Not always the clubs fault

Do you know something, my old mate?

I do believe you've just
<img src ="http://www.idioms4you.com/img/angif-hit-the-nail-on-the-head.gif">

 

Spot on.

West Ham were desperate for someone like Vaz Te. Despite needing his type of player more than Maynard (they already had Cole), they paid £1m for Maynard who was also out of contract at the end of the season. Folk say Maynard was proven, but Sam knew Vaz better than Maynard and what he was capable of.

I will always believe we could have got £1m at least, either up front or £500k at the time and after promotion. Whatever anyone says won't change my opinion on that.

 

What about some players taking the blame.Vaz Te for instance what can the club do when a player makes it clear that he wants out in the summer,do we keep him and lose him for nothing or do we take the best offer available.West Ham knew the situation and after refusing there first bid of around £300k they came back in with a £500k take it or leave it offer.They had no need to insert a promotion clause and we were in no situation to ask for one because they would have pulled the plug on the deal we then have an unhappy player who leaves for nothing in the summer.Unfortunately Barnsley had to do the best for the club as a whole.

Vaz Te didn't make it clear that he wanted out in the summer when everyone in Barnsley and the local media were calling for the club to offer him a contract only for Keith Hill to smugly state that no offer had been made to Vaz Te. He only wanted out when we yet again left it miles too late alerting the rest of the footballing world to him. He might not have signed a new contract but he MIGHT have. Reactive not proactive.



When Hammall signed it was well documented that unless the £500k clause wasn't inserted he would go to Leeds.Better to have had him than not at all and again the player is in control.

When the whole of Barnsley could see how good Hammill was and how well he was playing where was the new contract offer to Hammill? Oh yes, that's right there wasn't one. NO attempt was made to remove the clause in his contract. We could have, for example, offered him a new contract with higher wages but no minimum fee release clause. He might not have accepted that but he MIGHT have. Reactive not proactive.



Patrick Cryne said he could see the disappointment in Simon Daveys eyes when Brian Howard turned down there contract offer,again the player is in control of the situation.

Why did we wait until his contract ran out to offer him a new one anyway? He was the club captain. Reactive not proactive. PS. Both the club and player have publically stated that no contract was ever offered so quite how howard could turn down a none existent contract offer I'll never know.



So to sum up by and by the players and agents hold all the aces.The club have made errors in the past like any other club but there not always to blame.

So to sum up we were reactive to ALL of the above and created out own problems by letting the players and agents hold all the aces instead of being PROACTIVE and making attempts to ensure that we held all of the aces.



Nearly forgot, the Shackall transfer could have been handled different in my opinion he signed a contact for two years we made him captain and at the first chance he wanted out.Because he was still under contract we should have used more bargaining power.

Shackell = **** transfer dealings by the board yet again.



Who should be able to spot a players potential or value quickest? Should it be the club that the player is playing for who see the player play week in week out without having to put ANY effort in to seeing this? Or should it be external clubs who have to spend time and money scouting the player and only get to see a fraction of their games compaired to the players own club? I might be being naive here but I personally think that Don Rowing who sits on the halfway line at Oakwell and saw EVERY home game (and presumably away games as well) that Hammill, Vaz Te, Howard, McIndoe, Butterfield, Steele etc played for Barnsley should be spotting the players ability and value and be PROACTIVE in getting these players tied down to contracts that suit US well before other clubs who only see them once in a blue moon are seeing their value and offering them deals.

Let's not forget that we are hardly ever on TV, have very little highlights shown on TV, have next to no national media coverage and yet clubs in chuffing london are realising the value and ability of OUR players before the men who sit on the halfway line at Oakwell realise it. In my opinion something is seriously wrong when that is the case.

 

Agree. The club does do some decent things. But some awful awful things too.