Player Power: Maguire v Stones

[The Bohemian]

Some, including, apparently, the SUFC Board, believe that when a player expresses a desire to leave a club his departure becomes an inevitability, irrespective of his contractual situation. The argument usually presented is along the lines of, "there's no point keeping an unsettled player", especially if the price offered is deemed acceptable.

Others, including, apparently, the Everton Manager and Board, do not accept this inevitability and believe that where a player is contracted to a club, the club has no obligation to sell if it is not deemed in the club's best interests to do so. That larger clubs cannot simply "click their fingers" and expect clubs of lesser means to roll over.

I, along with many on this forum, felt that selling Harry Maguire to Hull for £2m was likely to undermine our promotion hopes. Whilst the money offered for a player entering the final year of his contract was not insignificant, it was in the context of the cost of another year spent in Division 3. David Edgar's early impact has demonstrated just how much the lack of a specialist central defender hindered our progress last season.

The Board and Manager should have stood firm on Maguire and accepted the possibility of him leaving on a Bosman. Had they done so, there is reason to believe he would have been playing regularly in the Championship on big money with The Blades, rather than stagnating on the bench for Hull.

Whilst I didn't agree with the Murphy sale, at least there was the 'adequate cover' argument, completely lacking in Maguire's sale.

Of course, Chelsea's desperate need for a long term replacement for Terry may yet result in them offering even sillier money for Stones which Everton decide to accept. If so, it will still have vindicated Everton's stance in refusing to be bullied into submission by the player, his Agent or Chelsea and garnering an above market value for a player who still has lots to prove.

The Blades board needs a rapid volte face on this issue. Bosman moved power irrevocably towards players and agents and made it much more difficult for clubs to hold onto their prized assets. That said, a contract is still a contract and, in the absence of a trigger clause, there is no obligation on the club's part to sell. It is simply a choice.

This forum reveals a deep underbelly of suspicion held towards the club's Board and owners, and cynicism towards their perceived motives. Much of this is unfair and misdirected as it is based on the actions of predecessors. Possibly the biggest single source of discontent is the belief that Sheffield United sells its best players too quickly and too cheaply.

If The Prince is the man of means we are led to believe, nothing would build the confidence and belief of The Faithful more than a clear commitment to developing AND KEEPING our best players. If Everton can do it, so can we!

UTB!

 

[sitwell]

At the moment I bet Hull fans think they've blown money on Maguire ,maybe we did get a fair price ,they certainly haven't had value from a 'cheap sale' yet.
I would have him back for the same money though.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

Some, including, apparently, the SUFC Board, believe that when a player expresses a desire to leave a club his departure becomes an inevitability, irrespective of his contractual situation. The argument usually presented is along the lines of, "there's no point keeping an unsettled player", especially if the price offered is deemed acceptable.

Others, including, apparently, the Everton Manager and Board, do not accept this inevitability and believe that where a player is contracted to a club, the club has no obligation to sell if it is not deemed in the club's best interests to do so. That larger clubs cannot simply "click their fingers" and expect clubs of lesser means to roll over.

I, along with many on this forum, felt that selling Harry Maguire to Hull for £2m was likely to undermine our promotion hopes. Whilst the money offered for a player entering the final year of his contract was not insignificant, it was in the context of the cost of another year spent in Division 3. David Edgar's early impact has demonstrated just how much the lack of a specialist central defender hindered our progress last season.

The Board and Manager should have stood firm on Maguire and accepted the possibility of him leaving on a Bosman. Had they done so, there is reason to believe he would have been playing regularly in the Championship on big money with The Blades, rather than stagnating on the bench for Hull.

Whilst I didn't agree with the Murphy sale, at least there was the 'adequate cover' argument, completely lacking in Maguire's sale.

Of course, Chelsea's desperate need for a long term replacement for Terry may yet result in them offering even sillier money for Stones which Everton decide to accept. If so, it will still have vindicated Everton's stance in refusing to be bullied into submission by the player, his Agent or Chelsea and garnering an above market value for a player who still has lots to prove.

The Blades board needs a rapid volte face on this issue. Bosman moved power irrevocably towards players and agents and made it much more difficult for clubs to hold onto their prized assets. That said, a contract is still a contract and, in the absence of a trigger clause, there is no obligation on the club's part to sell. It is simply a choice.

This forum reveals a deep underbelly of suspicion held towards the club's Board and owners, and cynicism towards their perceived motives. Much of this is unfair and misdirected as it is based on the actions of predecessors. Possibly the biggest single source of discontent is the belief that Sheffield United sells its best players too quickly and too cheaply.

If The Prince is the man of means we are led to believe, nothing would build the confidence and belief of The Faithful more than a clear commitment to developing AND KEEPING our best players. If Everton can do it, so can we!

UTB!

Whilst a noble stance I do think Premership status would be required to take said stance.

 

[Revolution]

Whilst a noble stance I do think Premership status would be required to take said stance.

Leeds and Beckford
Huddersfield and Rhodes

 

[Bladesman]

At the moment I bet Hull fans think they've blown money on Maguire ,maybe we did get a fair price ,they certainly haven't had value from a 'cheap sale' yet.
I would have him back for the same money though.

I would be cheeky and offer a lower bid to take him back.

It will be interesting to see how long Everton hold out for though or whether they sell in January.

 

[Flakey]

Some, including, apparently, the SUFC Board, believe that when a player expresses a desire to leave a club his departure becomes an inevitability, irrespective of his contractual situation. The argument usually presented is along the lines of, "there's no point keeping an unsettled player", especially if the price offered is deemed acceptable.

Others, including, apparently, the Everton Manager and Board, do not accept this inevitability and believe that where a player is contracted to a club, the club has no obligation to sell if it is not deemed in the club's best interests to do so. That larger clubs cannot simply "click their fingers" and expect clubs of lesser means to roll over.

I, along with many on this forum, felt that selling Harry Maguire to Hull for £2m was likely to undermine our promotion hopes. Whilst the money offered for a player entering the final year of his contract was not insignificant, it was in the context of the cost of another year spent in Division 3. David Edgar's early impact has demonstrated just how much the lack of a specialist central defender hindered our progress last season.

The Board and Manager should have stood firm on Maguire and accepted the possibility of him leaving on a Bosman. Had they done so, there is reason to believe he would have been playing regularly in the Championship on big money with The Blades, rather than stagnating on the bench for Hull.

Whilst I didn't agree with the Murphy sale, at least there was the 'adequate cover' argument, completely lacking in Maguire's sale.

Of course, Chelsea's desperate need for a long term replacement for Terry may yet result in them offering even sillier money for Stones which Everton decide to accept. If so, it will still have vindicated Everton's stance in refusing to be bullied into submission by the player, his Agent or Chelsea and garnering an above market value for a player who still has lots to prove.

The Blades board needs a rapid volte face on this issue. Bosman moved power irrevocably towards players and agents and made it much more difficult for clubs to hold onto their prized assets. That said, a contract is still a contract and, in the absence of a trigger clause, there is no obligation on the club's part to sell. It is simply a choice.

This forum reveals a deep underbelly of suspicion held towards the club's Board and owners, and cynicism towards their perceived motives. Much of this is unfair and misdirected as it is based on the actions of predecessors. Possibly the biggest single source of discontent is the belief that Sheffield United sells its best players too quickly and too cheaply.

If The Prince is the man of means we are led to believe, nothing would build the confidence and belief of The Faithful more than a clear commitment to developing AND KEEPING our best players. If Everton can do it, so can we!

UTB!

Whilst I agree with much of what you say, had we kept Maguire, we may well have gone up which would have certainly kept NC at the helm. Which would have mean't that the opportunity to employ a better manager would not have arisen.

By hook or by crook, Another season in L1 but with NA as manager may be a better long term prospect, as I would believe NC to be happy in the Championship whereas NA wants more.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Some, including, apparently, the SUFC Board, believe that when a player expresses a desire to leave a club his departure becomes an inevitability, irrespective of his contractual situation. The argument usually presented is along the lines of, "there's no point keeping an unsettled player", especially if the price offered is deemed acceptable.

Others, including, apparently, the Everton Manager and Board, do not accept this inevitability and believe that where a player is contracted to a club, the club has no obligation to sell if it is not deemed in the club's best interests to do so. That larger clubs cannot simply "click their fingers" and expect clubs of lesser means to roll over.

I, along with many on this forum, felt that selling Harry Maguire to Hull for £2m was likely to undermine our promotion hopes. Whilst the money offered for a player entering the final year of his contract was not insignificant, it was in the context of the cost of another year spent in Division 3. David Edgar's early impact has demonstrated just how much the lack of a specialist central defender hindered our progress last season.

The Board and Manager should have stood firm on Maguire and accepted the possibility of him leaving on a Bosman. Had they done so, there is reason to believe he would have been playing regularly in the Championship on big money with The Blades, rather than stagnating on the bench for Hull.

Whilst I didn't agree with the Murphy sale, at least there was the 'adequate cover' argument, completely lacking in Maguire's sale.

Of course, Chelsea's desperate need for a long term replacement for Terry may yet result in them offering even sillier money for Stones which Everton decide to accept. If so, it will still have vindicated Everton's stance in refusing to be bullied into submission by the player, his Agent or Chelsea and garnering an above market value for a player who still has lots to prove.

The Blades board needs a rapid volte face on this issue. Bosman moved power irrevocably towards players and agents and made it much more difficult for clubs to hold onto their prized assets. That said, a contract is still a contract and, in the absence of a trigger clause, there is no obligation on the club's part to sell. It is simply a choice.

This forum reveals a deep underbelly of suspicion held towards the club's Board and owners, and cynicism towards their perceived motives. Much of this is unfair and misdirected as it is based on the actions of predecessors. Possibly the biggest single source of discontent is the belief that Sheffield United sells its best players too quickly and too cheaply.

If The Prince is the man of means we are led to believe, nothing would build the confidence and belief of The Faithful more than a clear commitment to developing AND KEEPING our best players. If Everton can do it, so can we!

UTB!

The player has all the power. If he wants to leave then he gets to leave.

Murphy wanted international recognition. HM wanted Division 1 football. We keep either and we have a prize asset rapidly decreasing in value.

I suspect until Martinez and his team had a chance to talk to him what happened at Everton was Stones's agent wanted the percentage of the silly money transfer fee.

Stones hasn't been forced to stay he's been persuaded to stay.

'John is a great footballer but he is a better human being,' said Martinez. Ie he values football, teamwork, whatever, over money.

As another stick to beat the Board with I think this just snaps weakly in two.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

I would be cheeky and offer a lower bid to take him back.

Who knows? We might be doing just that. That said though, just as Billy is a different and better player would HM be a different and worser player? Let's not get all Bladey-Blade about it. Really.

 

[Bladeinleeds]

Not trying to defend he board, it weakened Us and we lost our best player but stones and Maguire were different situations.

Harry was clearly too good for the league and it was holding him back his career not playing at a higher level - I know it hasn't worked out. I would suggest stones has more to learn and cement his place in the Everton side before forcing a move.

 

[blade too long]

the argument is perhaps a little unbalanced as Stones is staying in the prem whereas Maguire would have been choosing league one status if he stayed. all be it with us
Stones may be happier up north in the prem near his family
harry moved less than an hour away to a then prem team

Any pro would jump at the chance to lift 2 divisions

 

[crucialkneeligaman]

I would be cheeky and offer a lower bid to take him back.

It will be interesting to see how long Everton hold out for though or whether they sell in January.

I think Stones will leave soon but fair play to Everton to holding out against these parasites. I see Arsenal are now sniffing around the lad from Leicester Mahrez. Thousands of top class footballers around the world but they are always looking to hoover up players from shall we say the not worthies.

 

[Hartley Hare]

Stones has to leave, just like Harry did for the financial reasons.

The move to Chelsea will secure his financial future. Will he benefit by £30m? - a share of the fee and five year contract?

It is all about money.

HH

 

[Lord Bos of Eckington.]

Some, including, apparently, the SUFC Board, believe that when a player expresses a desire to leave a club his departure becomes an inevitability, irrespective of his contractual situation. The argument usually presented is along the lines of, "there's no point keeping an unsettled player", especially if the price offered is deemed acceptable.

Others, including, apparently, the Everton Manager and Board, do not accept this inevitability and believe that where a player is contracted to a club, the club has no obligation to sell if it is not deemed in the club's best interests to do so. That larger clubs cannot simply "click their fingers" and expect clubs of lesser means to roll over.

I, along with many on this forum, felt that selling Harry Maguire to Hull for £2m was likely to undermine our promotion hopes. Whilst the money offered for a player entering the final year of his contract was not insignificant, it was in the context of the cost of another year spent in Division 3. David Edgar's early impact has demonstrated just how much the lack of a specialist central defender hindered our progress last season.

The Board and Manager should have stood firm on Maguire and accepted the possibility of him leaving on a Bosman. Had they done so, there is reason to believe he would have been playing regularly in the Championship on big money with The Blades, rather than stagnating on the bench for Hull.

Whilst I didn't agree with the Murphy sale, at least there was the 'adequate cover' argument, completely lacking in Maguire's sale.

Of course, Chelsea's desperate need for a long term replacement for Terry may yet result in them offering even sillier money for Stones which Everton decide to accept. If so, it will still have vindicated Everton's stance in refusing to be bullied into submission by the player, his Agent or Chelsea and garnering an above market value for a player who still has lots to prove.

The Blades board needs a rapid volte face on this issue. Bosman moved power irrevocably towards players and agents and made it much more difficult for clubs to hold onto their prized assets. That said, a contract is still a contract and, in the absence of a trigger clause, there is no obligation on the club's part to sell. It is simply a choice.

This forum reveals a deep underbelly of suspicion held towards the club's Board and owners, and cynicism towards their perceived motives. Much of this is unfair and misdirected as it is based on the actions of predecessors. Possibly the biggest single source of discontent is the belief that Sheffield United sells its best players too quickly and too cheaply.

If The Prince is the man of means we are led to believe, nothing would build the confidence and belief of The Faithful more than a clear commitment to developing AND KEEPING our best players. If Everton can do it, so can we!

UTB!

Comparing SUFC with the Everton situation is not apples against apples.

As Grumpy says , it is a noble stance , but we are not in the premiership with a guranteed £100m dropping in to the coffers every season. Everton were in negotiation with Barnsley , with regards the sell on fee . If they have no intention of selling , then why have negotiations in the first place.

Chelsea appear in a mess defensivley , and no doubt will make a silly offer , Everton cannot refuse , before the transfer window closes.

The Everton chairman is getting the roth of the fans , due to lack of investment , Stones has put in a transfer request , therefore will forfeit any percentage of a fee.

Ken Wainright is like McCabe , a fan and chairman , so never in a win , win situation . Also he may be rich , but not mega rich , therefore there progression stagnates . They need the money to strengthen the squad .

I believe the selling of HM was good busiuness , but we cocked it up , due to no real back up , and the Collins / Butler issue .

Unfair comparison between SUFC and Everton , but i do believe HM is better than Stones , but made the wrong move at the wrong time , for him personally, as a footballer, and perhaps us as a club.

Its not a matter of keeping your best players , its having replacements , who are equal or better ( or will get better ) , as time progresses . We are in league 1 , and perhaps the board and even Adkins , has taken on board , lessons learnt from the Clough era , and previous mistakes .

UTB

 

[blade too long]

I think Stones will leave soon but fair play to Everton to holding out against these parasites. I see Arsenal are now sniffing around the lad from Leicester Mahrez. Thousands of top class footballers around the world but they are always looking to hoover up players from shall we say the not worthies.

this is whats ruing football especially the national teams the top 8 clubs sucking the talent from the rest and parking their arse on Recaro seats
whereas every club had some talent its all at the top 8, or ends up there eventually
18 a side games has made a once level playing field a very very steep hill

 

[alcoblade]

Leeds and Beckford
Huddersfield and Rhodes

I bet they love still watching them in the shirt.



UTB

 

[Revolution]

I bet they love still watching them in the shirt.



UTB

They got promotion before they left. That's the point ( as you well know)

 

[Bladesman]

Stones has to leave, just like Harry did for the financial reasons.

The move to Chelsea will secure his financial future. Will he benefit by £30m? - a share of the fee and five year contract?

It is all about money.

HH

 

[alcoblade]

They got promotion before they left. That's the point ( as you well know)

I was being flippant. I don't remember the circumstances of their departure. I have no doubt that given the right offer, they would have sold earlier.

I don't believe we are any different to any other club, that's my real point.

Where we've previously failed is in reinvestment, both quality and quantity.

UTB

 

[Maidenhead]

Comparing SUFC with the Everton situation is not apples against apples.



The Everton chairman is getting the roth of the fans , due to lack of investment , Stones has put in a transfer request , therefore will forfeit any percentage of a fee.

Ken Wainright is like McCabe , a fan and chairman , so never in a win , win situation . Also he may be rich , but not mega rich , therefore there progression stagnates . They need the money to strengthen the squad .


UTB

Some relative of Bill Kenwright?

 

[The Bohemian]

Whilst a noble stance I do think Premership status would be required to take said stance.

It would definitely make it easier but we can send a stronger signal of intent than in recent times. Perhaps Che is a positive start.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Huge difference in deals due to the PL financial position and the value of the deals. First point to cover is I'm not entirely sure where this view of the Prince as some billionaire has come from. He's not, and has made it clear he's bought us as a long term investment. - that's important.
Looking at the Stones deal, Everton have no pressure to sell. The lad has a long term deal in place, his value will only rise after a season and likely playing in the Euros at the end of, and here the biggy; next season all English player values will go up because of the new Sky deal kicking. £40million is no longer a huge offer for a team like Everton.
For Maguire it was a large amount of money, over the market odds given his talent and likely cost the next summer, and we don't have huge backing to just say no.

 

[The Bohemian]

Reply to William Henry Foulkes:

"The player has all the power. If he wants to leave then he gets to leave."

Not necessarily, it is a choice to sell or not sell a player under contract. Perhaps a difficult choice to stand firm if the player has asked to leave but a choice nonetheless.

"Murphy wanted international recognition. HM wanted Division 1 football. We keep either and we have a prize asset rapidly decreasing in value."

We all "want" lots of things but that doesn't infer we always get what we want. Murphy was happy enough to sign a new 3 year deal, only a matter of months earlier and it would have been perfectly reasonable to remind him of his obligations. At least we had cover for him.

£2m for Maguire - in the final year of his contract - was only good money if we had comparable cover lined up for less money. We didn't, it weakened us and may well have cost us promotion.

"I suspect until Martinez and his team had a chance to talk to him what happened at Everton was Stones's agent wanted the percentage of the silly money transfer fee."

Isn't that the case with most if not all agents? Does that not reinforce the case for taking a firmer stand in the club's best interests?

"Stones hasn't been forced to stay he's been persuaded to stay."

Says who? He handed in a transfer request to try to force his move.


"'John is a great footballer but he is a better human being,' said Martinez. Ie he values football, teamwork, whatever, over money."

"As another stick to beat the Board with I think this just snaps weakly in two.[/QUOTE]"

"Stick?" Really?

 

[Pollingtonblade]

Apart from the GCI quote when the Prince came on board we were told (and I cant be arsed to find the article) We no longer have to sell our prospects.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Reply to William Henry Foulkes:

"The player has all the power. If he wants to leave then he gets to leave."

Not necessarily, it is a choice to sell or not sell a player under contract. Perhaps a difficult choice to stand firm if the player has asked to leave but a choice nonetheless.

"Murphy wanted international recognition. HM wanted Division 1 football. We keep either and we have a prize asset rapidly decreasing in value."

We all "want" lots of things but that doesn't infer we always get what we want. Murphy was happy enough to sign a new 3 year deal, only a matter of months earlier and it would have been perfectly reasonable to remind him of his obligations. At least we had cover for him.

£2m for Maguire - in the final year of his contract - was only good money if we had comparable cover lined up for less money. We didn't, it weakened us and may well have cost us promotion.

"I suspect until Martinez and his team had a chance to talk to him what happened at Everton was Stones's agent wanted the percentage of the silly money transfer fee."

Isn't that the case with most if not all agents? Does that not reinforce the case for taking a firmer stand in the club's best interests?

"Stones hasn't been forced to stay he's been persuaded to stay."

Says who? He handed in a transfer request to try to force his move.


"'John is a great footballer but he is a better human being,' said Martinez. Ie he values football, teamwork, whatever, over money."

"As another stick to beat the Board with I think this just snaps weakly in two.

"

"Stick?" Really? [/QUOTE]

Is the idea that we should force players to see out their contracts against their will?

 

[Revolution]

"

"Stick?" Really?

Is the idea that we should force players to see out their contracts against their will?[/QUOTE]

If it benefits us, yes. That's how contracts work.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

If it benefits us, yes. That's how contracts work.

This just states: We should do what is good for the club.

And that is only one (weak) purpose of the contract.

Is it ever in the club's interest to sell its best player?

 

[Revolution]

This just states: We should do what is good for the club.

And that is only one (weak) purpose of the contract.

Is it ever in the club's interest to sell its best player?

Yes, if the money is too good to turn down, or the player is more trouble than he is worth, or there's a great replacement waiting in the wings.

None of this reasoning applies to the Maguire or Murphy sales IMHO.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

But Harry's didn't benefit us.
Does anyone really think he was worth the 2m we got?

 

[Revolution]

But Harry's didn't benefit us.
Does anyone really think he was worth the 2m we got?

He was worth more than 2m if we'd gone up with him in the side.

Selling Beattie got us 2.5m. Promotion was worth 20 times that...

 

[BushBlade]

Worth bearing in mind Stones will already be very rich and is already playing for one of the better clubs so might not be as motivated as someone who is not yet rich but is given the chance to be, and the chance to play at the highest level. Stones is also highly motivated to put in good performances wherever he is this season as he wants to play in the Euros.

Also, this conversation needs to be had in a few months, when the consequences of Everton's decision are apparent. Right now, they've just turned down Chelsea, no-one knows how that s going to work out.