This whole Vaz Te issue

When Hill brought him to the club nobody else wanted him. Hibernian didn't think he was good enough for their very poor league (whereas they seem to rate Garry O'Connor!), Sheffield United cancelled a trial he was supposed to be having and nobody else showed any interest.

When we brought him on in the pre-season games we all had a bit of a laugh, as he was all over the place. There were flashes of brilliance, but mainly he looked like a flashy player who didn't do the basics. Hill obviously saw enough to take a gamble, but it would be a gamble. We don't have the kind of money to be wasting, so the club had to take a calculated gamble, erring on the side of caution. We offered him a one year deal, on relatively low wages, and a chance to prove himself.

If it paid off we had the services of a good player and the chance to offer him an extended contract. If he was doing so well as to attract interest from bigger clubs and wasn't keen to sign an extended contract we would sell him and make a clear profit, knowing that with only half a season left on his contract the fee would be modest. However, we were safe in the knowledge that if he flopped, as many players we have brought in with a similar background to him have done in recent years, we would have spent relatively little and would only be liable for one year's wages.

The alternative was to offer him a two or three year contract at money which would hopefully have kept him with us, or at least have helped us demand a bigger transfer fee if he was a hit. The gamble there would have been if he had turned out to be another Garry O'Connor/Andy Johnson/Michael Mifsud/Leon Knight/etc, in which case we would have been paying big money for a longer period to a reserve player, which is something we don't have the luxury of doing.

I know there's grumbles to be had from some sections at the players he is signing and offering longer contracts to, but in Hill's defence he knows these players and knows what he's buying. Furthermore, the players coming in are very unlikely to be on bank busting salaries. With players like Vaz Te the club is gambling blind.

For all the complaints about how cheap West Ham appear to have got Vaz Te, we really didn't have much option, as he made it clear he wanted to make the move and who can begrudge him that? He could very well have turned West Ham down only to have come across another Michael Brown the very next game.

We would, however, have got a bigger fee if a bidding war had developed, but the fact that it didn't suggests that even at that stage clubs were not prepared to take a gamble on someone who had just had a relatively short purple patch after years of mediocrity.

From the supporters point of view it was sad to see him go, as he was an exciting player to watch, but he wasn't exactly setting the town alight. The crowds weren't flocking down to Oakwell to see him is what I mean. If he'd been having the effect of putting a couple of thousand on the attendances the club may have pushed out a bit more for his wages or taken a firmer stance and held out for more money for him. He scored a hat-trick against Leeds and we were in the top half of the league, looking at a potential play-offs push, yet a week later only 7,380 turned out to watch us play a Premier League team in the Cup (at a reduced admission cost)., where he scored 2 more. We then went on to win away at Leicester, but only 9,185 turned out to watch him in his last match for us, at home to Millwall. That was our third lowest home attendance in the league at that point (actually it was the 4th lowest by the end of the season). So 5 goals in two games, with a win away at Leicester in between, and the crowd goes down. What messages were the supporters sending to the club (or Vaz Te himself) when they were deciding what to do?

We took a gamble with Vaz Te, but due to the financial constraints we are under we took a relatively safe gamble, and it paid off. He scored the goals that kept us up and we made a £500k profit on him in only a few months. If he had subsequently flopped at West Ham, our view may now be different, but he hasn't and has probably got even better. Hindsight is wonderful though and if we could see into the future we may have demanded more money. But if people could see into the future maybe Blackburn wouldn't have given us £4.5m for Ashley Ward and Forest wouldn't have given us £750k for David Currie.

And as for the apparent lack of a promotion clause, these things are negotiated. They may have offered a promotion clause, but with a lower initial fee. We may have been offered £250k with a £500k promotion clause, for example, so we may have made more money, but if we had taken that option and they hadn't gone up (as they very nearly didn't) we'd have lost out in the long run. We weren't party to the negotiations, so we should remember that the complaints on here are simply speculative, as nobody apart from the parties involved will know what the actual options were. We certainly don't have the right to beat the club up about something we don't really know about.

My suggestion would be to wish Vaz Te well for next season, as he seems like a genuine bloke from what David Preece said, and hope that we can bring in a few more Vaz Te's, as I'd be happy if the club keep bringing in players who have a positive contribution to the team's fortunes both on the pitch and financially, even if they go on to have more success when they leave us.

Incidentally, I reckon Orient had similar grumbles when we got their captain for next to nowt. And Chesterfield would have winced every time they saw Davies scoring for us. And I bet Rochdale's fans reckon they would be playing Pompey instead of Fleetwood next season had we not nicked their best players. We're all part of the same food chain!

 

None of that changes the fact we let him go cheap. And speculation by the 'moaners' is only the same as speculation by the other side. Maybe the 'moaners' are right about the poor negotiating skills at the club?

 

Correct, including most of our fans, must say I was a bit worried when I found out that the winger we'd used against Hartlepool, who looked an exceptional talent on the ball, if not a bit lazy off of it, was Ricardo Vaz Te. Because his history of injury did maar his early potential. I got behind the lad, who then preceeded to net 12 times in about 25 games, and then moved on. Nobody can be happy with the fee we got, however there is precious little we can do about it now. We all liked Ricardo, despite what many thought before we signed him, but it's time we let sleeping dogs lie now and look forward to next season. YOU REDS!!!

p.s I must admit I didn't read much of your post mate because i'm off out, but I got the gist, good read

 

Excellent Post

I don't know if I fully agree with you or if I think that maybe we're not quite as good at negotiating a fair price as we should be, but it's just so refreshing to read a well thought out argument that isn't antagonistic towards those with a differing viewpoint. I think a lot of us could learn a lot from the tone of your contribution. I know I could.

 

brilliant post regarding the situation when we signed him, spot on

 

We had our pants down. As usual. He was worth £1.5m in the market. We accepted £0.5m. End of story.

 

I wish you'd post more often, Gordon

I can't think of a better BBS poster than your good self at present. Keep up the good work, mate.

 

Good to see you posting again, mate.

.

 

I think Preeces blog on the situation is very interesting particularly as he implies Vaz was told in mid October to find another club, without Butterfields injury he might have been on his way to Rotherham now

 

Re: Good to see you posting again, mate.

Seconded.

 

Whilst all that may be true

The point is that he didn't turn out to be a waste of space and was actually our leading goalscorer at the time we sold him. He was probably playing the best football of his career and was one of the top strikers in the Championship. His performance against Leeds was the best I've seen since Craig Hignett's days. Most fans argument is not that we only offered him a one year contract, rather that we were shafted on the deal by a team that really wanted him. We accepted their offer solely on their argument that he could go for free in the summer. So could Nicky Maynard but Bristol City somehow managed to get £1 million for him. Do you honestly think that West Ham would have backed away from a promotion clause for Vaz Te? It was a win win situation for them. We all know we are a selling club but I'm sick of this club being shafted on the transfer front time after time and we really do need to improve our negotiation skills if we are to get a decent price for our top players. Even teams like Brighton ffs think we're a small club with small ideas and who can blame them when we consistently get peanuts for our best players.

 

Re: Whilst all that may be true

Too long for me to read, but it doesn't matter where he came from or his past, at the time of sale he was worth much more than 500k and Keith Hill banged on about his potential, at the beginning of the season he said if he plays like he can we could have the surprise package of the division.

 

Re: Whilst all that may be true

I can't really be bothered to read what you've posted but I probably don't agree with you.

 

Re: Whilst all that may be true

Really, it's only a couple of lines give it a try. I read his first two paragraphs.

 

Re: Whilst all that may be true

Nah, given up part way through this. But I'm sure you're wrong ;-)

 

Re: Whilst all that may be true

Top come back.

 

Quality post and a very good read, Gordon Ottershaw.
That's not to say that I agree with you, though. I can, of course, only speak for myself, but I think what the majority of us Barnsley fans is angry at isn't just the ridiculously small transfer fee we received for a top scorer, but also the fact that this put our Championship status in jeopardy. We ended up coming very close to the drop, and even though the sale of Vaz Te wasn't the sole factor, it certainly contributed to our the turning of our fortunes from January on.
What I want is for the club to start thinking not only about what a given player's market value is, but also how much he is worth to this club.
Had we got relegated, selling Vaz Te for 500K would have been a total disaster. Now, we can say "hey, at least we got something for him".

I also think it's not only this transfer which has us feeling that we're the laughing stock of the league (the Brian Howard transfer saga etc). If we continue to sell our best players for a pittance, we will forever remain a poor club that has to punch above our weight just to stay in this division.
However, we can still dream of the 5 million transfer fee we will receive for Paul Digby )