Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
@owlstalk

Ask The Chairman Part 13 - GEORGE HIRST

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, darra said:

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

Imagine a scenario where a forward is through on goal with 60% chance of scoring (and earning himself a juicy bonus)... and a colleague to his left who if he passes to will have a 90% chance of scoring.....which option do you want him to take and which option is he incentivised to take?

 

An England call up would undoubtedly inflate any value to the club and therefore why not give him a bonus to reflect that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Often in long protracted statements, its worth noting some of the smaller, more obscure points raised, in order to get in amongst the real stumbling blocks. I raised an eyebrow at the remark re " another person close to George  has used foul and absusive language to a senior  employee of our academy" This on the surface looks out of place and rather low key and normally would have no place in a statement ,about a negotiation process, although it has  obviously become very heated on both sides, unless it is poinient to the nub of the main problem. Who do we think is the culprit in this ? It is very unlikely to be a Doyen representative, because the club deals with them in other capacities and given that they act for so many other players, why would they need to revert to such an unprofessional level on a deal that is relatively small to them ? Who would most likely gain access to to such an employee and BE at the academy?

I have been to a number of after diner speaking events at Hillsborough and listened to David Hirst speak of his "missed opportunity in football" in that he wished that his transfer to Man Utd had taken place and appeared to wear a very big chip on his shoulder that it never happened, for whatever reason. He also often referred to the bad injury that hit his career towards the end.

So I wonder, just wonder mind, how much these things have influenced what father has said to son on transfer matters in football.

I think that DC has taken his bat and ball home, when refusing to play young Hirst. IMO Hirst would have been better off being in the shop window and so would Wednesday when the arbritation fee is set..

Finally, no matter what, no individual....DC,CC.Doyen Rep, Hirst Jnr and Hirst Sr are bigger than our football club....and there will be a tomorrow, with or without Hirst. Bye the way....David Hirst is NOT the greatest legend in Wednesday history.....there are a few ahead of him in that respect. He was a very good Wednesday player however and perhaps the best in more modern times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, cowl said:

 

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.

DC wouldn't have barred GH from playing for the youth teams without strong reasons for doing so, clearly the negotiations must have been acrimonious even if they hadn't officially broken down. Not saying that freezing him out before the end of the transfer window was objectively the right thing to do, as with this whole issue there'll be two sides to the story, but Chansiri wouldn't have taken such a drastic step without strong reasons for doing so.

 

As for punishing GH for actions of others - unfortunately as far as the club are concerned, the actions of GH and his representatives have to be treated as one and the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mattitheowl said:

 

Only problem for GH in that is that his "potential" would be outed.  As it stands he holds all the cards.  He can open a bidding war with 3-4 teams after him and get a contract that will set him up for life (3 years at £10k+ a week, signing on fee etc. should set anyone up for life if they aren't stupid.

 

If he signs with us and goes to Rotherham and isn't the bees knees he's in bother.  A season with a struggling league 1 outfit, not many goals and he comes back here with his potential in tatters.  He then has 2 years (for example) on a big contract where we have to try and ship him out on loan to teams who aren't willing to pay his silly wages so he ends up stuck in our U23's until he gets released aged 20/21.

 

He could demand a £1m signing on fee with another club (if it's a Premiership team that's nothing) and that's that.  He never even has to play football ever again.

I was just going to post the very same thing, that he doesn't want to risk going out on loan in case he doesn't cut it.

 

This may be the advice he's been given get the deal in the bag don't risk it all on a loan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have loved nothing more than see a local lad rise up through the ranks of the club he supported as a kid.  

 

Putting on the famous blue and white stripes, wearing the famous no9 shirt and smashing in hattricks in front of the kop.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Corneliusreeve said:

I was just going to post the very same thing, that he doesn't want to risk going out on loan in case he doesn't cut it.

 

This may be the advice he's been given get the deal in the bag don't risk it all on a loan.

Plus going out on loan puts him at risk of injury

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 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. 

What a load of cobblers 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Whatahoot said:

Often in long protracted statements, its worth noting some of the smaller, more obscure points raised, in order to get in amongst the real stumbling blocks. I raised an eyebrow at the remark re " another person close to George  has used foul and absusive language to a senior  employee of our academy" This on the surface looks out of place and rather low key and normally would have no place in a statement ,about a negotiation process, although it has  obviously become very heated on both sides, unless it is poinient to the nub of the main problem. Who do we think is the culprit in this ? It is very unlikely to be a Doyen representative, because the club deals with them in other capacities and given that they act for so many other players, why would they need to revert to such an unprofessional level on a deal that is relatively small to them ? Who would most likely gain access to to such an employee and BE at the academy?

I have been to a number of after diner speaking events at Hillsborough and listened to David Hirst speak of his "missed opportunity in football" in that he wished that his transfer to Man Utd had taken place and appeared to wear a very big chip on his shoulder that it never happened, for whatever reason. He also often referred to the bad injury that hit his career towards the end.

So I wonder, just wonder mind, how much these things have influenced what father has said to son on transfer matters in football.

I think that DC has taken his bat and ball home, when refusing to play young Hirst. IMO Hirst would have been better off being in the shop window and so would Wednesday when the arbritation fee is set..

Finally, no matter what, no individual....DC,CC.Doyen Rep, Hirst Jnr and Hirst Sr are bigger than our football club....and there will be a tomorrow, with or without Hirst. Bye the way....David Hirst is NOT the greatest legend in Wednesday history.....there are a few ahead of him in that respect. He was a very good Wednesday player however and perhaps the best in more modern times.

Wonder who that was. makes you think that Hirst Sr didn't resign as some have said but he has been asked to leave and not return. Should say is mere conjecture on my part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused. This is Mr. Chansiri's side of the story and lots of people are now asking for George's side of the story. Who's story have we been seeing/reading about on here for the last few months?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Xxxxxxxxcxcc
13 minutes ago, cowl said:

 

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.

I don't know neither do you to the contrary. That's why I said may be. I have used words like maybe and probably because I don't know any more than you do. They weren't assumptions they were presented as possibilities. You interpret things as you feel appropriate as do I. I have seen nothing that proves definitively where the blame (if any) lies. The whole truth is most likely not out. You can provide admittedly articulate arguments from the 'circumstantial evidence' as you see fit. I don't agree with your conclusions nevertheless that's all.

 

I don't say that GH has precipitated this bad situation. I don't say the club or DC have.

 

I've said good luck to GH in his future he's exercised his option to leave by the looks of it. 

 

I repeat that I see nothing wrong in what the club have done on what we know. As I say you can interpret things as you see fit and draw conclusions accordingly. We don't have to agree and clearly we don't. I am happy with the club's conduct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember Hayden White - our last great prospect from the academy - now playing under Big Fat Steve at Mansfield.  OK he wasn't an England Youth star with Premiership clubs sniffing round him but was highly rated by the academy staff.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, rickygoo said:

It may be there isn't another substantially different side - or there are nuances Chansiri's statement doesn't cover.  DC's view doesn't paint a good picture of the Hirst side which may free someone up to tell us stuff if there is an alternative take on this.  This is a PR statement from the club though  - it's not the gospel according to DC. It's a mess whatever. 

 

It's only a mess cos as fans we want the son of a legend to play for us & repeat or better what his father did....if he wasn't David's son this would be of much less interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Redfern Froggatt said:

Remember Hayden White - our last great prospect from the academy - now playing under Big Fat Steve at Mansfield.  OK he wasn't an England Youth star with Premiership clubs sniffing round him but was highly rated by the academy staff.  

 

 

Bang on mate, these people are just wanting to sell something we haven't had the chance to test drive yet, send him on his way and let them mug someone else off.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, darra said:

Wonder who that was. makes you think that Hirst Sr didn't resign as some have said but he has been asked to leave and not return. Should say is mere conjecture on my part.

I seem to remember that Davis Hirst left his academy coaching role, at the request of the club, due to a possible conflict of interest ie Hirst senior acting as an adviser to his son. From that point the relationship between the Club and Hirst Snr, appears to have gone downhill. Beware what comes back to bite yer bum ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Frazzlebeak said:

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

 

I was asking  you questions not name calling. . Peasemore read more carefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love all the comments about record amount being offered. We really know nothing, as with all of these Ask the Chairman parts, it's sound bites to keep people happy. 

 

We don't know what the academy pay is like. If other areas of the club are to go by, it will be what is most beneficial for Chansiris club and not both parties. Anybody can put spin on something. In real world terms; if I walked into a Ferrari dealership earlier and tried to buy one of their cars . My offer broke all my pricing structures for buying a car but they didn't accept it. Other companies would have jumped at the money. Would you berate Ferrari for not accepting my ten grand? 

 

We only know Chansiri's version of events. He's been clever with his wording. I don't trust him at all and probably never will.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Redfern Froggatt said:

Remember Hayden White - our last great prospect from the academy - now playing under Big Fat Steve at Mansfield.  OK he wasn't an England Youth star with Premiership clubs sniffing round him but was highly rated by the academy staff.  

 

 

Weren't Bolton in the Prem when he went there?

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...