whole structure wreaks of amateurism. 

George had no ftutue with a control freak like CC. Who was the last player wednesday Brought through the ranks? 

I don't know why they bother with a youth team set up. Itw a waste of money. 

Yes I am being brutal about the set up at Hillsborough. I am just being honest. 

Blaming the agents is about as honest as cc blaming the referees every single match for yet another Wednesday failure. 

It's always somebody else's fault at Hillsborough. 

Wednesday are squarely to blame for Hirst leaving. 

Let's face it. The only way he's going to bring his vast  potential to fruition is by getting away from wednesday ASAP. 

BTW wednesday tried to sign Liverpools Welsh wonderkid on loan. 

And he's not in the same class as Hirst. So wednesday want to send Hirst out to the lower league zombies whilst signing a Liverpool youth player for a place in the first team. 

What message has that sent to Hirst. 

Only one. 

Leave 

Well done wednesday. Your weird  up  and craving for power and control lhas driven away a young player with the potential to be one of the very best in the Premier league. 

Haven't we brought through Dawson, Wildsmith and Palmer? 

 

Good rant though. 

[WhiteOwl91]

10 minutes ago, Mrmason69 said:

Good for Georgie. If a player as potentially good as him cant get into a Wednesdays first team then it's time to quit the game and fry burgers. 

Hirst will never get anywhere at a second rate outfit like wednesday. Let's not pretend wednesday are anything but second rate. The whole structure wreaks of amateurism. 

George had no ftutue with a control freak like CC. Who was the last player wednesday Brought through the ranks? 

I don't know why they bother with a youth team set up. Itw a waste of money. 

Yes I am being brutal about the set up at Hillsborough. I am just being honest. 

Blaming the agents is about as honest as cc blaming the referees every single match for yet another Wednesday failure. 

It's always somebody else's fault at Hillsborough. 

Wednesday are squarely to blame for Hirst leaving. 

Let's face it. The only way he's going to bring his vast  potential to fruition is by getting away from wednesday ASAP. 

BTW wednesday tried to sign Liverpools Welsh wonderkid on loan. 

And he's not in the same class as Hirst. So wednesday want to send Hirst out to the lower league zombies whilst signing a Liverpool youth player for a place in the first team. 

What message has that sent to Hirst. 

Only one. 

Leave 

Well done wednesday. Your weird  up  and craving for power and control lhas driven away a young player with the potential to be one of the very best in the Premier league. 

Last player swfc promoted? Cameron Dawson and Joe Wildsmith.

 

And sorry liverpools Welsh wonderkid (fully capped and scored in a Euro qualifier) isn't better than Hirst who hasn't made a first team league start?

 

I despair.

[SiJ]

I wouldn't worry about it. 

 

Mrmason69 sorts of rants and raves like Abe Simpson. 

[Inspector Lestrade]

1 minute ago, Hillsborough Mole said:

 

To be fair - quite a lot of it makes sense.

 

Wednesday arent even in the top half of Championship academies for developing youth players. Leeds have developed 19 that are currently playing in the Championship or above. (8 of them in the Premiership)

 

Yeah, I know, but his/her post comes across as another way of sticking the boot into the club.. becoming very fashionable nowadays.  Every single thing which the club releases to the fans is sized upon to find ways of hurting the club.

 

DC has hardly got his feet under the table, there were twenty years of underfunding before DC took over it's going to a be few years before our academy bares fruit.  DC has to be patient and... so do the fans.

[darra]

1 minute ago, SiJ said:

Haven't we brought through Dawson, Wildsmith and Palmer? 

 

Good rant though. 

TBF we didn't really have an academy until a few years ago

[Inspector Lestrade]

2 minutes ago, Frazzlebeak said:

He very cynically picks the bones out of other posts but offers nothing in return. Don’t sweat it.

 

I'm cynical? Oh, the irony!

 

All I ask is that people back up their assertions with facts not feelings and reading between the lines.  

 

I bet you don't dare say 'Wednesday till I die'.

 

 

[cowl]

3 minutes ago, Dirkster said:

I don't discount the sequence of events and thank you (genuinely)  for the timeline. It may indeed well be that GH was omitted from selection for those two games because of the acrimonious state of the negotiations.  Simply assuming it was a sign or don't play ultimatum is just that.... assumption; however strongly you personally feel about it (your prerogative). Most probably the final and more permanent nail being driven after the complete breakdown of negotiations. 

 

I still have no problem in the clubs actions based on what I've heard and read. 

 

But what was acrimonious about the negotiations at that point? Describing them as acrimonious is an assumption, is it not? As is describing the negotiations at that point as already being in a state of 'complete breakdown'.

 

These are indeed assumptions and by making them you seem to be providing a motive for DC preventing Hirst from playing. Make these assumptions - but what is there to support the notion that the negotiations were already acrimonious before DC took the decision to prevent Hirst from playing? And if those things could be dated to a point before DC stopped Hirst playing, can they be considered to have been a sufficient reason? There's a description of one situation: "...another party close to George who used unacceptable foul and abusive language to a senior member of our academy staff". I suppose we can guess who that was! There's not much to suggest when this took place - although, I'd lean towards it taking place after Hirst was prevented from playing because that that would provide a reason why the altercation took place, which isn't particularly compelling, I know, but in any case, I'd wonder whether this would really be sufficient reason. To punish GH for something that someone 'close' to him did hardly seems fair. So, what else makes you reason your way towards the assumption that negotiations were already at a stage of 'complete breakdown' at the time that DC took the decision to prevent Hirst from playing?

 

You are quick to point out any assumption that I've made as though making an assumption at all immediately invalidates anything that follows. Each time I've provided reasons for why I'm making the assumption; but now, you're suggesting that I'm making an assumption that Hirst would interpret his omission as an ultimatum. Come on! That is utterly ridiculous! CC has previously said that it was the case, DC is also saying it today, and it was rumoured to be so at the time. It's also quite simply not reasonable to suppose that even in the unlikely event that Hirst wasn't told why he was being omitted, that he wouldn't himself 'assume' precisely what the reason is - and, of course, he would've been right, as has been confirmed today.

[Frazzlebeak]

2 minutes ago, Watson said:

 

I'm cynical? Oh, the irony!

 

All I ask is that people back up their assertions with facts not feelings and reading between the lines.  

 

I bet you don't dare say 'Wednesday till I die'.

 

 

But you have “ no comment” 

[Inspector Lestrade]

1 minute ago, Frazzlebeak said:

But you have “ no comment” 

 

And I win my bet ... you owe me £50

[Guest RocketOwl]

8 hours ago, @owlstalk said:

 

In the final part of our extensive Q&A with the chairman, Mr Chansiri addresses the George Hirst situation and the prospect of an in-house Ladies team.

There is a lot of speculation about the situation of George Hirst. Could you provide supporters with an update from the club’s perspective?

 

My belief is that the majority of issues at a football club should be kept in-house but sometimes there is so much talk and speculation outside that we must tell our side of the story.

 

A lot of rumour and continued untrue speculation can be damaging so we are left with no choice but to set the record straight. 

 

We have tried over and over again to negotiate to extend the contract of George Hirst but each offer has been turned down. We were categorically informed just before the closure of the transfer window in August 2017 that “George will not be signing a new deal at the club.”

 

Coincidentally, the notification that George would not be signing for SWFC came just over an hour after we had turned down an offer from a Premier League club for the permanent transfer of George’s registration.

 

Of course, this made us wonder if there were talks taking place with regards to George’s future which we were not party to. Two other clubs had also showed an interest in the permanent transfer of George during the summer transfer window, one being a nearby rival in the Championship. 

Going right back to when George came through our academy, he did very well and fully earned his first professional contract which was arranged as soon as he was legally able to enter into a professional agreement. This contract runs until June 2018.

 

Offering professional contracts to our young players not only recognises their achievements but also gives them an incentive to further progress on and off the pitch.

 

In George’s case, he signed and went on to do well for the Under-18s and Under-23s, scoring a lot of goals, so we wished to open discussions on a new, longer term contract prior to the transfer window in January 2017.

 

Our offer broke our current salary structure for the Development Squad on a level never previously matched. We have policies in place to ensure continuity throughout the squad and fairness to all players at pre-first team level.

 

The reason we broke our structure was based on appreciation of the promising signs that George was showing and in recognition of his hard work and achievements for the Under-23s and England team at youth level. Our policy is based on basic salary but as with all development players is enhanced with bonuses subject to the player participating in first team matches. 

Our offer to George was declined by the player’s advisors and when we asked them to submit a proposal to us, we found they were requesting the basic salary of an established first team player at our club, plus completely unrealistic bonuses, clauses and add-ons. We therefore had no choice but to decline this proposal, not because of the money, but in the interests of fairness and squad morale.

 

Although negotiations were proving difficult I did not close the door because that is never my style as chairman. More discussions were held over a period of time and we increased our offer to make this contract by far the most lucrative of its kind in our club’s history.

 

The decision was made that subject to George extending his contract with SWFC we would help source a loan move to a League One or League Two club to help him gain first team experience.

 

This is the best way that young players can develop and gain physical and mental strength, the gulf between Under-18s football and first team Championship football is enormous and such a jump could ultimately set a player back if they are not ready for the competition we face in the Championship. 

Of the numerous League One and Two clubs interested in potentially loaning George, even with our more realistic sums proposed in the contract offer, all but one were very quickly out of the running due to these clubs simply not being able to pay these levels of salary.

 

The loan club remaining was itself willing to break their own wage structure to enable the temporary transfer but when George did not sign with SWFC the move could not materialise. We then received an unwelcome ultimatum from his agents insisting we sell George if a loan move was not forthcoming.

 

As a club, we respect every player’s right to choose his own career path, but I have to question the advice George has received from his agents and other advisors. I am not pleased with how they have conducted themselves throughout this process.

 

Even now, we are still awaiting the courtesy of a reply to two separate communications, the second of which was sent over three weeks ago. We have simply asked for a meeting to discuss the situation and see if we can find some common ground to resolve this situation satisfactorily for all parties. Unfortunately, they are now unwilling to even talk.

 

 

We must channel our time, commitment and resource into those young players who want to prosper at Sheffield Wednesday. The whole situation involving George’s advisors has been disruptive, as was another party close to George who used unacceptable foul and abusive language to a senior member of our academy staff.

 

Regarding interest from other clubs in George, as previously stated, we did receive offers from the Premier League and another club nearby in the Championship in the most recent transfer windows. But these bids, on all levels, were not in the best interests of our club and were dismissed. In addition, agreeing to sell George, or any player, in these circumstances would send out the wrong message to all players in all age groups at Sheffield Wednesday.

 

As far as we are concerned, we have tried our best and we are disappointed but it seems there is little more we can do to keep George at Sheffield Wednesday. Ultimately, we are a team on and off the pitch, we all help each other. If we allow an agent or advisor to disturb what we have in place then they will be bigger than the club, which will never happen under my chairmanship.

We will provide a further update should there be any significant developments in due course.

 

 

Agree with everything he said it's just a shame they didn't take this on board when handing a big contract to Fletcher and seemingly then sending FF into a sulk.

[Ian]

1 hour ago, ashamanic said:

Unreasonable base salary and unreasonable bonuses?

it would be interesting if they came out and said what was being asked, but it isn’t in either party’s interests.

Bonus for first team appearances and goals seems pretty reasonable, and only likely to apply if he makes it, so pro a Lu not that, but maybe they were wanting a bound for England call ups/appearances/goals?

Bonuses for goals are never reasonable in my book.....call ups for England are much more so

[Guest timrud]

Even now, we are still awaiting the courtesy of a reply to two separate communications, the second of which was sent over three weeks ago. We have simply asked for a meeting to discuss the situation and see if we can find some common ground to resolve this situation satisfactorily for all parties. Unfortunately, they are now unwilling to even talk.

 

This is not the club being stubborn.

[crookesowl]

I can see both sides of this one. DC is absolutely right to stand his ground as he did and it sounds like he did everything he thought was fair, and some. 

 

But at the same time I can imagine GH would have been concerned about what sort of opportunity he would get at Hillsborough. Money aside, he knows he will get a deal and possibly a break in the PL very soon if he doesn’t sign a contract. 

 

I feel this is now beyond repair for GH’s future at Hillsborough, and the club won’t get much for him now. Maybe money won. Maybe it was about football. 

 

We need to move on. 

 

In Big Dave we trust. 

 

 

[Frazzlebeak]

4 minutes ago, Watson said:

 

And I win my bet ... you owe me £50

Don’t remember that. Back it up with some facts old boy.

[Jennz]

8 hours ago, full fathom five said:

Agreed pal, I'll wait until the dust eventually settles on this one before making any judgement other than at present neither side come out of it very well.

 

Why aren't the club coming out of it well at present?....if Chansiri's version is correct & it seems like it is to me than what else could they have done or do.

[darra]

2 minutes ago, Ian said:

Bonuses for goals are never reasonable in my book.....call ups for England are much more so

Why. Surely goals are more important to the club than international caps

[Inspector Lestrade]

Just now, Frazzlebeak said:

Don’t remember that. Back it up with some facts old boy.

 

 

I have to use facts to show that you can't remember???  

 

Are you insane man? Or just a pig ignorant?

[WatfordOwl]

8 hours ago, @owlstalk said:

What if they weren't berating the club but instead have the story from the other side that might show the club differently to Mr Chansiri's explanation?

That would then be a side of a story worth listening to................

 

Maybe I'm naive about this as well but the fact George hasn't come out and said he wants to stay with us (or if he has I've missed it) speaks more to me than anything else.

 

Like Mr C's chairman states 'Even now, we are still awaiting the courtesy of a reply to two separate communications, the second of which was sent over three weeks ago.' - surely if George and his representatives wanted to sort this out there's an olive branch being offered here is there not?

 

Perhap's the club need to learn about how they handle these types of situations moving forwards but I also agree with not being bullied by into paying over the odds for what is after all 'potential'.

[darra]

2 minutes ago, crookesowl said:

I can see both sides of this one. DC is absolutely right to stand his ground as he did and it sounds like he did everything he thought was fair, and some. 

 

But at the same time I can imagine GH would have been concerned about what sort of opportunity he would get at Hillsborough. Money aside, he knows he will get a deal and possibly a break in the PL very soon if he doesn’t sign a contract. 

 

I feel this is now beyond repair for GH’s future at Hillsborough, and the club won’t get much for him now. Maybe money won. Maybe it was about football. 

 

We need to move on. 

 

In Big Dave we trust. 

 

 

Not disputing that but a panel of pundits were saying on the radio the other night that youth players are getting little or no opportunities of first team football especially in the premiership. Yes a few (Rashford Lingard) do get a start but as a % of players available thats miniscule

[Frazzlebeak]

1 minute ago, Watson said:

 

 

I have to use facts to show that you can't remember???  

 

Are you insane man? Or just a pig ignorant?

So you’re really just another name calling clapper. I see now. Thank you.