Jump to content

Where did it all go wrong for George Hirst at Sheffield Wednesday?


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, malek said:

 

Can anyone understand simple economics ? We already had 2m offer on the table and we obviously thought he was worth more as we turned that offer down. You either take the offer or sign him to new deal and 10k (I'm not sure he asked that much) would make sense as if we sold him year later for half of what Leicester originally offered we would still made 500k.

 

Knowing that our back-up full backs got paid more than that makes decision of giving Hirst deal on his terms even more viable.

 

As I said more than once we should have taken the £2M, that was the mistake. Not paying a kid who has not played more than a few minutes of professional football by the age of 21 £10K a week was not a mistake at our level. 

Edited by hirstyboywonder
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hirstyboywonder said:

 

As I said more than once we should have taken the £2M, that was the mistake. Not paying a kid who has not played more than a few minutes of professional football by the age of 21 was not a mistake at our level. 

 

And I totally agree. And if we thought he was worth more then 2m then it would make sense to accept his offer.

 

Point is that we were never supposed to agree to reported 10k because we thought he could replace Fletcher in our starting 11, but because we hoped that bid higher then original 2m would come in due time.

 

Quite simply, we should have agreed to his terms if we thought he was worth more then 2m and sold him then if we didn't. What we chose to do was nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, malek said:

 

And I totally agree. And if we thought he was worth more then 2m then it would make sense to accept his offer.

 

Point is that we were never supposed to agree to reported 10k because we thought he could replace Fletcher in our starting 11, but because we hoped that bid higher then original 2m would come in due time.

 

Quite simply, we should have agreed to his terms if we thought he was worth more then 2m and sold him then if we didn't. What we chose to do was nonsense.

 

But as someone else said earlier, the belief may have been that if we had argued it out and ended up going to a tribunal then we could have got more than £2M having not had to pay someone £10K a week. Shutting him out completely benefited nobody and clearly wasn't the best way to go about it but nobody could really have seen what transpired coming, it was underhand.

 

Or maybe we didn't want to sell him at all and had plans of seeing how he developed for another year or 2 with a view to gradual first team involvement. Paying him £10K a week at that point if planning to keep him would not have been wise if it proved that he wasn't going to be good enough and we ended up paying him £500K a year for 2 or 3 years with nothing to show for it. You can't justify £10K a week at that stage if we wanted to keep him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Remind me again how many total minutes of first team football this was and then let me know if this warrants £10K a week, which was my original question.

 

On 27/05/2020 at 02:32, Westfield Owl said:

If the club didn’t think he was worth the salary GH was wanting, I totally understand the club not agreeing to pay him more than he is worth.

 

23 hours ago, Westfield Owl said:

Hirst being cheeky and asking for a raise in salary, doesn’t justify freezing the player out of the squad, just to save our stupid chairman’s stupid pride.

 

I’ve referred to the point that you raised, in the actual post you quoted.

 

Please read the post you’re quoting before replying to them in future.  It’s not hard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Westfield Owl said:

 

 

 

I’ve referred to the point that you raised, in the actual post you quoted.

 

Please read the post you’re quoting before replying to them in future.  It’s not hard.

 

Chill out mate, I can do without a lecture thanks.

 

Notice you haven't bothered to reply with how many minutes of first team football he got under his belt after raising a point about that, it's not hard to work it out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

George opted to sign for another club ,I am not bitter towards him or his Dad ,Its football ,Its all about money ,He signed for Leicester City got a good wage rise ,What would you do if at your place of work someone says we will give you a wage ,Someone down road offers you 4 times that ? Its all money ,money ,money .

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/05/2020 at 09:11, hirstyboywonder said:

 

So you don't have a problem with the way Leicester went about this then?

I think Leicester made an up front offer that got turned down as Chansirii decided that he was smarter than anyone else. Leicester then produced a f**k you card and played it. Chansiri left some coin on the table proving that he's the man. You can't have it both ways !!! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/05/2020 at 13:51, hirstyboywonder said:

 

I admire your defence of academy products over recent years but how many have actually made it. This gem you speak of hasn't played at a decent level 2 years after leaving us. Others of the same age are making it at all levels in English football. Plenty of players have scored lots of goals for many teams at youth levels and not gone on to make it. 

Cubs at this level cannot afford to pay kids with no first team games under their belt £10K a week. How many games has Cameron Dawson played? An established first team player in a Championship team who signed a new 4 year contract recently but is probably not on £10K a week now, never mind what he was on before he signed that new deal in January. 

Thing is, this whole saga has f*cked his career up too because he basically lost a season doing nothing here then had another season in unfamiliar surroundings playing at a poor level, and now he’s at a team playing in the champions league places where he’d have to be something extra special to get a look in at first team level ahead of Vardy and others. It would have made more sense for him to play championship/league 1 football at 18-20 then get his breakthrough in the prem at 22 say, a bit like Harry Kane did. He’s going to be a bit behind that now and presumably he’ll be out on loan next season and he’ll have to hit the ground running with a 20 goal season in the lower leagues if he’s going to have a chance of making it at the top level.

 

Cameron Dawson is gash and shouldn’t be playing Championship football tbh. You also can’t really compare across different positions as everyone knows that strikers or attacking players tend to earn more than the rest of the team. Until we began to cut costs, at the time when this was all going on we had 4 strikers allegedly on more than 30k in FF, Fletcher, Hooper and Rhodes. We also have Winnall on a reported 17k a week and then you’d assume that Joao and Nuhui were on around 10k+ maybe too.

 

So personally I don’t think it’s that unfeasible for us to have offered more to Hirst. Because the resale value would potentially have been there. And he could even have made the breakthrough if managed correctly particularly as he probably would have got a run in 2017-18 with all the injuries.

 

10k a week is a lot of money for someone with no experience but it’s the context of it. We could have maybe structured it so that he got more for making first team appearances and a lower base fee or us having the option on contract length. Plus the incentive of first team involvement which he wouldn’t get at Leicester. He might not have stayed anyway but we could have done more.

 

I honestly don’t see a point in the academy if the best players are never going to play before they leave and what we’re left with are bang average/poor players like Dawson and Palmer who would never have any chance of playing Premier League football anyway. 
 

Of course we can afford to pay the money given the budget.. id rather have 8 hungry young players at Hirst’s level on the off chance that one of them makes it big and is a £30m player than I would a Rhodes and an Abdi who’ve given us nothing for the same money.

 

We can moan about 10k being too much but it’s probably the going rate, or at least it was pre Coronavirus 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LondonOwl313 said:

Thing is, this whole saga has f*cked his career up too because he basically lost a season doing nothing here then had another season in unfamiliar surroundings playing at a poor level, and now he’s at a team playing in the champions league places where he’d have to be something extra special to get a look in at first team level ahead of Vardy and others. It would have made more sense for him to play championship/league 1 football at 18-20 then get his breakthrough in the prem at 22 say, a bit like Harry Kane did. He’s going to be a bit behind that now and presumably he’ll be out on loan next season and he’ll have to hit the ground running with a 20 goal season in the lower leagues if he’s going to have a chance of making it at the top level.

 

Cameron Dawson is gash and shouldn’t be playing Championship football tbh. You also can’t really compare across different positions as everyone knows that strikers or attacking players tend to earn more than the rest of the team. Until we began to cut costs, at the time when this was all going on we had 4 strikers allegedly on more than 30k in FF, Fletcher, Hooper and Rhodes. We also have Winnall on a reported 17k a week and then you’d assume that Joao and Nuhui were on around 10k+ maybe too.

 

So personally I don’t think it’s that unfeasible for us to have offered more to Hirst. Because the resale value would potentially have been there. And he could even have made the breakthrough if managed correctly particularly as he probably would have got a run in 2017-18 with all the injuries.

 

10k a week is a lot of money for someone with no experience but it’s the context of it. We could have maybe structured it so that he got more for making first team appearances and a lower base fee or us having the option on contract length. Plus the incentive of first team involvement which he wouldn’t get at Leicester. He might not have stayed anyway but we could have done more.

 

I honestly don’t see a point in the academy if the best players are never going to play before they leave and what we’re left with are bang average/poor players like Dawson and Palmer who would never have any chance of playing Premier League football anyway. 
 

Of course we can afford to pay the money given the budget.. id rather have 8 hungry young players at Hirst’s level on the off chance that one of them makes it big and is a £30m player than I would a Rhodes and an Abdi who’ve given us nothing for the same money.

 

We can moan about 10k being too much but it’s probably the going rate, or at least it was pre Coronavirus 

 

It's not the going rate for an academy player in the championship.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hookowl said:

 

It's not the going rate for an academy player in the championship.

It’s the going rate for a top end academy player with England honours and a scoring record like that. The fact that we’re in the championship is kind of irrelevant to that tbh.. it would be the same if he’d come through at say Exeter or somewhere. The only difference is he’d have definitely had to move from a League 1 or 2 club due to finances.

 

As I’ve just set out, we had 7 strikers on the books who we were already paying a total of about 160k a week between them. In that context another 10k isn’t that much. And we could probably have made it 5k plus adds on, who knows. But it’s no surprise that they turned down a paltry offer when this kind of money is on the table elsewhere. This is about ambition.. I’d like to see us become something and for that the right decisions have to be made in these kind of situations

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, LondonOwl313 said:

Thing is, this whole saga has f*cked his career up too because he basically lost a season doing nothing here then had another season in unfamiliar surroundings playing at a poor level, and now he’s at a team playing in the champions league places where he’d have to be something extra special to get a look in at first team level ahead of Vardy and others. It would have made more sense for him to play championship/league 1 football at 18-20 then get his breakthrough in the prem at 22 say, a bit like Harry Kane did. He’s going to be a bit behind that now and presumably he’ll be out on loan next season and he’ll have to hit the ground running with a 20 goal season in the lower leagues if he’s going to have a chance of making it at the top level.

 

Cameron Dawson is gash and shouldn’t be playing Championship football tbh. You also can’t really compare across different positions as everyone knows that strikers or attacking players tend to earn more than the rest of the team. Until we began to cut costs, at the time when this was all going on we had 4 strikers allegedly on more than 30k in FF, Fletcher, Hooper and Rhodes. We also have Winnall on a reported 17k a week and then you’d assume that Joao and Nuhui were on around 10k+ maybe too.

 

So personally I don’t think it’s that unfeasible for us to have offered more to Hirst. Because the resale value would potentially have been there. And he could even have made the breakthrough if managed correctly particularly as he probably would have got a run in 2017-18 with all the injuries.

 

10k a week is a lot of money for someone with no experience but it’s the context of it. We could have maybe structured it so that he got more for making first team appearances and a lower base fee or us having the option on contract length. Plus the incentive of first team involvement which he wouldn’t get at Leicester. He might not have stayed anyway but we could have done more.

 

I honestly don’t see a point in the academy if the best players are never going to play before they leave and what we’re left with are bang average/poor players like Dawson and Palmer who would never have any chance of playing Premier League football anyway. 
 

Of course we can afford to pay the money given the budget.. id rather have 8 hungry young players at Hirst’s level on the off chance that one of them makes it big and is a £30m player than I would a Rhodes and an Abdi who’ve given us nothing for the same money.

 

We can moan about 10k being too much but it’s probably the going rate, or at least it was pre Coronavirus 

 

Some points I agree with but not the paying him £10K a week at that stage. As you say, we paid Sam Winnall a reported £16K per week to come to us - this quadrupled his wage from £4K a week at that time - a player with over 150 league games under his belt and over 50 goals at that time. 

 

There is obviously some value in investing in academy products with a view to selling on but not at that rate, no matter how good they have been at under 18 level it is no guarantee of continued performance - I've looked back on reports on here from a few years ago from some who watched the academy teams and it was said others had just as good a chance of making it - Penney, Stobbs etc - should we pay them all 5-10K per week if they look promising? Hirst will be 22 next year and is yet to make a league start at any decent senior level.

 

 

Hindsight is great in repsect of the likes of Abdi and Rhodes - of course we all wish we hadn't spent good money of them but if they had produced what the likes of Fletcher, Hooper and Forestieri have, and their careers at this level suggested they were capable of, then it would have been a different story.  

 

£10K may be a rate PL clubs can afford for young players - Chlesea paid plenty of their youngsters far more in the times when the route to their first team was non-existent but at our level it is not sustainable, nor should it be. If Hirst had taken a contract with us then I am sure by now he would have been further on in terms of his progression and would have earned a better contract with us and would still have had interest from elsewhere if he wanted to move on. 

For me mistakes were made on both sides that haven't benefited us or the player but have benefited Leicester City. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LondonOwl313 said:

Thing is, this whole saga has f*cked his career up too because he basically lost a season doing nothing here then had another season in unfamiliar surroundings playing at a poor level, and now he’s at a team playing in the champions league places where he’d have to be something extra special to get a look in at first team level ahead of Vardy and others. It would have made more sense for him to play championship/league 1 football at 18-20 then get his breakthrough in the prem at 22 say, a bit like Harry Kane did. He’s going to be a bit behind that now and presumably he’ll be out on loan next season and he’ll have to hit the ground running with a 20 goal season in the lower leagues if he’s going to have a chance of making it at the top level.

 

Cameron Dawson is gash and shouldn’t be playing Championship football tbh. You also can’t really compare across different positions as everyone knows that strikers or attacking players tend to earn more than the rest of the team. Until we began to cut costs, at the time when this was all going on we had 4 strikers allegedly on more than 30k in FF, Fletcher, Hooper and Rhodes. We also have Winnall on a reported 17k a week and then you’d assume that Joao and Nuhui were on around 10k+ maybe too.

 

So personally I don’t think it’s that unfeasible for us to have offered more to Hirst. Because the resale value would potentially have been there. And he could even have made the breakthrough if managed correctly particularly as he probably would have got a run in 2017-18 with all the injuries.

 

10k a week is a lot of money for someone with no experience but it’s the context of it. We could have maybe structured it so that he got more for making first team appearances and a lower base fee or us having the option on contract length. Plus the incentive of first team involvement which he wouldn’t get at Leicester. He might not have stayed anyway but we could have done more.

 

I honestly don’t see a point in the academy if the best players are never going to play before they leave and what we’re left with are bang average/poor players like Dawson and Palmer who would never have any chance of playing Premier League football anyway. 
 

Of course we can afford to pay the money given the budget.. id rather have 8 hungry young players at Hirst’s level on the off chance that one of them makes it big and is a £30m player than I would a Rhodes and an Abdi who’ve given us nothing for the same money.

 

We can moan about 10k being too much but it’s probably the going rate, or at least it was pre Coronavirus 

 

I think the problem with our academy is not the fact that they don't get an opportunity but more to do with the talent we source and how they progress with us. 

You say the best players don't get a chance and say Palmer and Dawson are average/poor in comparison. Palmer has had a lot of games at this level and I would agree is an average player at this level who is unlikely to play at PL but has made a good career for himself. Dawson has time ahead of him and has been poor of late, time will tell on where his career goes.

 

Who are the better players that don't get an opportunity though? The jury is out on Hirst in terms of the level he will play regularly at and he is an exceptional case anyway given how it panned out, I am sure he would have had first team opportunities had he been here over the past two years. 

Which others have been allowed to leave our academy over the last 5 years or more and have gone on to bigger and better things? The problem to seems more down to the overall scouting and early recruitment. Our city neighbours appear to have a far bigger net in terms of the players they look at from an early age, I've said previously that their scouts have watched my lads team on a few occasions - a team based in the north of the city not far from Hillsborough - and invite lads to train at their facilities to take a look at them further. They never been informed that Wednesday have watched them. This is only anecdotal evidence but I've heard similar from other clubs, the more players you look at closely and give opportunities to, the more local gems you are likely to find and be able to nurture.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/05/2020 at 16:29, Utah Owl said:

I have a huge problem with it and with DEH but I am also extremely annoyed at the way Chansiri handled the whole issue.

 

Chansiri's behaviour ever since he took over the club has been a mixture of foolishness, naivety and arrogance, otherwise how do you think we find ourselves in such a mess over continual breaches of the rules, let alone the situation over Hirst?

 

I'm sure Chansiri is well meaning but he is not the right owner for us. He doesn't learn from mistakes and simply won't take proper advice. If thinks don't change quickly he will ruin the club.

 

 

Its endemic of the whole Hirst affair that people who are ready to acknowledge that Chansiris running of our club has been disastrous - that they think his handling of the Hrst affair was exemplary

 

On 26/05/2020 at 19:52, handworth52 said:

he must be on good money at Leicester as he owns a posh apartment up ranmoor in same building as 4 pig players . he is hardly cutting it at u23 level for Leicester . its called living in daddies footsteps except he is no daddy more like a spoilt little girl who will be playing for matlock in 2 years. 

 

 

Hes scored 9 goals in 16 games with 2 assists.


"The best poster on Owlstalk by far" - Tony Pulis

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

 

 

Its endemic of the whole Hirst affair that people who are ready to acknowledge that Chansiris running of our club has been disastrous - that they think his handling of the Hrst affair was exemplary

 

 

There are 7 pages of posts in this thread, you will do well to find many if any that describe the clubs handling of this situation as exemplary. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

There are 7 pages of posts in this thread, you will do well to find many if any that describe the clubs handling of this situation as exemplary. 

 

It was a general observation on the way Owlstalkers have dealt with this 

 

Not sure where the £10k figure has come from either lol 


"The best poster on Owlstalk by far" - Tony Pulis

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

 

It was a general observation on the way Owlstalkers have dealt with this 

 

Not sure where the £10k figure has come from either lol

 

It's a narrative that simply does not fit with the current 7 page discussion on this topic.

 

£10K does seem like a lot to ask for, not sure who is responsible for that. Glad if it is not the case as a few in this thread have tried to justify paying that to a young lad with zero first team starts at any level. How much did he ask for?

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Grandad said:

 

Hes scored 9 goals in 16 games with 2 assists.

Thats a really good scoring record but then he's always scored goals against his peers. It will be interesting to see if he can do it at senior level. With hindsight, from a footballing point of view, he would have been further developed in his career if he had stayed with us. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could argue that Hirst, jnr. would get more chances of appearances in the Championship than the Premier League but, overall, how many people on here would not move jobs for better pay, better conditions and better prospects?

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...