Celtic agree personal terms with Liam Shaw

[Mike Hunt]

31 minutes ago, malek said:

 

And Wednesday kicked him in the nu*s with our contract offer... 

what was the offer then ?

[Silkstone Owl]

He’s at a club which is a shithouse top to bottom and folk are still wondering why he’s had his head turned ? It really wouldn’t take very much

[SallyCinnamon]

4 minutes ago, sage owl said:

Honestly given his pedigree what would be wrong with that ?.

Its a terrible deal to offer a 19 year old breaking into the first team and playing well. 

 

I swear people on here have no clue how football works. You tie your bright young prospects down to longer contracts to aid their development. You take a calculated risk on potential. 

[SallyCinnamon]

5 minutes ago, SiJ said:

I was going to say. 

 

I can't really see us offering much more and wouldn't expect us to tbh. 

 

He's a decent prospect, but he's not the next Roy Keane. 

 

My main issue the fact we have let another player get into the last 6 months of their contract. 

This is the thing though. Shaw would probably have accepted that offer in the summer. If that’s all we could offer. With no first team starts, it’s a good offer. 
 

But what comedy club FC do is let him play a few games, put some good performances in, effectively put him in the shop window for every club going, boost his value and wage demands and that means you have to offer him more than what you did in the summer to try and stop him joining another club! 
 

Farcical way of doing things.

Edited January 30, 2021 by SallyCinnamon

[SiJ]

1 minute ago, SallyCinnamon said:

Its a terrible deal to offer a 19 year old breaking into the first team and playing well. 

 

I swear people on here have no clue how football works. You tie your bright young prospects down to longer contracts to aid their development. You take a calculated risk on potential. 

Ah, so you are kicking off about the length of contract (didn't see that). 

 

Fair enough. 

 

As for the bit in bold: 

 

Oh dear. 

[SallyCinnamon]

1 minute ago, SiJ said:

Ah, so you are kicking off about the length of contract (didn't see that). 

 

Fair enough. 

 

As for the bit in bold: 

 

Oh dear. 

It’s just the complete lack of understanding of the bigger picture which is boggling my mind with some posters. 

[legendaryswan]

The fact weve been stung like this a 2nd time is proof we dont have a business strategy if we did this stuff wouldnt happen.

You look at contracts that are expiring at the start of a season,surely any player with 1st team potential you nail down early doors,but we just keep on letting our promising players leave on frees,is there any wonder DC has spent so much wonga,he could have recouped half of his spend by forward planning and putting in place a transfer policy.

The longer he stays here the more money hes going to lose,because hes just no business brain

[Inspector Lestrade]

1 minute ago, SallyCinnamon said:

We shouldn’t be in a situation where a bright young talent is running down his contract and free to talk to other clubs. 
 

It’s a terrible waste of years spent developing a player. It’s a myth it happens all the time - because it simply doesn’t. At most well run clubs they ensure when young prospects are breaking into the team that they are in contract. This means if they fulfil potential the club holds the aces and can either benefit from their ability or sell for profit.

 

Example. Morgan Whittaker at Derby. Broke into the first team with 1 year and a half years left on his deal. He signed an extension off the back of a few of games with time remaining on his contract. Tonight Swansea have bid 750k which will help significantly with Derby’s cash flow issues. Fortunately for Derby Whittaker hasn’t become a valuable player in their side. But by getting him under contract they’ve made sure that a tidy profit has been made on him. 

 

 

Players develop at different rates how a club can say with any certainty that a player will be breaking in to the team at a certain stage of his career must be a very exact science if they want to tie it up with their contract as well. 

 

I agree that we need to improve tenfold on enticing young players to stay having said that and I agree it's a bad argument but I can't remember the last player Wednesday developed who has gone on to better things.

 

I still maintain that for promising youngsters they hold the strong cards especially at a club like ours where we don't have a plethora of quality players.  I presume that DC is taking the stance that he won't be hold to what he may perceive as been held to ransom.  That there is little leeway to negotiate either sign or take the highway.

 

When Clare left I thought we was missing out big time as he looked a real prospect, just imagine if DC offered him a big contract then had to sell him or let him go as he didn't progress as expected.  Fans would have criticised him for wasting money on a no-hoper. 

[Maddogbob]

20 minutes ago, SallyCinnamon said:

This is the thing though. Shaw would probably have accepted that offer in the summer. If that’s all we could offer. With no first team starts, it’s a good offer. 
 

But what comedy club FC do is let him play a few games, put some good performances in, effectively put him in the shop window for every club going, boost his value and wage demands and that means you have to offer him more than what you did in the summer to try and stop him joining another club! 
 

Farcical way of doing things.

Your issue, like most is the way the club handled it rather than Shaw actually leaving and wanting to to either better himself/earn more. 

 

I feel this has more than likely got lost in translation. 

[SallyCinnamon]

3 minutes ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

 

Players develop at different rates how a club can say with any certainty that a player will be breaking in to the team at a certain stage of his career must be a very exact science if they want to tie it up with their contract as well. 

 

I agree that we need to improve tenfold on enticing young players to stay having said that and I agree it's a bad argument but I can't remember the last player Wednesday developed who has gone on to better things.

 

I still maintain that for promising youngsters they hold the strong cards especially at a club like ours where we don't have a plethora of quality players.  I presume that DC is taking the stance that he won't be hold to what he may perceive as been held to ransom.  That there is little leeway to negotiate either sign or take the highway.

 

When Clare left I thought we was missing out big time as he looked a real prospect, just imagine if DC offered him a big contract then had to sell him or let him go as he didn't progress as expected.  Fans would have criticised him for wasting money on a no-hoper. 

In regards to Clare. I’m not saying give him a 4/5 year deal. The previous summer we should be offering him a new 2 year deal. We’d already had him out on loan. We should have tied him up before we sent him out to Gillingham. Then when he breaks into the side, he’s under contract and if he’s any good we benefit, if he’s not we can sell. 
 

There’s no harm done. The player won’t be asking the world at that stage. 
 

Selling players is not a bad thing. 

[SallyCinnamon]

1 minute ago, Maddogbob said:

Your issue, like most is the way the club handled it rather than Shaw actually leaving and wanting to to either better himself/earn more. 

 

I feel this has more than likely got lost in translation. 

Liam Shaw if we had offered him a new deal last summer or around the time Monk had him on the bench and training with the first team after his decent loan spell at Chesterfield by all accounts. Offer him a deal then. Get it sorted. He would have jumped at it. 
 

Then when he breaks through, fantastic. If clubs want him they’ll have to chuck some money at us. Instead he’s broken in and in the space of a couple of weeks he’s off.

 

Terrible planning.

[Inspector Lestrade]

2 minutes ago, SallyCinnamon said:

In regards to Clare. I’m not saying give him a 4/5 year deal. The previous summer we should be offering him a new 2 year deal. We’d already had him out on loan. We should have tied him up before we sent him out to Gillingham. Then when he breaks into the side, he’s under contract and if he’s any good we benefit, if he’s not we can sell. 
 

There’s no harm done. The player won’t be asking the world at that stage. 
 

Selling players is not a bad thing. 

 

I'm not saying selling is bad.  My point is that a player may look a world beater at 16/17 but at 18/19 fall by the wayside, the art is knowing which player to offer the better contracts too.   

[Maddogbob]

3 minutes ago, SallyCinnamon said:

Liam Shaw if we had offered him a new deal last summer or around the time Monk had him on the bench and training with the first team after his decent loan spell at Chesterfield by all accounts. Offer him a deal then. Get it sorted. He would have jumped at it. 
 

Then when he breaks through, fantastic. If clubs want him they’ll have to chuck some money at us. Instead he’s broken in and in the space of a couple of weeks he’s off.

 

Terrible planning.

Yep I see your point. 

 

Probably not harm in theory doing that say extend his current deal to two years, then extend if he breaks through. 

 

I say in theory because we don't know how screwed we are maybe/maybe not at that point and and every pound counts. 

 

That said we've done exactly the same with our regular established player letting them run down to six months as well. 

[Maddogbob]

2 minutes ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

I'm not saying selling is bad.  My point is that a player may look a world beater at 16/17 but at 18/19 fall by the wayside, the art is knowing which player to offer the better contracts too.   

I think luck also plays its part. 

 

Its only ever an educated  guess. 

 

[Inspector Lestrade]

3 minutes ago, Maddogbob said:

I think luck also plays its part. 

 

Its only ever an educated  guess. 

 

 

Agree

[BIG D]

So is this confirmed then? By who?

[Maddogbob]

2 minutes ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

Agree

By all accounts Scholes was miles off and was close to being binned off, one member of the coaching team saved him and the rest is history. 

[bigash_swfc]

3 minutes ago, BIG D said:

So is this confirmed then? By who?

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/footballleagueworld.co.uk/celtic-make-breakthrough-in-hope-of-striking-sheffield-wednesday-transfer-agreement/amp/

 

My take; Celtic are interested, nothing is signed. Whatever he's been offered will hopefully be discussed with Chansiri.

 

 

[Flat Owl]

Profligate waste.

Can’t believe a ‘successful businessman’ would allow this to happen [again].

It’s like a used car salesman letting all the MoTs expire, wondering why he’s skint and having to sell the show room...

[TomtheOwl95]

The Hirst comparisons are daft in my opinion.

 

Liam Shaw got his head down, worked hard and took his chance in the team when presented with it, doing well and standing out. He's earned his move, whether you think Celtic is a step up or not. It is by the way.

 

George Hirst believed his own hype, a hype given to him mostly off his surname. yeah he scored some goals at his own age level. So have many players, I see ex players all the time on twitter talking about "Joey Jones" or "Jacky Jacks" who no fan has ever heard of because they never made it at pro level. Not saying George Hirst will be that but I doubt he'll play at Premier League level, I think Shaw will.

 

I wish the lad luck, no time for Celtic but I don't blame Liam Shaw for deciding to leave and go and play in front of big crowds when they're allowed back in, Champions League and Europa League football as well. Wednesday fan or not, there's nothing to keep him here. Sad but true.