Loyalty and Enthusiasm

These are two very different things - loyalty you have control over. - Enthusiasm is something you have or don't have - like other emotions you can't control it.

I am 100% loyal to the club - supported LJ throughout his time as manager - appreciated Winnall for his massive contribution in the promotion season etc.

The enthusiasm level is down because I fear we will support the new players and watch them develop only to see them move on in January and see us slip down the table. And I don't buy into the notion that this has to happen if 'we are to survive as a club'

And I wouldn't put any money on Hecky being here this time next year.

 

Unfortunately it isn't a notion, its just fact.

Until 10 year contracts are allowed, players are always going to run down their contracts and move onto clubs who can pay them infinitely more money.

If we don't sell them (e.g like we did with Winnall, Hourihane, Bree) then they just leave on a free.

Just like if we didn't sell Roberts (and likely Yiadom). They'd just leave on a free at the end of the season.

People need to realise that selling them while they have a monetary value is just how it is. Otherwise they leave on a free and we have zero funds to replace them.

 

The difference being now perhaps, that we will get another season out of them before there contract runs down.
Also, teams who have been happy to give us £3m - £5m for players running down, might give us that bit more in January knowing they are tied to us for longer.
Is it ideal? No. Is it in the club's interests? Absolutely, at least til the time comes that we are an attractive long term proposition.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

It's not a fact at all. You could only offer three year contracts and then have an option to extend after eighteen months or two years. Gives more power to the club. You also have to assess how important a player is to your ambitions. For example, I believe if we had replaced Winnall, and kept Hourihane and Bree we could have finished in the top six. I cannot guarantee we would nor can you guarantee we wouldn't, but for the sake of £4m quid I think it was worth taking the risk. Obviously the club didn't because they didn't believe in the players and/or manager or they didn't have the balls.

I know me thinking we could have finished in the top six and believing in the players and manager is negative and those who say we couldn't are positive but that's my opinion.

 

Whilst that is undeniably true you have to remember that football is at the end of the day a sport and the aim of the sport is to win as many games as you can and finish as high as you can. Does selling your best players for profit and replacing them with untested new achieve that aim? I'm not saying that it cant, wont or doesn't but I am saying that while we the ultimate aim of football is to finish as high as you can then the viewing of ALL your players as nothing more than saleable assets to be got rid of at the first opportunity is counter to that ultimate objective.

You have to surely take the monetary value you are receiving for a player and weigh that up against his value as a footballer in your team. His contribution and the potential final league position of retaining him until his contract runs out and this is where I believe we fail. We definitely failed last season because the owner stated that we did not need to sell hourihane and winnall. He heavily suggested that their value as players in our side was more than any money we could get for them. We then did an about turn and sold the pair whilst we were on the edge of a play off place and in with a very good chance. What happened? We slipped down the table and had an abysmal second half of the season eventually finishing just seven points off relegation. I ask you, in the aim of football, a sport, was that a productive move? I don't think it was. We had a chance of going for a windfall in the hundreds of millions and we sold that chance for a few million when the owner had already stated we did not need to do so. I find that decision making to be absolutely crazy.

 

If the team assembled hit the ground running and we are.on the top 10 or 6 by January we have players with 2 and half years left instead of 6 months so we would only sell for extortionate fees if conor had 2 and half years left we would have been able to demand 10 million.

 

Yeah, of course neither of us can guarantee either outcome. However, I think its safe to say it's far more likely that we wouldnt than we would. Again you might disagree, but thats my personal opinion.

Gambling £4million (which as a club is a lot of money to us) on something that has a less than 50% likelihood of happening is not the way successful businesses/companies/football clubs are run. (see Bolton, Blackburn, Portsmouth)

 

You wouldn't really gambling £4m though. You wouldn't be £4m down as such, you just wouldn't be £4m up so it's money you would have never had. We already had the Stones, Mawson and Winnall money, we would have received similar for Bree at the end of the season and we had all the additional turnover by virtue of being in the Championship. It was a risk worth taking for me. As it is, we had a shocking second half of the season but we have an extra £4m to stuff under the mattress. Not the stuff of dreams is it?

 

Again, I agree with this. Ultimately you wanna win as many games as possible and finish as high as you can. However, I think the bigger picture also needs to be looked at.

Example.. you have an 8 out of 10 player in terms of ability - you keep him, dont sell him, finish 8th and he leaves on a free for a bigger club who offer more money. You get nothing. Next year you have no money to replace him and have to sign a 2 out of 10 player in terms of ability as thats all you can afford. You get relegated.

or ..... you have an 8 out of 10 player in terms of ability - you sell him in January, dont keep him, finish 14th and get 2/3/4 million for him. You use this money in the next transfer window, replace him with a 5/6/7 out of 10 player in terms of ability (with potential to improve to a similar level as the player you sold).

While its not an exact science, I completely understand why our club who has been close to the brink in the past is a selling club and takes option B.

I for one would not want to gamble with finances and ever end up where we were before.

 

If someone offers you 4million for a player(s) and you turn it down and they then leave months later for £0 you have indeed gambled £4million. Regardless of however which way you want to paint it.

 

But you're not on -£4m though are you? You're on zero. So you're no worse off. If you have no intention of spending the money you don't really need it. You have to take some form of measured risk in this day and age. Bournemouth and Brighton took massive risks and fortunately for them it paid off. We are so risk averse that it will end up relegating us.

 

You're no worse off if you have £0 compared to £4million? sorry but that logic is retarded.

Brighton have had millions thrown at them, we're no where near in comparison.

 

and id prefer that every day of the week ahead of our actions bankrupting us.

 

We're going round in circles. End of conversation.

 

Since we were founded in 1887 to date circa 610 players have played for our Club which
is an average of just under five per season during the entire period of our 130 year history.
As we are aware transfers in and out are common at every Club in the English Leagues
and this season would appear to be no different.

We've been luckier than most. We've played in the Premiership, we are on record as having spent more seasons
in the second tier of English football than any other Club, we've won the FA Cup , been Runners-up and we've played at the HQ of English football on four occasions and the Millenium Stadium once.For our size and the resources available to us,
unlike some I believe we are doing OK.!

With regards to Hecky if we have a good season it could be the motivational factor in him committing his future to the
Club for longer. If we have a bad one he's got two big things going in his favour namely Patrick Cryne's admiration and loyalty and as he's Barnsley born and bred in the main the fans are behind him, which in today's game is a rarity.!

 

That is all well and good and I agree but the fact remains that the owner stated we did not need to sell. We did not need the funds from hourihane or winnall. With that in mind and with football being a sport then surely when presented with the opportunity to go for it you do because you have already said you do not need to sell.

I do agree with the selling a 8 to replace him with another but can't agree that selling an 8 to replace with a 4 is good football sense in any way. It may make more cash to stockpile but we can all agree it does not make a better football team and that after all is the ultimate objective of a football club. Especially when you aren't actually replacing ann8 with anything near that. For example it is now 7 months since Sam winnall left and who is his replacement? That cash is just stockpiled so far

 

Back to the point. Loyalty is a choice. Enthusiasm is innate. People who are less enthusiastic than others shouldnt be criticised for that reason. It is what it is

 

Doesn't really make us stronger over player.
Having an option in a players contract isn't necessarily a binding thing.
Player can still refuse to sign on if terms aren't as good as he can get from a richer club.

 

Eh? A player can just pretend he never signed a contract with an extension clause in it?

 

The option to extend is dependant on negotiations, both have the right to say yay or nay on further contracts.
It's not slavery.