Jump to content

OFFICIAL CLUB STATEMENT REGARDING LIAM SHAW


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, malek said:

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... 

The player and his agent have to want to sign

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Lawrie’s Left Peg said:

The player and his agent have to want to sign

 

Shaw also agreed to sign pro deal with us, but all we offered was a one year deal that is expiring in the Summer. We could have signed him on a longer deal, we chose not to.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, malek said:

 

Shaw also agreed to sign pro deal with us, but all we offered was a one year deal that is expiring in the Summer. We could have signed him on a longer deal, we chose not to.

It's a gamble. Back then few would have quibbled with him being given a one year deal. He's progressed significantly this season. The Pulis (with an axe to grind) and Lennon connection was unlucky for us especially with it being Celtic and the adverse compensation.

We seriously need to review the academy though as it's become an expense we can I'll afford without better end product

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Teddy Nickelarse said:

It's a gamble. Back then few would have quibbled with him being given a one year deal. He's progressed significantly this season. The Pulis (with an axe to grind) and Lennon connection was unlucky for us especially with it being Celtic and the adverse compensation.

We seriously need to review the academy though as it's become an expense we can I'll afford without better end product

 

 

But he didn't.

 

He was always touted of as a big talent, it was just our stupid policy to offer 1 year deals to U-23 players as well as stubbornly keeping doors to the first team squad shut to players making a step up from U-23 football, no matter how good or how talented they are.

 

Btw. More and more I believe that letting Conor Grant leave on permanent deal was just as big mistake as loosing Shaw to Celtic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, malek said:

 

But he didn't.

 

He was always touted of as a big talent, it was just our stupid policy to offer 1 year deals to U-23 players as well as stubbornly keeping doors to the first team squad shut to players making a step up from U-23 football, no matter how good or how talented they are.

 

Btw. More and more I believe that letting Conor Grant leave on permanent deal was just as big mistake as loosing Shaw to Celtic.

Well I'd agree about Grant.

Shaw is effectively a first team player now at 19 so the door not shut on him.

Difficult with youngsters. As I say and it's just my opinion but pushing the boat out too far for youngsters is a gamble that can go either way. 

Poor stewardship of the club has given the club less financial room to gamble.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Teddy Nickelarse said:

Well I'd agree about Grant.

Shaw is effectively a first team player now at 19 so the door not shut on him.

Difficult with youngsters. As I say and it's just my opinion but pushing the boat out too far for youngsters is a gamble that can go either way. 

Poor stewardship of the club has given the club less financial room to gamble.

 

I don’t se point of 1 year contracts to our youth players. 

 

They only work in our favor if those players don't make it, so why offering them at all?! If they prove as good enough we either lose them or have to resigns them on much more than they were originaly on. 

 

On the other hand we gambled heavily on High transfer fees and wages and on long contracts to older players with no resale value making contracts we offer to our youngsters laughable in comparsion. Why pulling plug and playing it safe on low wage contracts with low risk and potentialy high rewards?! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, malek said:

 

I don’t se point of 1 year contracts to our youth players. 

 

They only work in our favor if those players don't make it, so why offering them at all?! If they prove as good enough we either lose them or have to resigns them on much more than they were originaly on. 

 

On the other hand we gambled heavily on High transfer fees and wages and on long contracts to older players with no resale value making contracts we offer to our youngsters laughable in comparsion. Why pulling plug and playing it safe on low wage contracts with low risk and potentialy high rewards?! 

Yes it's no doubt because of the folly of overspending in other areas (which is now clearly being reigned back - out if necessity) that has influenced a cautious approach at the younger end. As I've said you just don't know how it will go with the youngsters though and also I think we got a bit unlucky with Pulis and Lennon being mates and no doubt with Pulis wanting to put one over us

Going forward I hope that we do go the other way but that will be panned by many too who want instant results. Personally I'd love to see us riding the roller coaster of developing our own youngsters and recruiting unpolished gems but I can understand, without the benefit of hindsight, why things panned out the way they have with Shaw.

Just my opinion.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
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...