What are the club supposed to do? The kid had less than 12 months on his current deal and could walk away at the end of the season leaving the club with nothing or at the very least a transfer in Jan at a knock down price. This deal seems good business for me. I rate Scott but honestly feel that Flicker over rated him. There are players out there who we can recruit who can do just as good a job and I expect the club to go out and replace him. If the price is 700k then that is a fantastic deal for us. Anything over 500k I said yesterday would be a good deal. His form has been off it a lately and he isn't the same player we had pre January. Whether that is to do with his injury and not quite getting upto speed, I don't know. His defensive attributes were brilliant for us but what frustrated me the most was his lack of quality in the final third with the failure to get a decent cross in or lack of skill to beat his man. Not saying he was a bad player as like I said earlier, as far as championship left back goes, he'd be in my top 10 but he is replaceable and the money is good. I'm sure that Ben Mansford has his head screwed on right and has done a good deal for our club. Now the question is, Who do we go out and get to replace him? Shorey would be a good shout for me as he is familiar with the wing back system and is a good attacking left back but his defensive capabilities is maybe weaker than Golbourne. Either way, its gonna cause a stir amongst fans as to who is the right appointment and one that I look forward to us debating about. Onwards and upwards.
Anything over £250k is a good deal for someone with less then a year left on his contract, who doesn't want to be here and who isn't actually that good anyway!
I'd be surprised if the fee is anywhere near the 700,000 being mooted...then again I've probably become used to us being shafted under Rowing.
If Mansford is true to his word then we will not have let him go for peanuts. Anything over 500K is good business.
Not let the contract of a first team regular run to less than twelve months like we did with Buttercup, Davies, Vaz Te etc.
Perhaps we were waiting to see how he recovered from a bad injury instead of being stick with a crock?
And what if the player has no intention of signing when offered a deal? He obviously wanted to go otherwise he would have stayed wouldn't he? Whether he had 12 months, 2 years or 3, he would have gone. Statement makes no sense these days as players have all the power now, not the clubs. Contracts mean nothing to a player if his heart isn't in it. Just means we get a better fee for him but if he dosn't wanna sign a deal, u have to sell.
We didn't offer him a new contract. It's been said many times that the only contracts offered (apart from Digby) were to those we wanted to sign back up. Therefore Scott had two options..... 1) Stay on a low wage at Barnsley with under a year left on your contract and risk a relapse or another serious injury that would make it very hard for him next summer to find a decent level club. All this while not playing in your most natural position. 2) Go to Wolves. Yes they are in a lower league but probably only be at that level for a season. Get a payrise and the security of a three year contract to be played in your natural position and in front of bigger crowds.
I understand where you are coming from but what happens if 1) He stays, has an excellent season, turns down a new contract, teams take notice, he leaves on a free 2) He stays, has a poor season, club decide to not offer him a new deal, he leaves on a free with club wishing they cashed in on him with wolves bid 3) He stays, wolves come in, bid gets turned down, gets injured, out for months. The possiblities are endless, we could go on all day. Personally, each player commands a fee that makes the club listen and sometimes is too good to turn down. You take all those factors into Scott Golbourne and I think we have done a good deal.
1) While we should have offered him an extension in the summer, the next best thing would have been selling him in January rather than selling him a few days before the window shuts or losing him for nothing next summer. 2) That would depend if he was put back to his natural position Kennedy has. His form could have been down simply to being out injured so long so still trying to find his form and get his fitness back, while out of position for a struggling team. 3) If he was under a longer contract it wouldn't have been so bad. One example would be if Flicker said to him back when he was injured something like "Scott you are a first team regular and before your injury you played really well at left back. You might have heard me talking you up as a two million pound player and I mean it. Therefore i'd like to offer you a 12 month contract extension so you don't have to worry about job security and can concentrate fully on recovering from your serious injury. Then when you prove your form/fitness again we can talk about adding another year to that".
If he hadn't have recovered from this serious injury we would have wasted 12 months wages. Personally I've never seem the forum so indifferent to a player leaving. Which says to me he will be quickly forgotten. Good luck to the lad but **** him.. You Reds!
