A system set up to fail

[Dogbark]

No need to lash out if you cant comprehend something. You're not the only one.

Had my point been, we should have kept a 15 year old by providing him a pre contract, if what you saying is correct then yes it would have disproved my point. As it is, it means nothing.

Once the player's registration has expired they can leave for another club and there's bugger all the club can do about it. Understand?

 

[Coeus]

Once the player's registration has expired they can leave for another club and there's bugger all the club can do about it. Understand?

I understand what you have wrote, I just don't agree with it, I'm not questioning wether it is correct as it doesn't matter either way to my thought process.

The futile and the bugger all is the metholodgy of thought that is the rotten core. It's sensible and can be explained in reasonable terms but none the less harmful.

I don't think you could understand my point due to your metholodgy of thought.

Could we have done something to change these players minds, wether that be a development plan that outlines a shorter route to first team football?

Could we have promised untold riches that is within the laws of the game?

Can we earn the trust of agents and parents as well as players to tip the balance on our side?

Can we offer excellence in studies that would set the player up to be a better rounded person?

How can we develop the football club in a manner that will make the few suggestions above more practicle in the future?

If the onus of our thinking was on the future rather than the now, would we be more inclined to try harder to keep these players?

These aren't proposals that can be refuted by a no or a we can do bugger all.

And it is a very small fraction of my overall thinking so regardless it does not matter to my overall idea.

 

[Dogbark]

I understand what you have wrote, I just don't agree with it, I'm not questioning wether it is correct as it doesn't matter either way to my thought process.

The futile and the bugger all is the metholodgy of thought that is the rotten core. It's sensible and can be explained in reasonable terms but none the less harmful.

I don't think you could understand my point due to your metholodgy of thought.

Could we have done something to change these players minds, wether that be a development plan that outlines a shorter route to first team football?

Could we have promised untold riches that is within the laws of the game?

Can we earn the trust of agents and parents as well as players to tip the balance on our side?

Can we offer excellence in studies that would set the player up to be a better rounded person?

How can we develop the football club in a manner that will make the few suggestions above more practicle in the future?

If the onus of our thinking was on the future rather than the now, would we be more inclined to try harder to keep these players?

These aren't proposals that can be refuted by a no or a we can do bugger all.

And it is a very small fraction of my overall thinking so regardless it does not matter to my overall idea.

If 'rotten core' = reality then so be it

 

[Zak's Dad]

All very sensible viewpoints with merit to them, I do disagree though.

When a club of Liverpool decides a player as young as Luca is worth 500k, you can sensibly believe that the player could become a premiership player, even a very good one that would net insane amounts of money. Rejecting 500k is the calculated gamble I would have took (although I am aware it wasn't as simple as saying yes or no).

I think if you have a strategy, implement it straight away, not when it becomes easy to do so as there will never be the right time. If you can't commit to doing it when the pressure and expectation is at an all-time low, then you never can.

I don't dislike Grigg, I just think the version of events in which we bought him, was panicked.

Let's call it 4 million, could we have used that 4 million to keep Maja and the youngsters we have lost? Im not sure but would if so, would we be in a better position mid term?

This is blatent misrepresentation of the facts.

1. We offered Maja everything he asked for, his agent then broke off discussions and dodged our phone calls and emails for weeks. There were no negotiations taking place which would have allowed us to try to keep him. He'd decided to leave and not to speak to us.

2. As others have said we couldn't under the current rules "accept bids" for youth players under 17. They're able to leave clubs as they wish and we get compensation. Unless you have proof that wasn't the case we have to assume everything was done as I've outlined.

Therefore we could NOT have used that 4 milluon to keep a player who refused to stay or pay financial inducements to minors.

All very sensible viewpoints with merit to them, I do disagree though.

When a club of Liverpool decides a player as young as Luca is worth 500k, you can sensibly believe that the player could become a premiership player, even a very good one that would net insane amounts of money. Rejecting 500k is the calculated gamble I would have took (although I am aware it wasn't as simple as saying yes or no).

I think if you have a strategy, implement it straight away, not when it becomes easy to do so as there will never be the right time. If you can't commit to doing it when the pressure and expectation is at an all-time low, then you never can.

I don't dislike Grigg, I just think the version of events in which we bought him, was panicked.

Let's call it 4 million, could we have used that 4 million to keep Maja and the youngsters we have lost? Im not sure but would if so, would we be in a better position mid term?

This is blatent misrepresentation of the facts.

1. We offered Maja everything he asked for, his agent then broke off discussions and dodged our phone calls and emails for weeks. There were no negotiations taking place which would have allowed us to try to keep him. He'd decided to leave and not to speak to us.

2. As others have said we couldn't under the current rules "accept bids" for youth players under 17. They're able to leave clubs as they wish and we get compensation. Unless you have proof that wasn't the case we have to assume everything was done as I've outlined.

Therefore we could NOT have used that 4 milluon to keep a player who refused to stay or pay financial inducements to minors.

 

[Coeus]

This is blatent misrepresentation of the facts.

1. We offered Maja everything he asked for, his agent then broke off discussions and dodged our phone calls and emails for weeks. There were no negotiations taking place which would have allowed us to try to keep him. He'd decided to leave and not to speak to us.

2. As others have said we couldn't under the current rules "accept bids" for youth players under 17. They're able to leave clubs as they wish and we get compensation. Unless you have proof that wasn't the case we have to assume everything was done as I've outlined.

Therefore we could NOT have used that 4 milluon to keep a player who refused to stay or pay financial inducements to minors.



This is blatent misrepresentation of the facts.

1. We offered Maja everything he asked for, his agent then broke off discussions and dodged our phone calls and emails for weeks. There were no negotiations taking place which would have allowed us to try to keep him. He'd decided to leave and not to speak to us.

2. As others have said we couldn't under the current rules "accept bids" for youth players under 17. They're able to leave clubs as they wish and we get compensation. Unless you have proof that wasn't the case we have to assume everything was done as I've outlined.

Therefore we could NOT have used that 4 milluon to keep a player who refused to stay or pay financial inducements to minors.

It's not a misrepresentation of facts, it's a question or a way of thinking. One that isn't easily answered despite some people best efforts.

My point isn't about singular decisions it's about the weight placed of certain variables that may change those decisions. I've tried my best to explain this but the majority of those who have replied to me appear to think my posts mean something different than their intention.

 

[Zak's Dad]

It's not a misrepresentation of facts, it's a question or a way of thinking. One that isn't easily answered despite some people best efforts.

My point isn't about singular decisions it's about the weight placed of certain variables that may change those decisions. I've tried my best to explain this but the majority of those who have replied to me appear to think my posts mean something different than their intention.

You can't "think" Maja into starting negotiations with us. He withdrew from negotiations. Period.

You 'thinking differently' will not affect that outcome.

 

[Coeus]

You can't "think" Maja into starting negotiations with us. He withdrew from negotiations. Period.

You 'thinking differently' will not affect that outcome.

It's all hypothetical mate. No right or wrong.

If we used the money spent on Grigg to keep Maja. That is a massive sign on fee and presumably better wages than Bordeaux. Would we be better off asset wise.

This isn't really my Intended point so I'm not sure why I am arguing it. Stewart himself said he under estimated the cost of replacing which would of hardened his bargaining stance and that he could of come to to what was requested earlier meaning Maja and agent may not of chanced the window.

I'm not saying there isn't reasoning behind decisions that are made. I am questioning about where the importance is placed when weighing up those choices.

There are a million different variables to consider with all these thing as opposed to he wanted to leave, no other outcome etc...

 

[Zak's Dad]

It's all hypothetical mate. No right or wrong.

If we used the money spent on Grigg to keep Maja. That is a massive sign on fee and presumably better wages than Bordeaux. Would we be better off asset wise.

This isn't really my Intended point so I'm not sure why I am arguing it. Stewart himself said he under estimated the cost of replacing which would of hardened his bargaining stance and that he could of come to to what was requested earlier meaning Maja and agent may not of chanced the window.

I'm not saying there isn't reasoning behind decisions that are made. I am questioning about where the importance is placed when weighing up those choices.

There are a million different variables to consider with all these thing as opposed to he wanted to leave, no other outcome etc...

No it's not hypothetical. Maja refused to sign the contract he negotiated and walked away.
We can't will things to be different. It happened.

Just like the youth players leaving. We couldn't offer them financial inducements to stay. And the money was compensation rather than a fee. That's not hypothetical, unless you know something different?

 

[Nipple Salad]

It wasn't strictly what you'd call short-term thinking. Don and Chaz had only just taken over the club.

They had no option but to think short-term to counteract all the shit left over by the previous owner including bad management of contracts which directly led to Majagate.

This happened with Colback, with Asoro and of course with Jermaine Defoe's golden goodbye which even stunned the experts.

 

[Coeus]

No it's not hypothetical. Maja refused to sign the contract he negotiated and walked away.
We can't will things to be different. It happened.

Just like the youth players leaving. We couldn't offer them financial inducements to stay. And the money was compensation rather than a fee. That's not hypothetical, unless you know something different?

At a point in time Maja walked away from what they had requested yes but there are many different points in time when that wasn't the case. I find it impossible to believe that the situation was destined to happen the way it did no matter what. Throw in an unlimited amount of money and things change, there are plenty of different levels in between. This isn't a pay him what he wants and I'm obviously not getting my point across that this isn't about Maja or Grigg in particular.

I don't know anything different mate although the fee from Liverpool was reported around 500k which is not the compensation we would have been owed I don't think as well as Luca's father suggesting that no interest had been paid in keeping him here. Look further up the page for possibilities to try to make people stay. I don't think any of these things are as clear cut as some are making out and it isn't the outcome that is my point.

It wasn't strictly what you'd call short-term thinking. Don and Chaz had only just taken over the club.

They had no option but to think short-term to counteract all the shit left over by the previous owner including bad management of contracts which directly led to Majagate.

This happened with Colback, with Asoro and of course with Jermaine Defoe's golden goodbye which even stunned the experts.

I fully understand they had to be short term and have done a great job of stabalizying us. What I'm saying is an assumption of how much importance the short term has on decisions being made. It cannot be accurately discussed by saying Maja wanted to go or the youngsters can leave as the rules state. That isn't my point.

There are countless threads on Maja, I understand what happened and I'm not slating the club nor owners, that's not what this is.

 

[KStephenson]

Once the player's registration has expired they can leave for another club and there's bugger all the club can do about it. Understand?

That’s actually not correct.
If the club wants to retain you, you can’t just ‘leave’ & certainly not to go somewhere else.

 

[KStephenson]

Why are people not able to grasp the fact that we CAN’T keep hold of the under 17 players, it’s not our decision, there’s literally nothing we can do to stop it, how many times does this need to be said?

There is. To make the approach legal, it has to go via the current club, if that club says no, that’s the end of it.

 

[KStephenson]

There is. To make the approach legal, it has to go via the current club, if that club says no, that’s the end of it.

Why are people not able to grasp the fact that we CAN’T keep hold of the under 17 players, it’s not our decision, there’s literally nothing we can do to stop it, how many times does this need to be said?

 

[Dogbark]

That’s actually not correct.
If the club wants to retain you, you can’t just ‘leave’ & certainly not to go somewhere else.

If the buying club is willing to pay the compensation then the player can leave.

 

[Cox Green Fc]

The amount of excuses our fans make is unbelievable like .

Its genuinely the worst standard league ive ever seen and we somehow are still managing to look shite every week

The excuses need to stop. That teasm should be pissing this league and blowing teams away

How negative are you

 

[KStephenson]

If the buying club is willing to pay the compensation then the player can leave.

Yes agreed. But that’s not just leaving. Got to have a club waiting & willing to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds first.

 

[KStephenson]

One of the lads fathers has already said his son was open to staying but the club appeared keen for them to leave due to the few.

That twitter post was not his father.

 

[Dogbark]

Yes agreed. But that’s not just leaving. Got to have a club waiting & willing to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds first.

I didn't say it was.

 

[gretzky]

Need to have some perspective on us “over paying “ for Grigg.
We paid what we had to to get him.
Compared to some of our other over payments on utterly shite players over the last few years it wasn’t a stupid price to pay, even with our current status and funding.

 

[Coeus]

That twitter post was not his father.

Are you his father?

Need to have some perspective on us “over paying “ for Grigg.
We paid what we had to to get him.
Compared to some of our other over payments on utterly shite players over the last few years it wasn’t a stupid price to pay, even with our current status and funding.

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.