Scnuthorpe United's Official Statement Regarding Fee Tribunal Regarding Paul Hayes

Just follow the link:

http://www.scnuthorpe-united.premiumtv.co.uk/page/News/AnnouncementsDetail/0,,10442~709811,00.html

It sounds fair enough to me.

 

http://www.scnuthorpe-united.premiumtv.co.uk/page/News/AnnouncementsDetail/0,,10442~709811,00.html

Do to this boards html filter, you'll have to copy and paste the link into your browser and correct the spelling of scnuthorpe.(shithappens)

 

blimey, £150k then?

I tell yer wot, about time these tribunals gave you a "money back" option, so even after 45 appearances (he could do that THIS season) we'd get the appearance money back if we wanted rid.

Not that I'm saying I don't rate him (I'll reserve judgement till he gets a supply...he certainly LOOKS like a player) but £150K? In this transfer climate?

blimey (again). Shepherd'll have to put on another £2 on the admission price...

 

what i find odd

is that the amount isnt set on how much the players worth but on how much they spent training him and the time spent developing him. well they simply didnt. norwich developed and trained the player not scnuthorpe.

 

RE: Would we have signed him if we'd have known we'd have to pay £150k?

hayes was at norwich for 6 years. they trained him and developed him into a professional player. he even scored against arsenal for norwich in a pre season friendly and was on the bench against barnsley for them.
They sold him to scnuthorpe on a professional adults contract, not a youth or trainee contract but a proffesional and he scored on his debut (i think. one source says it was his debut, soccerbase says it was his second sub appearance) and then again on his full debut a few weeks later.

To me this shows that he was already an accomplished professional footballer when scnuthorpe signed him and therefore it is norwich that trained him and moulded him has a youngster not scnuthorpe.

If as scnuthorpe suggest, the fee isnt decided on the players value but on the amount of time and effort put into developing a young player then i think that scnuthorpe should have received no more than 50k

 

if all of your argument is true...

then I wonder what the hell this ex ManUre director was arguing (don't both sides get a say?) in OUR favour

are we paying ppl good money for FA?

shirley not.

 

aye its all true for once

norwich signed him as a schoolboy/youth at 13. he appears on soccerbase as being at norwich for 2 years (age 17-19) so i presume tha temans at age 17 he signed an acadamy contract.

He scored 7 goals in pre season friendlies for norwich in 2001, one of which was against arsenal. and he was on the bench for a couple of games at the end of the season (once against us).

at the end of 2002 they allowed scnuthorpe to sign him on a free transfer (but with a 20% sell on clause). he signed a professional adult contract with scunny and according to one source he scored on his debut after coming off the bench but according to soccerbase it was his second sub appearence he scored in. He scored again on his full debut a few weeks later and went on to make 20 first team starts in the remaining 5 months of the season scoring 8 goals.

to me that is a developed player. 8 in 20 games on a professional contract sounds to me like he was already trained and moulded into the striker we see at oakwell today.

The tribunal judges its fee on the clubs role in developing and training a player and not on his market value (there is a post n the board explaining that somewhere but i cant find it).

I just think 150k is VERY excessive. If it was for his value then fine but if it is for the development of the player then it is too high, he was already a professional player and capable of scoring goals in his first season at scunny (at a better rate than chopra scored for us last season btw)