Ask The Chairman Part 13 - GEORGE HIRST

[The Batman]

10 minutes ago, BIG D said:

 

If he proved himself then of course he would be rewarded with a new deal.

I love how people are saying nothing to do with him being David's Son but now it's brought up that Wednesday refused to let his Father talk to Man U back in the day.

Excuse me if my heart doesn't bleed for David Hirst but he was playing for one of the best teams in the country at the time and no doubt getting paid handsomely.

His lad has been offered a guaranteed £400k+ which is a decent wedge to earn before you're 23.

It turns out it's not enough and he wants it all now.

 

 

I'm not arguing that we haven't offered him enough.

 

I personally think £2k a week for a kid is astronomical. I only know one person, in real life, who earns that and he has to work away from home 6 days a week doing long hours on nights.

 

Ok, this isn't real life... it's football. £2k + bonuses is still a fair wedge for an 18 year old trainee, but if he can earn more elsewhere, he probably should. It's the sensible thing to do. It's his life/career, it's not our's.

 

For us it's just wanting him to be the 2nd coming of Hirst 9.

 

Taking a step back from being a Wednesdayite and forgetting that the sums in football are beyond ridiculous, I can see why GH wouldn't want to sign a 4 year deal, with no guarantees.

 

Chansiri could sell up next month, where would that leave a lad trapped in a 4 year deal, if the next owner isn't as generous with rewarding players?

 

What if the finances dry up? What if Hirst becomes a 1st team regular but never gets a better deal. That could be a quarter of his career down the swanny in terms of earnings.

 

It's a short career, give him some guarantees or a shorter contact.

[Ethel The Tree]

8 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

One of the saddest things in this thread and on social media this last 48 hours is how fans have turned on David Hirst 

I don't get it

 

Why didn't he accept the invitation to attend our 150th anniversary bash?

I don't get that

 

But I have a hunch it's all connected

[cactus]

So are we likely to hear directly from the Hirst camp or are they going to continue to use the ex-Wednesdayite heirarchy to drip-feed information via Owlstalk?

[darra]

1 hour ago, Hillsborough Mole said:

Be even better if you could point me in the direction of any posts I've made where I said the club were claiming this. 

 

 

You posted that the academy isn't in the top 10 which suggested you have evidence to support the post

[Guest Hillsborough Mole]

Just now, darra said:

You posted that the academy isn't in the top 10 which suggested you have evidence to support the post

There's plenty of evidence in the public domain. But that's not what you said.

 

You suggested I was claiming the club have said they are in the top 10, when they have done nothing of the kind (and nor have I said so)

[Corneliusreeve]

3 hours ago, Bodhidharma said:

We need an ask the chairman on why Carlos is unsackable  

 

Luckiest manager in football. 

Wrong Thread 

 

[Geoffrey]

38 minutes ago, BIG D said:

 

His lad has been offered a guaranteed £400k+ which is a decent wedge to earn before you're 23.

 

 

Has he? I didn't read that in the statement.

Unless you provide evidence of this I will assume that you are making things up to suit your argument.

[cowl]

I've been very critical of DC over this, but I don't think there's anything in his statement whereby he's lying.

 

It has been very carefully worded so that fans will form the opinion that DC has done all he could - and indeed it would appear the majority of fans are now of this opinion.

 

Personally, there appears to me to be the strong likelihood that it was DC's decision to stop Hirst from playing that lead to the Hirst side informing DC that he won't be signing a new contract - and not the other way round. My reasons for thinking this I've already spelt out in this thread. I also think it was needless to make a loan deal contingent upon signing a new contract. By DC's own words, it appears the Hirst side were very keen on a loan deal, so we could've just sent the lad out on loan and then re-approached contract talks as January neared (as we did with Palmer a few years ago when he went on loan to Tranmere).

 

I think for many there appears to be a greater focus on what's been offered to Hirst, (and therefore) what's been turned down by Hirst, and whether we should have offered more, or whether Hirst was right to turn this down etc. Personally, I see no reason to suppose the contract offered to Hirst wasn't anything other than a very good one, but that it hasn't been signed for reasons other than the financials - namely, that at some point after August 5th, DC stopped Hirst from playing for any of our sides until he signs a new contract. I've seen it suggested DC must have had a reason for doing this. No doubt, but the question I think is whether he had a good reason for doing it - and upon that I have serious doubts. In any case, I would've expected DC to have made this part of the narrative abundantly clear, but instead the timeline was vaguely plotted to make it appear that the breakdowns were always due to "how they (Hirst's agents and advisers) have conducted themselves throughout this process".

 

What might his reason for stopping Hirst playing sometime after August 5th have been then if it wasn't due to Hirst's side informing DC that he won't be signing a new contract (which appeared to be a few weeks later)? I can only guess. And that guess would be that it was an ill-advised power-play to pressure Hirst into signing. Like I say, that's just a guess, but in any case, speculation isn't necessary here - you only have to consider what the outcome of DC stopping Hirst from playing has been? Has it had the effect DC desired? And here we are in December and it looks almost certain this won't end well.

[Geoffrey]

36 minutes ago, BIG D said:

 

Geoffrey is getting desperate and changing the subject.

Pathetic

 

 

 

The subject is about one-sided statements. If the kit manufacturer was named we could hear their side of the story. It wasn't and it hasn't been reported that we are taking legal action. I wonder why?

[@owlstalk]

Just now, Geoffrey said:

The subject is about one-sided statements. If the kit manufacturer was named we could hear their side of the story. It wasn't and it hasn't been reported that we are taking legal action. I wonder why?

The topic is about George Hirst

Clue is in the topic title and pretty much all the posts within it

[matthefish2002]

Of course I would be interested but I am hoping we don't hear George Hirst and his advisors on their side of story.

All become too much of a circus now. Let him leave in January and draw a line under it.

[BIG D]

4 minutes ago, Geoffrey said:

Has he? I didn't read that in the statement.

Unless you provide evidence of this I will assume that you are making things up to suit your argument.

 

If you've read the thread the same guy has repeated what he posted the other day (which you also missed).

I know the guy (not personally) and I believe him.

 

Just for a minute imagine that the figures stated are correct, what would your opinion be?

[Ethel The Tree]

14 minutes ago, Donny.Owl said:

 

I'm not arguing that we haven't offered him enough.

 

I personally think £2k a week for a kid is astronomical. I only know one person, in real life, who earns that and he has to work away from home 6 days a week doing long hours on nights.

 

Ok, this isn't real life... it's football. £2k + bonuses is still a fair wedge for an 18 year old trainee, but if he can earn more elsewhere, he probably should. It's the sensible thing to do. It's his life/career, it's not our's.

 

For us it's just wanting him to be the 2nd coming of Hirst 9.

 

Taking a step back from being a Wednesdayite and forgetting that the sums in football are beyond ridiculous, I can see why GH wouldn't want to sign a 4 year deal, with no guarantees.

 

Chansiri could sell up next month, where would that leave a lad trapped in a 4 year deal, if the next owner isn't as generous with rewarding players?

 

What if the finances dry up? What if Hirst becomes a 1st team regular but never gets a better deal. That could be a quarter of his career down the swanny in terms of earnings.

 

It's a short career, give him some guarantees or a shorter contact.

 

I think any young player who catches the eye would be in a position to renegotiate the deal they're on

In this case, a 4yr deal would offer the player security and also protect the club's investment

 

If he were to set the division alight his value would increase accordingly

He could either choose to stay on improved terms or else seek a move away

(I doubt Dele Alli was on megabucks when he signed from MK - he'd have to prove his worth first)

 

Alternatively, if he failed to live up to his promise he'd still be earning whilst spending time out on loan in the hope of building up a reputation

 

What we have at the moment is an 18yr old with 14mins of Championship experience demanding the going rate for an established senior player

That HAS to be as crazy at it sounds

[darra]

38 minutes ago, Hillsborough Mole said:

There's plenty of evidence in the public domain. But that's not what you said.

 

You suggested I was claiming the club have said they are in the top 10, when they have done nothing of the kind (and nor have I said so)

You said in your post

Uniteds Academy is one of only 2 that has contributed most player minutes to the Premier League this season (the other being Bayern Munich)

 

We're not even in the top 10 academies in the Championship.

That Is  posted as a statement of fact there is no supposition as in we're probably not even. 

Edited December 5, 2017 by darra

[Geoffrey]

5 minutes ago, cowl said:

I've been very critical of DC over this, but I don't think there's anything in his statement whereby he's lying.

 

It has been very carefully worded so that fans will form the opinion that DC has done all he could - and indeed it would appear the majority of fans are now of this opinion.

 

Personally, there appears to me to be the strong likelihood that it was DC's decision to stop Hirst from playing that lead to the Hirst side informing DC that he won't be signing a new contract - and not the other way round. My reasons for thinking this I've already spelt out in this thread. I also think it was needless to make a loan deal contingent upon signing a new contract. By DC's own words, it appears the Hirst side were very keen on a loan deal, so we could've just sent the lad out on loan and then re-approached contract talks as January neared (as we did with Palmer a few years ago when he went on loan to Tranmere).

 

I think for many there appears to be a greater focus on what's been offered to Hirst, (and therefore) what's been turned down by Hirst, and whether we should have offered more, or whether Hirst was right to turn this down etc. Personally, I see no reason to suppose the contract offered to Hirst wasn't anything other than a very good one, but that it hasn't been signed for reasons other than the financials - namely, that at some point after August 5th, DC stopped Hirst from playing for any of our sides until he signs a new contract. I've seen it suggested DC must have had a reason for doing this. No doubt, but the question I think is whether he had a good reason for doing it - and upon that I have serious doubts. In any case, I would've expected DC to have made this part of the narrative abundantly clear, but instead the timeline was vaguely plotted to make it appear that the breakdowns were always due to "how they (Hirst's agents and advisers) have conducted themselves throughout this process".

 

What might his reason for stopping Hirst playing sometime after August 5th have been then if it wasn't due to Hirst's side informing DC that he won't be signing a new contract (which appeared to be a few weeks later)? I can only guess. And that guess would be that it was an ill-advised power-play to pressure Hirst into signing. Like I say, that's just a guess, but in any case, speculation isn't necessary here - you only have to consider what the outcome of DC stopping Hirst from playing has been? Has it had the effect DC desired? And here we are in December and it looks almost certain this won't end well.

Very good post. Sadly however it is possibly too long for the enthusiastic clappers to bother reading.

Clare, Stobbs and Thorniley have all been out on loan this season despite their contracts terminating on the same day as George Hirst's.

[Freshfish]

9 minutes ago, cowl said:

I've been very critical of DC over this, but I don't think there's anything in his statement whereby he's lying.

 

It has been very carefully worded so that fans will form the opinion that DC has done all he could - and indeed it would appear the majority of fans are now of this opinion.

 

Personally, there appears to me to be the strong likelihood that it was DC's decision to stop Hirst from playing that lead to the Hirst side informing DC that he won't be signing a new contract - and not the other way round. My reasons for thinking this I've already spelt out in this thread. I also think it was needless to make a loan deal contingent upon signing a new contract. By DC's own words, it appears the Hirst side were very keen on a loan deal, so we could've just sent the lad out on loan and then re-approached contract talks as January neared (as we did with Palmer a few years ago when he went on loan to Tranmere).

 

I think for many there appears to be a greater focus on what's been offered to Hirst, (and therefore) what's been turned down by Hirst, and whether we should have offered more, or whether Hirst was right to turn this down etc. Personally, I see no reason to suppose the contract offered to Hirst wasn't anything other than a very good one, but that it hasn't been signed for reasons other than the financials - namely, that at some point after August 5th, DC stopped Hirst from playing for any of our sides until he signs a new contract. I've seen it suggested DC must have had a reason for doing this. No doubt, but the question I think is whether he had a good reason for doing it - and upon that I have serious doubts. In any case, I would've expected DC to have made this part of the narrative abundantly clear, but instead the timeline was vaguely plotted to make it appear that the breakdowns were always due to "how they (Hirst's agents and advisers) have conducted themselves throughout this process".

 

What might his reason for stopping Hirst playing sometime after August 5th have been then if it wasn't due to Hirst's side informing DC that he won't be signing a new contract (which appeared to be a few weeks later)? I can only guess. And that guess would be that it was an ill-advised power-play to pressure Hirst into signing. Like I say, that's just a guess, but in any case, speculation isn't necessary here - you only have to consider what the outcome of DC stopping Hirst from playing has been? Has it had the effect DC desired? And here we are in December and it looks almost certain this won't end well.

 

..well that's lots of words to say you don't actually know anything and are speculating. But you carry on the speculation that DC stopped GH from playing...but speculating isn't necessary apparently...

 

Lots of effort to speculate and pretend you don't want to speculate ... a very good speculating post when no facts are actually known. Keeps the sheite being stirred though doesn't it.

 

 

Edited December 5, 2017 by Freshfish

[Geoffrey]

3 minutes ago, BIG D said:

 

If you've read the thread the same guy has repeated what he posted the other day (which you also missed).

I know the guy (not personally) and I believe him.

 

Just for a minute imagine that the figures stated are correct, what would your opinion be?

So someone has posted he's been offered 8k/week and you are repeating it as though it's fact to suit your argument.

[Corneliusreeve]

5 minutes ago, BIG D said:

 

If you've read the thread the same guy has repeated what he posted the other day (which you also missed).

I know the guy (not personally) and I believe him.

 

Just for a minute imagine that the figures stated are correct, what would your opinion be?

If Geoffrey can't bash the club he doesn't have an opinion.

 

[Geoffrey]

2 minutes ago, Freshfish said:

 

..well that's lots of words to say you don't actually know anything and are speculating. But you carry on the speculation that DC stopped GH from playing...but speculating isn't necessary apparently...

 

Lots of effort to speculate and pretend you don't want to speculate ... a very good speculating post when no facts are actually known. Keeps the sheite being stirred though doesn't it.

 

 

A close friend of David Hirst said in a TV interview last week that all the kid wants to do is play football. Chansiri has issued a statement and has not put forward the idea that Hirst doesn't want to play. If Hirst refused to play he would be in breach of his contract and not entitled to his wage.

So who do you think is stopping him play?

[Freshfish]

...every bugger making an assumption/speculating is doing the same. The only actual facts that 'we' all know is the club statement. Until Doyen et al have the decency to provide their version of the negotiating and facts then sheitestirring is all that's left to do.

A close friend said...the same thing you've just pulled another poster up for doing..I would like the reps of GH to actually tell us what they have been doing to benefit him and the club.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Freshfish