metaframe Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 58 minutes ago, Sonny said: Let it go guys. Cheers Elsa 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest timrud Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 His attitude and ability didn't match the clubs expecations, we dodged a bullet - lets just be happy and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belfast Owl 2 Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 13 hours ago, malek said: Bloody hell again, most of problems regarding him resigning was becouse he wasn't considered first team player. Say whatever you want, but I would have rather try to develop his potential, then play cr*p we did instead. Malek would he have helped us when we were struggling under Jos? Or helped us have a resurgence under Bruce? You would have pinned our hopes on him over experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomtheOwl95 Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 13 hours ago, malek said: I'm all for, lets forget he was ever here. He is not SWFC player any more. Remarkbabout him been not good enough was not needed. So we aren't allowed to express our opinions on a player's ability anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toppOwl Posted June 23, 2019 Share Posted June 23, 2019 21 hours ago, Walt said: The thing about the Hirst situation was at the time of the contract issue we had three fit strikers to keep us out of a relegation scrap. Joao, Nuhiu and Rhodes. Joao was at best hit and miss, Nuhiu had shown very little but tbf usually only got chucked on in the last 10 or so minutes and Rhodes looked devoid of any confidence or ability. Not a good pool to pick from yet DC banned Hirst from playing for us in what boils down to a contract issue. As far as we know the lad was never involved in any disciplinary trouble, we are lead to believe that he just wanted £X and the club wouldn’t pay it. I assume the above contract situation is very common place in football but I’m struggling to think of a player being banned from playing for it. I suppose it must happen with players being frozen out but not with the chairman coming out and publicly stating it. In all likelihood Hirst would not have made any difference to our season back then but hand on heart could any Wednesdayite ever imagined the form that Joao and Nuhiu produced to keep us up? If they and Rhodes had continued their previous form or got injured then we would have been in trouble. Who knows what Hirst would have done but to not have the option of even having him on the bench whilst we were paying his wages was a big mistake imo. This flippant comment is the exact reasoning for the issues and the club rightly stood firm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walt Posted June 23, 2019 Share Posted June 23, 2019 2 hours ago, toppOwl said: This flippant comment is the exact reasoning for the issues and the club rightly stood firm. Why is it flippant pal? That was in the public domain- Wednesday made Hirst an offer which he refused. I’ve no problem with the club not meeting any players wage demands whatsoever as they are the ones who should know a players worth. Banning a player from playing doesn’t sit right with me. If an agreement between the two parties can not be reached then so be it, that’s life, move on in the best way for both. I do not know what went off behind the scenes as I’m pretty sure 99% of us don’t but it looks like something did to cause the bad feeling as to ban a player from playing for us - but that wasn’t my point. Player refuses contact, club bans him from playing is not the usual way of doing things is my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul.. Posted June 23, 2019 Share Posted June 23, 2019 Why is this still a thread? Debating/slagging off George Hirst makes us look so petty and tinpot, move the thread to other football, close it and let's all move forward into the exciting new season ahead. Multi camera iFollow for every game, that's all that matters!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peggyowl Posted June 23, 2019 Share Posted June 23, 2019 two things. 1. No one apart from those present kn ow what was discussed, not agreed and ultimately why Hirst was banned from the club. It could be any number of reasons and I'm guessing more than just refusing a contract. 2. Why the hell have we got 22 pages on a player that is no longer with us, had no impact on the first team and chose another path which at this stage hasn't worked out. Lets move on he is not important. pegg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
areNOTwhatTHEYseem Posted June 23, 2019 Share Posted June 23, 2019 6 minutes ago, uɐıɹɐqɯıɹ⅁ said: Multi camera iFollow for every game, that's all that matters!!!! How have I missed this news? You'll be telling me they're going to show replays next... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul.. Posted June 23, 2019 Share Posted June 23, 2019 8 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said: How have I missed this news? You'll be telling me they're going to show replays next... I saw it yesterday: https://www.swfc.co.uk/news/2019/june/register-now-for-ifollow-wednesday/ Quote Due to the huge take-up across the EFL platform, a significant investment will now see four-camera coverage of every game throughout the 2019/20 campaign. The multi-camera angles will cover all live games, together with our ever-popular extended highlight packages on the Owls’ official YouTube channel. So yeah hopefully replays will be in too :) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toppOwl Posted June 23, 2019 Share Posted June 23, 2019 15 hours ago, Walt said: Why is it flippant pal? That was in the public domain- Wednesday made Hirst an offer which he refused. I’ve no problem with the club not meeting any players wage demands whatsoever as they are the ones who should know a players worth. Banning a player from playing doesn’t sit right with me. If an agreement between the two parties can not be reached then so be it, that’s life, move on in the best way for both. I do not know what went off behind the scenes as I’m pretty sure 99% of us don’t but it looks like something did to cause the bad feeling as to ban a player from playing for us - but that wasn’t my point. Player refuses contact, club bans him from playing is not the usual way of doing things is my point. He was offered the best terms ever offered to an U23 in the clubs history and he still turned it down despite being unproven, he also never turned up to a meeting organised by DC this led to the communication breakdown (its always the same). It looks like the club made the correct decision. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walt Posted June 23, 2019 Share Posted June 23, 2019 10 minutes ago, toppOwl said: He was offered the best terms ever offered to an U23 in the clubs history and he still turned it down despite being unproven, he also never turned up to a meeting organised by DC this led to the communication breakdown (its always the same). It looks like the club made the correct decision. For me it's not about the money being offered or who the player is, or what he has done in the game, that's pretty irrelevant, it's about banning a player for not signing a contract that is the most concerning imo. Now if what you say is correct about Hirst not having the decency to show up to the meetings then that puts a whole different slant on it. Liking the nod to Led Zep btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malek Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 On 22/06/2019 at 15:18, Belfast Owl 2 said: Malek would he have helped us when we were struggling under Jos? Or helped us have a resurgence under Bruce? You would have pinned our hopes on him over experience. Don't think he would have helped us, but he would have earned us good transfer fee. If he came off the bench, and got us couple of goals, his transfer value would have increased a lot. I don't mind us losing George Hirst, but messing up on what would have been fairly low investment likely to earn us good transfer fee. Very, very poorly done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablo Bonvin Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 Will this thread still be going when George Hirst's own son starts out in football? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malek Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 10 hours ago, toppOwl said: He was offered the best terms ever offered to an U23 in the clubs history and he still turned it down despite being unproven, he also never turned up to a meeting organised by DC this led to the communication breakdown (its always the same). It looks like the club made the correct decision. Opinions like this are what gets me every time... Club offered him "best ever terms for an U-23 player" And how much is that ?! I'm quite sure not one of them is on 1k. Why club didn't come out saying how much would that be ?! Why should he agree to a contract that would get him 2, 3 or 5 times less then he would have got elsewhere ?! And all that wile making it clear to him that he is not considered a first team player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 37 minutes ago, malek said: Opinions like this are what gets me every time... Club offered him "best ever terms for an U-23 player" And how much is that ?! I'm quite sure not one of them is on 1k. Why club didn't come out saying how much would that be ?! Why should he agree to a contract that would get him 2, 3 or 5 times less then he would have got elsewhere ?! And all that wile making it clear to him that he is not considered a first team player. Why would he have been considered a first team player?.....he wasn’t,,,,,he was a very bright prospect in the youth teams on the fringes of a senior call up.......that doesn’t need to be made clear to anyone, it was a fact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malek Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 35 minutes ago, Ian said: Why would he have been considered a first team player?.....he wasn’t,,,,,he was a very bright prospect in the youth teams on the fringes of a senior call up.......that doesn’t need to be made clear to anyone, it was a fact We didn't want to offer him kind of wages that he would get elsewhere, we didn't want to offer him chance of first team football (I'm not talking about starting games, but been one of around 35 first team players we had on our books at the time). So why expecting him to resign, so we could earn millions for him in the future ? Why blaming him for turning such offer down ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOT jack whitham Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 Can we close this thread ?..George Hirst is history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oh_weds_we_love_you Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 On 23/06/2019 at 07:02, Walt said: Why is it flippant pal? That was in the public domain- Wednesday made Hirst an offer which he refused. I’ve no problem with the club not meeting any players wage demands whatsoever as they are the ones who should know a players worth. Banning a player from playing doesn’t sit right with me. If an agreement between the two parties can not be reached then so be it, that’s life, move on in the best way for both. I do not know what went off behind the scenes as I’m pretty sure 99% of us don’t but it looks like something did to cause the bad feeling as to ban a player from playing for us - but that wasn’t my point. Player refuses contact, club bans him from playing is not the usual way of doing things is my point. I don't see why any club would continue to help develop a young player who has decided to leave the club at the end of his contract. Why give the player game time, experience, and development for some other club to benefit from? That goes for any player at the club, not just Hirst. I found it bizarre that Arsenal kept playing Ramsey, even though he'd agreed a pre-contract with Juve - and that was more understandable as he was a key player for Arsenal's first team. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toppOwl Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 1 hour ago, malek said: Opinions like this are what gets me every time... Club offered him "best ever terms for an U-23 player" And how much is that ?! I'm quite sure not one of them is on 1k. Why club didn't come out saying how much would that be ?! Why should he agree to a contract that would get him 2, 3 or 5 times less then he would have got elsewhere ?! And all that wile making it clear to him that he is not considered a first team player. Why should the club change their wage policy for youth players on someone who was/is totally unproven, they gave him the option of a contract and a loan which he refused. How do you know others would pay him more? He wasn't a first team player and now perhaps never will be. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts