I don't blame Holgate

If I was an 18 year old footballer who'd just 'made it' as a professional, and I had a Premier League team wanting to sign me...as long as I believed that I was good enough to potentially play I would leave Barnsley to join them. The basic reason is this...it may be my only chance to earn that sort of money ever again.

If Holgate chose to stay he might end up getting a season-ending injury and never get back to the level he's playing at now. Would we loyally stand by him if his career digresses? Of course we wouldn't.

He'll get the opportunity to test himself against better players day-in, day-out. That could improve him as a footballer, whilst simulatenously having access to networks that Barnsley FC sadly don't. He'll be straight in front of the watching eyes of England youth coaches.

If it doesn't work out for him as Villa, a number of clubs would be queuing up to take a PL reserve player; with good wages, contract length and signing fees to boot. Especially one that's already proved himself at L1 level.

Sorry to break the news to everyone that football is a business, and being a footballer is a job...but these days it is. If I was given the opportunity to astronomically increase my wages, with access to better support, facilities and opportunities...but essentially continue doing the same job - I'd go.

The only thing I wouldn't do is screw over my current employers - the people who helped to develop me to where I am now. I'm not sure whether he's doing that or not...but my guess is it's probably standard protocol for football teams to segregate players who want to leave to protect the rest of the squad morale?

 

Agree 100% I don't see how people don't recognise this.

Like been at work and another employer offering you 3 times or more your yearly salary to do the exact same job

Fair play to mason holgate




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

agreed 95%...the only bit i disagree with is that i would screw my current employers over due to the way they treat thereev and others!!

htth

 

Common sense really. Anyone expecting different is just a bit strange in my opinion.

 

I agree also.
I also think we are getting a fair price, yes more would be great, but he could just warm the bench or not give his all for the rest of the season, then we'd only get a fraction at tribunal.
£1m yes please, with a good sell on clause. Not really freeing up wages, and I assume we will be well under FFP with no championship waged players left.

 

I've not seen anything remotely official or anything other than speculation. Has Holgate left the club then?

 

The issue is not Holgate choosing to stay. It is not signing a new contract. If he had signed the contract it would give the club more bargaining power to attract a better fee. Something we'll all moan about. There is nothing to stop Holgate signing the contract today and being off to villa next week. He is basically preventing the club doing a good deal.

 

It simply isn't this black and white. John Stones was in the same situation yet signed a new contract knowing that he was good enough and that he would still be offered a transfer at a premier league club but in the knowledge that the club that had invested a lot of money and years developing were in a stronger position to negotiate. Holgate has taken that away from us and in doing so is really throwing all the investment from the club back in their faces.

 

You're comparing apples with oranges. It is simply not the same at all.

 

Maybe signing the new contract and therefore upping his transfer fee would scupper a move?

I agree with the OP whole heartedly.

 

Where was the loyalty when we only offered him 2 years? We should have offered longer. We only offered 2 years in case he didn't develop then we could dump him at the end. There's no loyalty either way.

 

I'd stay at Barnsley and back myself to be still attracting top clubs after another two years of first team football, try and get a bidding war going sign a 4 year deal now on 4K a week and leave in two year at 20 year old.

 

The issue isn't with him wanting to leave it's with him not signing a contract. He could show loyalty to the club who gave him a second chance and put him in the position today by signing a new contract and then leave anyway, but with the piece of mind that we got a better fee for him like John Stones did.

The career threatening injury arguement gets brought up in these situation but it's extremely rare that happens. I can't think of a player who was on the verge of a big move from us and got injured so either had to retire or never got the chance to play for a bigger club again down the line.

 

Go on then whats the difference ?

 

Maybe by not signing a new contract could lower the transfer fee and we have to sell when we would prefer not to.

End of the day villa will tell us what they are paying us because Holgate has us over a barrel and villa have us over a barrel. They said they were prepared to pay "up to a million" if I was villa now I would be saying 750k

 

As I said, the one thing I wouldn't do is screw over my current employer. The rest of my post still stands though - I can't see any reason for him to stay. Signing a new contract could potentially scupper the move.

[MENTION=6800]dreamboy3000[/MENTION] - I'm sure there are a number of players who it has happened to, we just don't remember them because they faded into nothing. In addition to that, you only have to look at the likes of Jordan Clark (rejected Man City) to see what can happen if you don't make the move.

Hopefully we get some decent money for someone who is clearly a talented footballer. However, morals don't pay mortgages...and I'm sure he'd always regret not moving if his career fades away.

 

The difference is that signing a new contract would not impact on him getting a transfer; that isn't how it works in football. In normal life when offered another job you accept, resign and join your new employer. The only difference that signing a contract would make is that we would have more scope in negotiations. This whole issue is nothing at all to him earning more money, he can earn as much as he wants as far as I'm concerned but there is a right way to go about it. John Stones did it the right way.

 

If he is good enough signing a contract would not have any impact on a transfer to a premier league club in my opinion. All it would do is afford BFC a bit more power during negotiations.

 

Would not impact him getting a transfer - how can you say that? The only reason we'd want him to sign the contract is as you say so we've more scope in negotiations (i.e. get more for him), but an increased price might mean Villa pull out. So explain to me why he'd risk that? He doesn't owe us anything. He's been paid a wage to do a job, he's done that job.

And as I've said before, but people keep ignoring, why didn't we give him a longer contract? Answer - because if he hadn't developed we'd have wanted to get rid of him rather than be stuck with him for 5 years. No real loyalty shown by us at that point to our young starlet. We thought he was worth a 2 year contract, that's what we gave him, this is the result. The club need to look inwardly.