OFFICIAL CLUB STATEMENT REGARDING LIAM SHAW

[Pieman]

40 minutes ago, Ante's Bubbly said:

 

You have got to learn to separate the man from the club though. The club does not make all the big decisions, it is not some special entity that has a mind of its own. White went for next to nothing, Hirst went for next to nothing, Claire went for next to nothing and now Shaw, probably the most promising of the lot, is going to go for next to nothing. There are five or six other very promising young players who could also go the same way, because nothing has been done about them either. Who do you think has made this club such easy prey? The idiot still counts Paixo as his trusted advisor yet some of Paixo's former associates (or still best buddies as far as we know) were responsible for at least two of our promising young players leaving for peanuts, so where does that leave things?  Are we going to wait for another foreign or Scottish club to pop in with their mini-cheques before we decide to do something? None of these events are down to some magical club entity, they are all down to individuals. I know absolutely nothing about how DC got his money, or what his other business interest may be, or how good he is at anything else in his life, but I do know what he told us when he first arrived and he has continued to prove that fact every season since then. He knows sweet FA (and sweet EFL) about football. I am not the kind of fan that is going to support any organisation that I know is wrong, but I dearly love my club and for what he is doing to my club I dearly dislike Chansiri and what he has done to our club. He is dragging it and all of us, by association, with him through the dirt. As far as I am concerned the sooner the actions of Chansiri and the actions of the club are separated the better. Bring on league 1, because it has been coming for a couple of years or more now and that will be nothing compared to where we could end up under this fool.

This is exactly what I am saying, I am separating the man from the club? I am saying Chansiri has right royally f***ed this up.

 

[Inspector Lestrade]

10 minutes ago, Ante's Bubbly said:

 

So they think they are so good that they do not sign say a 5 year contract, prior to playing in the first team when they are 16, 17, or 18? Does the club not have the right to say take it or leave it? Blimey if the player/agent think they are that good, they should be playing for Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea etc and if they are really good players they should be playing first team football somewhere when they are 17, 18 or 19 years old.

 

The player himself said that the club were sorting things out with his agent because he wanted to stay here and the next minute he's off to Celtic in the summer! Surely if we had sorted out a deal before then this could not have happened or am I missing something? As many others have said the precedent for our club was already set and some of us have done our homework with regards to what other teams offer their young players wage wise and what ridiculous wages we prefer to offer to older players that are past it. These things are not the fault of the players or their agents it is our approach to player recruitment, our approach to developing players and moving them into the first team and the over emphasis on paying older unfit players way more than they are worth.

 

 

 

If you have a player at 16 who is considered a good player then whatever contract the player signs by the time they are 20 they will either sign to stay at the club or if they are well above average they may look to other clubs.  

 

The Premier have the first choice of the best players available.

 

Surely it's in the agents and players interest to let contracts run down before signing a new one.

[Ante's Bubbly]

45 minutes ago, Pieman said:

This is exactly what I am saying, I am separating the man from the club? I am saying Chansiri has right royally f***ed this up.

 

 

Yes I understand that, but as a club, which includes the set of fans, we have all been punished for one man's total disregard for the rules. Unfortunately the one person responsible for breaking the rules does not pay the price, the club along with it's fans has paid the price so far and will be doing so for many a year and that is only in rent for the ground we will have got off lucky. 

 

I really do think that fans should ask the EFL to take a stronger line with the owner of our club and note the fact that the fans do not agree with what he has been doing with regard to breaking the spending rules, overpaying players, unusual player sourcing deals through third parties, selling the ground to himself, self sponsoring through dubious companies set up, or appearing to be set up purely to fiddle the figures, taking away the club's future income by spending money that has been brought in from forward selling of season tickets and so on. To be honest the EFL have approved this man and he passed their ratification procedures, so they are also in some way to blame for the fact that we are now owned by a naughty man that does not seem to want to play by the rules that everybody else has to adhere to. This is a bit rich when we were such a decent law abiding club before his arrival and he is the first one to spit his dummy out (and bring the lawyers in) when he suspects that he makes out that he is being treated unfairly.

 

[Ante's Bubbly]

1 hour ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

If you have a player at 16 who is considered a good player then whatever contract the player signs by the time they are 20 they will either sign to stay at the club or if they are well above average they may look to other clubs.  

 

The Premier have the first choice of the best players available.

 

Surely it's in the agents and players interest to let contracts run down before signing a new one.

 

But not in the club's! Do you really not get it? A contract works two ways in most cases, ours are still not handled properly. much smaller clubs than ours can sort proper contracts out, why can't we? We keep employing one person after another and still fail to sort it out. We are failing in just about every way we can and that is why we are in such a mess!

[Inspector Lestrade]

1 minute ago, Ante's Bubbly said:

 

But not in the club's! Do you really not get it? A contract works two ways in most cases, ours are still not handled properly. much smaller clubs than ours can sort proper contracts out, why can't we? We keep employing one person after another and still fail to sort it out. We are failing in just about every way we can and that is why we are in such a mess!

 

They are sorting out the lower level players but the better players will be looking to move on.

[Lawrie’s Left Peg]

On 10/03/2021 at 14:07, SallyCinnamon said:

We should not be putting Liam Shaw in the shop window for clubs when he only has a year left on his contract.

Simple as that. You prepare for all eventualities and do everything possible to ensure the club are protected financially.
 

Nobody can say that we’ve done that in this instance. Just like nobody can say we did that in Hirst’s case. Or for that matter the number of players who have been signed for good money and been allowed to run down their contracts and leave for free.

Just playing devils advocate but the Bosman Ruling has put all the power in the hands of the player or, perhaps more accurately, the agent. It’s not a case of allowing Shaw to run down his contract. The club made him an offer. 
By choosing to run down his contract he can leave for free, negotiate a higher signing on fee and wage. The club could try to sell with 12-18 months to go. Even then they can’t force the player to leave. We wouldn’t have got 300k for Shaw this time last year. The club could terminate his contract but would have to pay outstanding salary and bonuses. So would be worse off. Even with mutual termination the club would receive no fee or compensation and again be worse off. The sad truth is that if Shaw or his agent are determined to leave. The U23 compensation is actually the best deal the club could get. 

[hirstys_achilles]

On 11/03/2021 at 01:51, bobness said:

 

Stop and consider that DC has refused to surround himself with competent football advisors. If he had bought the club yesterday you might have point, but not five or six years on, sorry.

 

DC needing to be involved in all player dealings (despite knowing nothing about football!) is not the way to run a healthy club. But that's how DC wants it. All blame should be laid squarely on DC.

I would have and did trust Monk to be a better manager than he was. Why is DC such a bad chairman for believing what his manager and his vision was going to be a benefit to the club. It takes a good manager ten times longer to get it right than it does for a manager to destroy a team like monk has in a season. 

I read DC is a megalomaniac but he has always said that managers have the control of team and players. What we need is a DOF who is wednesday through and through. So things like youth and potential can be judge by somebody who is not likely to be sacked if the 1st team is not performing. The lack of consistency and stability is now causing as many problems as the teams poor results.

DC needs to appoint a DOF as soon as possible and forget about all his other advisors. DC can do the ceo and pr himself as far as i concerned. But if we want to stop good young players leaving and keep academy players from being poached then a different approach is needed. It is now clear the current set up will not top this from happening.

[hirstys_achilles]

18 hours ago, Lawrie’s Left Peg said:

Just playing devils advocate but the Bosman Ruling has put all the power in the hands of the player or, perhaps more accurately, the agent. It’s not a case of allowing Shaw to run down his contract. The club made him an offer. 
By choosing to run down his contract he can leave for free, negotiate a higher signing on fee and wage. The club could try to sell with 12-18 months to go. Even then they can’t force the player to leave. We wouldn’t have got 300k for Shaw this time last year. The club could terminate his contract but would have to pay outstanding salary and bonuses. So would be worse off. Even with mutual termination the club would receive no fee or compensation and again be worse off. The sad truth is that if Shaw or his agent are determined to leave. The U23 compensation is actually the best deal the club could get. 

exactly right. the timing of shaw breaking into the first team has made it look worse for swfc. fact is he has not played many games. He been sent off twice. Booked only once. 300k at the start of the season would have been far more than any club would have offered. What with the managers chopping and changing its been virtually impossible to predict this would happen. DC has many faults but the Shaw saga is not something we can accuse DC of causing directly. If Monk had said he was a prospect DC would have tied him down into a contract. Any chairman would want to keep a player on a grand a week than pay a few million and 20 grand a week. DC will be as peeved as us, if not more.

[@owlstalk]

5 minutes ago, hirstys_achilles said:

 If Monk had said he was a prospect DC would have tied him down into a contract.  

 

 

[hirstys_achilles]

4 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

Get real please. The facts are obvious. If you are correct then DC is basically sabotaging his position, wealth and the club. 

[hirstys_achilles]

Even the biggest control freak chair never watch u 23 never mind watch them train so how would DC be in a position to decide on his own which youth players need a long term contract

[83owl]

26 minutes ago, hirstys_achilles said:

I would have and did trust Monk to be a better manager than he was. Why is DC such a bad chairman for believing what his manager and his vision was going to be a benefit to the club. It takes a good manager ten times longer to get it right than it does for a manager to destroy a team like monk has in a season. 

I read DC is a megalomaniac but he has always said that managers have the control of team and players. What we need is a DOF who is wednesday through and through. So things like youth and potential can be judge by somebody who is not likely to be sacked if the 1st team is not performing. The lack of consistency and stability is now causing as many problems as the teams poor results.

DC needs to appoint a DOF as soon as possible and forget about all his other advisors. DC can do the ceo and pr himself as far as i concerned. But if we want to stop good young players leaving and keep academy players from being poached then a different approach is needed. It is now clear the current set up will not top this from happening.

If a manager has control of players who brought Hutchinson and green in then? Neil Thompson? 

[Hookowl]

Just now, 83owl said:

If a manager has control of players who brought Hutchinson and green in then? Neil Thompson? 

 

I thought it was Pulis who was supposed to have initiated the Hutchinson return ?

[malek]

Rochdale got talented midfielder in their U-23 side who started one game for their team. They think he is talented so they signed him on a 3 years deal so they don't lose him for peanuts. 

 

Looks so simple, don't know why we can't do it... 

[83owl]

3 minutes ago, Hookowl said:

 

I thought it was Pulis who was supposed to have initiated the Hutchinson return ?

I don’t know I’m asking. He stated the managers have control of players that come in and out so which manager signed those two players? Even if it was Poolis who wanted Hutchinson back he was sacked before he arrived so somebody must be making these decisions?

[Hookowl]

2 minutes ago, 83owl said:

I don’t know I’m asking. He stated the managers have control of players that come in and out so which manager signed those two players? Even if it was Poolis who wanted Hutchinson back he was sacked before he arrived so somebody must be making these decisions?

 

I would presume that the same as the majority of clubs the owner has the final say on whether or not he spends his money on a certain player.

This would be whether the said player was recommended by a manager, scouting team or anyone else.

[83owl]

8 minutes ago, Hookowl said:

 

I would presume that the same as the majority of clubs the owner has the final say on whether or not he spends his money on a certain player.

This would be whether the said player was recommended by a manager, scouting team or anyone else.

Exactly so we have someone who proclaimed only a few years ago to know “nothing about football” is now effectively in charge of our recruitment.

[Hookowl]

Just now, 83owl said:

Exactly so we have someone who proclaimed only a few years ago to know “nothing about football” is now effectively in charge of our recruitment.

 

I didn't say that, I said he is in charge of the money, as all club owners are.

[83owl]

33 minutes ago, Hookowl said:

 

I didn't say that, I said he is in charge of the money, as all club owners are.

I don’t think OGS or Klopp ask the Glaziers or tom Henry when they want to buy players, they will have someone in place to run the club, someone who has knowledge of the game and know when to spend and what is a good deal or not.

 

Brentford have Ankerson who will make the decisions, I doubt Benham gets involved too much in transfers.

 

We have DC.

[Hookowl]

17 minutes ago, 83owl said:

I don’t think OGS or Klopp ask the Glaziers or tom Henry when they want to buy players, they will have someone in place to run the club, someone who has knowledge of the game and know when to spend and what is a good deal or not.

 

Brentford have Ankerson who will make the decisions, I doubt Benham gets involved too much in transfers.

 

We have DC.

 

Not disputing that mate.

I don't for one minute think that DC actively watches loads of other matches and scouts for players though.

He will take advice as other owners do.

I don't know who's advice he is listening to, but whether it is the scouting team Bruce brought in, the manager or others it doesn't seem to be working.

Regarding Brentford I would have thought that Benham would definitely get involved with transfers. As he has previously been coach and sporting director for them.