• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

A system set up to fail

Status
Not open for further replies.

Coeus said:
Perhaps you could provide us with some insight?

What did you make of the whole process, when and how interest was shown from elsewhere, what was done by the club in an attempt to keep your lad?
Click to expand...

The club made contact with Sunderland to ask permission to approach, Sunderland said yes. That’s about the bottom line of it.
 
KStephenson said:
The club made contact with Sunderland to ask permission to approach, Sunderland said yes. That’s about the bottom line of it.
Click to expand...

Did the club have the opportunity to say no?

If they did not, would it have made any difference had someone spoken to you about how important they felt the lad could be to the clubs future and why they felt the decision to stay would befit his career?
 
Coeus said:
Did the club have the opportunity to say no?

If they did not, would it have made any difference had someone spoken to you about how important they felt the lad could be to the clubs future and why they felt the decision to stay would befit his career?
Click to expand...

Yes the club could say no. (Which I think they had done previously some time earlier)

He was under contract with them.

Their choice whether they allow an approach or not.
 
KStephenson said:
Yes the club could say no. (Which I think they had done previously sometime earlier)

He was under contract with them.

Their choice whether they allow an approach or not.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that the players (15-16) could leave as they pleased as long as the new club paid the compensation to the former club?

The contract he signed will have taken him to what age had he stayed?
 
Coeus said:
Are you his father?



That's kind of my point though, doing what it takes at the time instead of working within a structure that focuses on the future.

If Will Grigg is a success or not doesn't prove or disprove my point.
Click to expand...

Every remotely successful club needs to make important short term investments as well as planning for the future.
Man Utd’s class of 92 was supplemented by big signings every year. Southampton’s return from our current position was achieved with great youngsters but also Lambert who cost over a million 10 years ago.
I get your point, but I don’t think it’s as straightforward as you suggest.
 
Coeus said:
I was under the impression that the players (15-16) could leave as they pleased as long as the new club paid the compensation to the former club?

The contract he signed will have taken him to what age had he stayed?
Click to expand...

No. Certainly not that simple.
As I’ve said, holding club has to agree to the kid even speaking to interested club.
If they say no, that really is the end of it.
Even if they say yes, there’s still a long way to go, final decision comes from Premier League & relevant governing bodies to approve the move.
He was contracted to 16. With a pre-signed scholarship offer.
 
gretzky said:
Every remotely successful club needs to make important short term investments as well as planning for the future.
Man Utd’s class of 92 was supplemented by big signings every year. Southampton’s return from our current position was achieved with great youngsters but also Lambert who cost over a million 10 years ago.
I get your point, but I don’t think it’s as straightforward as you suggest.
Click to expand...

I understand yours but mine isn't as straightforward as you have interpreted it or I have not been able to articulate correctly.

It isn't that big signing are not required, my intended point doesn't rely upon the Grigg transfer.

KStephenson said:
No. Certainly not that simple.
As I’ve said, holding club has to agree to the kid even speaking to interested club.
If they say no, that really is the end of it.
Even if they say yes, there’s still a long way to go, final decision comes from Premier League & relevant governing bodies to approve the move.
He was contracted to 16. With a pre-signed scholarship offer.
Click to expand...

Very interesting stuff, thank you.

My apologies for all the questions but should they have said no and his contract took him till 16, then Liverpool would have been able to offer him a deal without the consent of the club? Possibly with less money changing hands?

At 16 Sunderland could have offered him an incentive based contract (long term) that would kick in at 17 if I am right? If that had happened would it have been considered or was moving to Liverpool the idea as soon as their interest was registered?
 
Last edited:
Coeus said:
I understand yours but mine isn't as straightforward as you have interpreted it or I have not been able to articulate correctly.

It isn't that big signing are not required, my intended point doesn't rely upon the Grigg transfer.



Very interesting stuff, thank you.

My apologies for all the questions but should they have said no and his contract took him till 16, then Liverpool would have been able to offer him a deal without the consent of the club? Possibly with less money changing hands?

At 16 Sunderland could have offered him an incentive based contract (long term) that would kick in at 17 if I am right? If that had happened would it have been considered or was moving to Liverpool the idea as soon as their interest was registered?
Click to expand...

No Liverpool still couldn’t approach, as Sunderland would have then offered him a new contract, if a club wants to retain a player then they still hold the cards.. In this case he already had a pre-signed scholarship also. Which complicates matters further.

I think your correct that 16 is the threshold to offer a pro-contract. Although not 100%..
However he was only 14 when the move happened so didn’t come into it really.
 
KStephenson said:
No Liverpool still couldn’t approach, as Sunderland would have then offered him a new contract, if a club wants to retain a player then they still hold the cards.. In this case he already had a pre-signed scholarship also. Which complicates matters further.

I think your correct that 16 is the threshold to offer a pro-contract. Although not 100%..
However he was only 14 when the move happened so didn’t come into it really.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying, appears different from what the common perception is on here and what we have been led to believe.
 
Coeus said:
Thanks for clarifying, appears different from what the common perception is on here and what we have been led to believe.
Click to expand...

I agree. That’s why I felt I needed to reply.

A club can’t hold a player hostage, but they certainly do hold the cards when it comes to youth players & allowing them to leave.

It’s a long drawn out process even when the holding club has been fully compliant, if they reject an approach I can only assume it would make it nye on impossible for the move to go ahead without a fight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top