Tony Bloom ,Good Work Sir

[Twinkle Toes]

You aye 'alf a bostin' bloke Tone!

Now let's hope young Master Bennett puts this nonsense behind him & gets back to doin' the biz for us.

 

[Brovion]

Mind you, didn`t Gus and Tony say they would never stand in a players way of improving their career.
Next few days will certainly be interesting.

Indeed. I'm probably going to cop a fair bit of flack for this but I think the club are being a bit 'unfair' to Bennett. He recently signed a long contract with the promise "we won't stand in anybody's way" ringing in his ears. Now he finds we ARE standing in his way. Now perhaps he's wishing he hadn't signed it and had just let it run down so that he could leave for nothing in the summer.

I know people will say "he should honour his contract", but it's a two-way street. We didn't honour Slade's contract or Adams's contract - and you could argue that we've now broken the verbal "won't stand in anyone's way" clause. We're now saying to Bennett: "You're our player until we tell you otherwise. If you don't figure in our plans we'll sell you, but you're not leaving until we say so."

However the days are gone, long gone, when a chairman or manager can appear in front of the press, twang his braces and say: "So-and-so will leave this club over my dead body." Nowadays the main advantage of having a player on a long contract is so that the selling club can get a decent fee.

Also there's the obvious point that he's not a Brighton fan, it's a short career and he has to do the best he can for himself. That's why he employs an agent.

 

[Icy Gull]

So when an oppositions chairman says this (see Swindon/Greer) it's because they are trying to raise the price and when ours does it, it's because he wants the player to stay so there is no way he'll go.

If Benno wants out we can't stop him. Contracts in football mean nothing.

Greer was almost out of contract though and the Swindon chairman wouldn't open negotiations on a new one at the time. Very very different scenarios imo.

 

[algie]

Greer was almost out of contract though and the Swindon chairman wouldn't open negotiations on a new one at the time. Very very different scenarios imo.

Greer wanted a 3 year deal which we offered.Swindon have a policy they don't hand out 3 year deals so he moved to us otherwise he would have stayed.They offered only 2 years to him.

 

[Icy Gull]

Indeed. I'm probably going to cop a fair bit of flack for this but I think the club are being a bit 'unfair' to Bennett. He recently signed a long contract with the promise "we won't stand in anybody's way" ringing in his ears. Now he finds we ARE standing in his way. Now perhaps he's wishing he hadn't signed it and had just let it run down so that he could leave for nothing in the summer.

I know people will say "he should honour his contract", but it's a two-way street. We didn't honour Slade's contract or Adams's contract - and you could argue that we've now broken the verbal "won't stand in anyone's way" clause. We're now saying to Bennett: "You're our player until we tell you otherwise. If you don't figure in our plans we'll sell you, but you're not leaving until we say so."

However the days are gone, long gone, when a chairman or manager can appear in front of the press, twang his braces and say: "So-and-so will leave this club over my dead body." Nowadays the main advantage of having a player on a long contract is so that the selling club can get a decent fee.

Also there's the obvious point that he's not a Brighton fan, it's a short career and he has to do the best he can for himself. That's why he employs an agent.

Yeah yeah yeah, I don't disagree but putting the request in 3 days before the transfer deadline at such an important stage of the season is where your argument falls down. It has to be a two way street. He gets to go but we need time to try and replace him. We would be mugs to agree to this transfer at this stage if we don't need the money.
The club shouldn't stand in the player's way if he is able to better himself but the player needs to show a bit of respect to the club who gave him a 4 year contract not 3 months ago. I doubt he was forced to sign it and I'm sure that he got a substantial wage rise as well.

 

[fire&skill]

 

[Icy Gull]

Greer wanted a 3 year deal which we offered.Swindon have a policy they don't hand out 3 year deals so he moved to us otherwise he would have stayed.They offered only 2 years to him.

Really? I thought I read they weren't ready to open negotiations at all at the stage we put our first bid in

 

[Rich Suvner]

IF the potless PILLOCK Dick Tight was still chairman then Elliott would HAVE been a Norwich player LAST week

i shouldn't rise to it, but you are a bore

 

[Easy 10]

Or he's just playing the odds (see what I did there)

We don't want to sell, so coming out now at this stage and saying "we don't want to sell, he's not available" can only send his asking price (and possibly Norwich's desperation to land their man) upwards.

Either we keep him (ideal) or Norwich are forced to add that extra few hundred grand on his transfer fee to persuade us (not so good but better than a knock-down price for a want out player). It's a calculated gamble he can't lose - a winble as it were.

Its certainly NOT a win for us if he went for £750k, which by your reckoning is the most we could realistically expect for him.

 

[Smithy07]

Not quite true though is it that nothing has chnaged. You didn't want or need to sell the player 10 days ago and i'm sure you don't now but the thing thats changed is the player has come out and requsted to be allowed to move.

I notice Bloom doesn't say that he wont sell or that the player doesn't want to go.

Looks like he's playing hardball over the price to me.

 

[sten_super]

I know people will say "he should honour his contract", but it's a two-way street. We didn't honour Slade's contract or Adams's contract - and you could argue that we've now broken the verbal "won't stand in anyone's way" clause. We're now saying to Bennett: "You're our player until we tell you otherwise. If you don't figure in our plans we'll sell you, but you're not leaving until we say so."

I don't agree with this at all. The difference is that the club pays the staff a wage, in return for their services. To say that we didn't honour Salde or Adam's contracts is wrong; they received signficant severance pay in accordance with the terms of their contract. I'm sure that in the same way if Bennett or a club offered us enough severance pay then we would allow Bennett to break his contract.

 

[Simster]

Indeed. I'm probably going to cop a fair bit of flack for this but I think the club are being a bit 'unfair' to Bennett. He recently signed a long contract with the promise "we won't stand in anybody's way" ringing in his ears. Now he finds we ARE standing in his way. Now perhaps he's wishing he hadn't signed it and had just let it run down so that he could leave for nothing in the summer.

I know people will say "he should honour his contract", but it's a two-way street. We didn't honour Slade's contract or Adams's contract - and you could argue that we've now broken the verbal "won't stand in anyone's way" clause. We're now saying to Bennett: "You're our player until we tell you otherwise. If you don't figure in our plans we'll sell you, but you're not leaving until we say so."

However the days are gone, long gone, when a chairman or manager can appear in front of the press, twang his braces and say: "So-and-so will leave this club over my dead body." Nowadays the main advantage of having a player on a long contract is so that the selling club can get a decent fee.

Also there's the obvious point that he's not a Brighton fan, it's a short career and he has to do the best he can for himself. That's why he employs an agent.

I must admit, regarding the 4 year deal, my assumption was that this was made with a gentlemens agreement in place that we wouldn't stand in his way. However if that was the case, a transfer request should have gone in at least 4 weeks ago, NOT with three days to go before the window shuts and when we haven't got a replacement lined up.

My only problem with football agents is the way they conduct their negotiations. A club should negotiate fees and salaries, and the agent's cut should be something private between him and the player. Instead, as I understand it, the agent negotiates a player deal then tells the club he wants this and that or the deal's off. Seems wrong to me.

 

[Grendel]

If Benno wants out we can't stop him. Contracts in football mean nothing.

Of course we can stop him, he's under contract with us, we own his registration and he cannot play for another club without our say so. Extreme example but look at what happened with Leon Knight.

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

Indeed. I'm probably going to cop a fair bit of flack for this but I think the club are being a bit 'unfair' to Bennett. He recently signed a long contract with the promise "we won't stand in anybody's way" ringing in his ears. Now he finds we ARE standing in his way. Now perhaps he's wishing he hadn't signed it and had just let it run down so that he could leave for nothing in the summer.

Slightly selective interpretation of the promise? My recollection is that Gus promised to let any player (or the manager) go if they are growing more quickly than the club. His main thrust is that we are all growing the club together. The management may well think that by being top of the table and six points clear with a game in hand - and the promise of Falmer, with all the revenue that represents - we are developing as quickly as EB. If that's the case, they are not reneging in my book.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Vital for us to hold on to him otherwise Gus might start questioning the club's ambition and at the first decent managerial opportunity the G bus will be leaving town.

 

[Easy 10]

Vital for us to hold on to him otherwise Gus might start questioning the club's ambition and at the first decent managerial opportunity the G bus will be leaving town.

I think TB has already made all the right noises, when he stated earlier this month that "Gus does not have to sell any of our players".

 

[mwrpoole]

Slightly selective interpretation of the promise? My recollection is that Gus promised to let any player (or the manager) go if they are growing more quickly than the club. His main thrust is that we are all growing the club together. The management may well think that by being top of the table and six points clear with a game in hand - and the promise of Falmer, with all the revenue that represents - we are developing as quickly as EB. If that's the case, they are not reneging in my book.

I believe your recollection is spot on.

I suggest the problem is that his agent has already negotiated a very healthy package with Norwich which probably includes a bonus should they get promoted to the PL plus a healthy pay rise next season. Can't blame him for wanting it, look at Charlie Adam - no-one had heard of him last year and now Liverpool want him. Get to that position and you really have made it cash wise, so of course has the agent who probably gets 10-15% each week. His dilemma is judging how likely Norwich are to get promoted, if they don't then he's grown no quicker than us assuming we go up. Norwich have probably been asked about a summer deal but said No.

Having said all that I'd love him to stay and if he plays tomorrow he'll get my full support - unfortunately judging by some of the comments on here about last weeks match that may not be the case by all.

 

[HP Seagull]

So when an oppositions chairman says this (see Swindon/Greer) it's because they are trying to raise the price and when ours does it, it's because he wants the player to stay so there is no way he'll go.

If Benno wants out we can't stop him. Contracts in football mean nothing.

As much as I understand your point, mate, I disagree. Contracts are worth as much as the chairman wants - by that I mean if Bloom has no wish/need to sell, there is no way Bennett can simply tear up his contract. In many cases in recent history player power has proved too much for many chairmen, but ultimately it is still their decision whether the player should be released from their contract/sold.

Due to Bennett's apparent attitude and our desire to keep him, I am confident he will be a Brighton player come the end of the tranfer window.

 

[algie]

Really? I thought I read they weren't ready to open negotiations at all at the stage we put our first bid in

I believe that is the case.He wanted a new deal after we made an approach. I do know he would have stayed at Swindon if they offered 3 years.Remember he is 29? so wanted his future tied up.

 

[garethjamesuk]

That is response i was hoping for as the timing is AWFUL by Bennett, also this could make the camp not quite so happy and upbeat, as having Bennett around camp who doesnt want to be long term part of plan, i would be quite happy though if you said to me we sell Bennett and get Lua Lua instead.
That would cheer me up.