Jump to content

Jos Luhukay on Sean Clare and George Hirst


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, cowl said:

Whatever Hirst's asking for has always been secondary to the fact DC saw fit to stop the lad from playing for us all the way back in August.

 

Fans keeping banging on about money as though it justifies DC's decision to stop him from playing. Unbelievable reasoning.

It would be interest to know the youth players who have resigned in Thorniley, Ogrady and the like what sort of terms they are on.

 

Is it in the thousands of £ a week or more likely the hundreds of £ a week.

 

When you think Fletcher is on £40,000 a week and by the end of this season he will have cost us for 12 goals £4.2m or £350,000 a goal. Not a great return but better than Rhodes, Winnall, Joao. Rhodes £8m + £2m a season wages for 7 goals, Winnall £18k a week or £1.4m for 4 goals, Joao £4m fee and £15k a week or 6.3m for 11 goals.

 

Then we have a young kid who has not had a chance to show us what he could do as he is not allowed you can kind of see why we are losing £21m a year can't you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, @owlstalk said:

 

That was a really good question time by RS.

Asked some direct questions about major players and injury situation.

That should stop anymore daft rumours about them  . Well done RS.

We can all get on with our lives now .lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, mrrodge said:

He doesn't deserve wages to match any of the first team

 

*By first team i mean what would be our strongest first 11 plus a few others

But that's not how market forces work.  We have received a multi million pound (or at least one million plus) offer for Hirst which we rejected.  This value (one million plus) then determines the wages he can command. 

 

Hirst has and could command a fee that would be, in fact, higher than a number of current first team players and, could, therefore, argue that he should be paid accordingly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, York_Owl said:

But that's not how market forces work.  We have received a multi million pound (or at least one million plus) offer for Hirst which we rejected.  This value (one million plus) then determines the wages he can command. 

 

Hirst has and could command a fee that would be, in fact, higher than a number of current first team players and, could, therefore, argue that he should be paid accordingly.

 

You are right and you are wrong.

 

Does Zlatan get paid more than Rashford at Man U? Who would command a higher transfer fee?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheEnchanter said:

Speaks volumes that he's not willing to play for his boyhood club unless he is paid x amount. What happened to proving yourself? Working your way up from the bottom? I don't know who he thinks he is but it sucks. I never saw David Hirst play, its just another 1990s nostalgia thats been passed down. Yes the club hasn't helped the situation but the attitude of the player is apalling. I'd happily see him gone. 

Why shouldn't he want the best deal, it's his future.

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

 

You are right and you are wrong.

 

Does Zlatan get paid more than Rashford at Man U? Who would command a higher transfer fee?

Very true, transfer fee is not the only determining factor; how good you are is also a major factor but it is still an important factor when determining the wages you can command especially for someone of Hirst's (and Rashford's) age and potential.. 

 

Hirst has effectively been valued as a multi million pound player and can, therefore, argue with some justification, that he should be paid as such.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, York_Owl said:

But that's not how market forces work.  We have received a multi million pound (or at least one million plus) offer for Hirst which we rejected.  This value (one million plus) then determines the wages he can command. 

 

Hirst has and could command a fee that would be, in fact, higher than a number of current first team players and, could, therefore, argue that he should be paid accordingly.

 

But the value that a premiership club decide a prospect is worth for them to develop is not the same as that of a championship club as they do not have the same spending power.

Therefore he would not expect to be able to command the same/similar wages from each club.

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

 

But the value that a premiership club decide a prospect is worth for them to develop is not the same as that of a championship club as they do not have the same spending power.

Therefore he would not expect to be able to command the same/similar wages from each club.

And there lies the rub.  Let's say for arguments sake Leicester offered £1.5m for him and were prepared to pay him £20,000 a week.  That then becomes the wages he can command.  If we're not prepared to match that (and as a Championship club it is always going to be difficult to compete financially with a premier league club) then he can simply say thanks but, no thanks to our offer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, York_Owl said:

And there lies the rub.  Let's say for arguments sake Leicester offered £1.5m for him and were prepared to pay him £20,000 a week.  That then becomes the wages he can command.  If we're not prepared to match that (and as a Championship club it is always going to be difficult to compete financially with a premier league club) then he can simply say thanks but, no thanks to our offer.

 

That's my point we can't call the club for not matching premiership wages, if that's the sticking point with negotiations.

I say if as we don't know the full facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Clare can play because Jo’s thinks we need him, but hirst can’t? That doesn’t really make sense when hirst is supposedly the better player, and we can’t buy a flippinggoal at the minute?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a fan of hardline take it or leave it bullshit when it comes to contracts.

 

Also supremely not a fan of punitive punishments doled out for refusal to sign such contracts.

 

All I'm asking for is a little conciliation.  God knows CC got an extended , entirely unwarranted benefit of the doubt when it came to the chairman.  Why the ridiculous hard man role over young Hirsty?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Plonk said:

So Clare can play because Jo’s thinks we need him, but hirst can’t? That doesn’t really make sense when hirst is supposedly the better player, and we can’t buy a flippinggoal at the minute?

 

One can only presume there must be some reason other than just not agreeing to sign a contract that is causing this situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, room0035 said:

So next season who would you have at the club Loovens on £10-15,000 a week or George Hirst and Sean Clare on £5,000 each.

 

I know which ones I would prefer but do the club. It really is that simple. 

I think we would all prefer the latter.

 

But like most things it’s not as simple as that - it’s also about getting the clubs wage structure right from top to bottom, not letting players and there agents dictate what they should be paid and not having the issues we’ve had over the last season and a half.

 

 

Edited by Spookone
Link to post
Share on other sites

When people talk about greed and market value of a young player, rarely does anyone include context outside of SWFC. But look at the players that Hirst lined up alongside in the Toulon tournament, now not only did he hold his own, he very much showed that he belonged amongst those other players, some of whom are doing great things fir their clubs. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Toulon_Tournament_squads#England

 

Look at Brooks at the sty, he was at the time rated very highly and was let off the leash by tufty, now EPL clubs are looking at him and he'll likely go for well over £5m. Then there's Viera at Leeds, another player who's potential has been developed but who has also been linked with numerous moves away, yet he's still at Leeds, developing and getting games under his belt. 

 

Then you've got players like Embleton, a fantastic talent, who even at one point looked like he may not make the grade at Sunderland, but as their fortunes changed, hes been given a chance and speaks fantastically about the club.

 

Hirst at one time was absolutely on par with these players, at the very least he was asking for wages to match his peers, but i would also assume he was adamant that with all the strikers we were signing that he could be given some exposure to first team football or at least loaned out, to ensure his progression is at least maintained. 

 

It's not just about wage structures, greed or potential. Commercially it's another cake ball sized error.

Edited by hawksmore
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Spookone said:

I think we would all prefer the latter.

 

But like most things it’s not as simple as that - it’s also about getting the clubs wage structure right from top to bottom, not letting players and there agents dictate what they should be paid and not having the issues we’ve had over the last season and a half.

 

 

And am not going to go there again if we had a proper professional structure at the club Mr Hirst would have been signed up the end of last season to a long contract and loaned out to league 1 in August.

 

But this did not happen and since then it has been one embarrassment after another from the club. This has very little to do with GH and agents it is about a certain someone not wanting to admit he is wrong. But don't worry the truth will come out come the end of the season.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Socialist_Owl said:

Not a fan of hardline take it or leave it bullshit when it comes to contracts.

 

Also supremely not a fan of punitive punishments doled out for refusal to sign such contracts.

 

All I'm asking for is a little conciliation.  God knows CC got an extended , entirely unwarranted benefit of the doubt when it came to the chairman.  Why the ridiculous hard man role over young Hirsty?

Was CC contract entirely unwarranted though?

 

If your faced with a manager in place who had finished 6th then 4th, do you think...

 

Another season and he may well do it especially with a little more investment, or risk bringing in a completely new guy who may or may not work.

 

I’m pretty sure most chairmen would stick with the man in already in place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know the facts, so I don't really know who to be cross at any more. I know that I was really excited when he started to play for the U23's and then that was dashed yesterday.

 

I've began to think of him as the temp, Janice, in accounts who was so hot I'd have used her poo for toothpaste. You did all you can to find a reason to get in to accounts just so you can try and make an opportunity to have contact with her. You know time is against you, and you'll talk about any old rubbish just to  get some banter going 'oh yeah, the Carlisle job, it's erm....yeah...erm...in Carlisle....you got a boyfriend?' etc etc But just when you think you are getting somewhere you see her getting picked up from work by some young David Hasselhoff in an Aston Martin. And you're gutted.

 

Feels like it's back to copping off with Marilyn from reception when you're pissed on works do's. It does a job, but she has got a bit of a tache.

Edited by Anus
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
×
×
  • Create New...