Lynch denied transfer request

[HseagullsH]

Hawkins is definately the short term answer but i believe Lynch is the longer term answer. I think it's very important to keep hold of him.

 

[BensGrandad]

It is a standard FL rule that players who do not ask for a transfer and are sold are entitled to 5% of the transfer fee and the FL get 5%. If the player asks for transfer he forfeits his entitlement to that fee, but then probably gets a larger signing on fee from the buying club.

At the fans forum I didnt hear DK say that he wouldnt stop a player leaving I thought that he said he wouldn't sell a player unless he wanted to go, slightly different but then I may have misheard or misunderstood him.

 

[vulture]

Peter Smith the ex-albion player is Lynchs agent and he knows nothing of the transfer request according to the argus...also confirmed by ma no bids for lynch

 

[vulture]

It is a standard FL rule that players who do not ask for a transfer and are sold are entitled to 5% of the transfer fee and the FL get 5%. If the player asks for transfer he forfeits his entitlement to that fee, but then probably gets a larger signing on fee from the buying club.

At the fans forum I didnt hear DK say that he wouldnt stop a player leaving I thought that he said he wouldn't sell a player unless he wanted to go, slightly different but then I may have misheard or misunderstood him.

Dick Knight said he would never keep an unhappy player and would let them go but only if the best intrests an fee was got for the albion.

 

[Kneon Light]

Hawkins is definately the short term answer but i believe Lynch is the longer term answer. I think it's very important to keep hold of him.

Agree with this. The problem is fans demand short trem success so it will always be difficult to keep long term prospects happy.

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

Agree with this. The problem is fans demand short trem success so it will always be difficult to keep long term prospects happy.

That's a really interesting quote. Is the statement true - do fans demand short term success? I would argue that fans want long term success and have proven time and again that they will take the long term view if they believe there is a plan and a long term goal.

It's boards - the ones who have the manage the books and expectations of shareholders - who can often demand short term* success**.

You could also argue that young ambitious players demand short term success. If the club is progressing they can deal with being on the bench and fewer starts. If they feel they have/will have the ability to be a top player, they will not tolerate being on the bench or in the reserves in a team that is failing. Older, more established players have less need of short terms success since their reputations are already established and they can trade off that. Young players will find it harder to trade of being part of a unsuccessful squad.

So I'm not sure I would lump the blame for a short term perspective and therefore the lack of opportunities for developing players at the feet of fans quite so readily.


* "Short term" being one season
** For arguments sake let's say "success" is moving up the table and possibly promotion or play off places

 

[Nemesis]

If what Dick Knight said in the fans forum is true that he would not stop a player from leaving then why stop Joel? This is a perfect senario why i do not believe Dick and the things he says - i thought Micky had been brought in because his man management was good

You are unbelievable-an Argus report that Lynch has had a transfer request turned down and you immediately chip in with your usual anti-Dick Knight comments. Then you have a snipe at Adams-questioning his man management skills because a player who hasn't featured so far this season hands in a transfer request?

Is there anything about this club you like at present?

 

[Kneon Light]

That's a really interesting quote. Is the statement true - do fans demand short term success? I would argue that fans want long term success and have proven time and again that they will take the long term view if they believe there is a plan and a long term goal.

It's boards - the ones who have the manage the books and expectations of shareholders - who can often demand short term* success**.

You could also argue that young ambitious players demand short term success. If the club is progressing they can deal with being on the bench and fewer starts. If they feel they have/will have the ability to be a top player, they will not tolerate being on the bench or in the reserves in a team that is failing. Older, more established players have less need of short terms success since their reputations are already established and they can trade off that. Young players will find it harder to trade of being part of a unsuccessful squad.

So I'm not sure I would lump the blame for a short term perspective and therefore the lack of opportunities for developing players at the feet of fans quite so readily.


* "Short term" being one season
** For arguments sake let's say "success" is moving up the table and possibly promotion or play off places

I think this year especially the fans are demanding short term success - largely due to the change in manager.

A number of supporters were unhappy that Wilkins was sacked after finishing 7th. Therefore I think this season more than ever there is a demand for a more successful season.

 

[The Large One]

All i have done is repeat what Dick Knight has said and what i have read on another thread on here - with regards to Micky all i meant was people on nsc have been critiscising other managers on here for fall outs with players

No, you haven't. You've put two and two together and come up with your own answer. Again.


So I'll do the same. Micky, in turning down the transfer request, has effectively said that Joel is part of his longer-term plans. He doesn't want him to leave. Any disagreement over who ought to be in the team is put to rest by virtue of the fact that Micky is the manager and picks the team - which is vastly different to the enormous leap of logic that you put in that there has been a big falling-out, and that Micky Adams' man-management skills need an overhaul.

Unless, of course, you are party to the TRUTH, of which you once again cannot let us know because we're not deemed worthy of you imparting such knowledge upon us.

 

[seagull_special]

Hawkins is definately the short term answer but i believe Lynch is the longer term answer. I think it's very important to keep hold of him.

Hawkins is 31 years old, he could easily be here for 6 or 7 years

 

[Easy 10]

Whatever way you slice it, Lynch slapping in a transfer request 4 games into the season (after he's been injured) is PATHETIC. The fella needs to get his head down and fight for his place in the team, like everyone else has to.

Yet ANOTHER kid with an over-inflated opinion of himself and delusions of grandeur. Some footballers really do have shit for brains.

 

[Box of Frogs]

Whatever way you slice it, Lynch slapping in a transfer request 4 games into the season (after he's been injured) is PATHETIC. The fella needs to get his head down and fight for his place in the team, like everyone else has to.

Yet ANOTHER kid with an over-inflated opinion of himself and delusions of grandeur. Some footballers really do have shit for brains.

What he said

 

[BigGully]

It is a standard FL rule that players who do not ask for a transfer and are sold are entitled to 5% of the transfer fee and the FL get 5%. If the player asks for transfer he forfeits his entitlement to that fee, but then probably gets a larger signing on fee from the buying club.

At the fans forum I didnt hear DK say that he wouldnt stop a player leaving I thought that he said he wouldn't sell a player unless he wanted to go, slightly different but then I may have misheard or misunderstood him.

The 5% of transfer fee going to the player I am sure is something that stopped existing many many years ago.

A club cannot sell a player that is under contract and doesnt wish to leave, it needs to be agreed by the player too.

I am sure that any terms are negotiable and not restricted by any FL rule.

 

[CHAPPERS]

A club cannot sell a player that is under contract and doesnt wish to leave, it needs to be agreed by the player too.

Hence Winston Bogarde sitting in Chelsea's reserves and training with the youth team for three years or whatever it was, as he couldn't command higher wages anywhere else so didn't want to be sold.

 

[BigGully]

Hence Winston Bogarde sitting in Chelsea's reserves and training with the youth team for three years or whatever it was, as he couldn't command higher wages anywhere else so didn't want to be sold.

Yeah the player was obviously a prat, however normally clubs do tend to offer money to leave and in someway balance out the less wages at another club, if they are desperate to move them on.

It looks like that Chelsea probably could afford to allow him to rot with the youth team knowing that it would harm his career, rather than allow him to have his wishes, or it is more likely that no other club would be stupid enough to employ him at anywhere near the wages he was being paid by Chelsea.

 

[Easy 10]

Yeah the player was obviously a prat

Who's the prat - the player for sitting out his 4 year £40k a week contract (or whatever it was), or the pillock who signed him on those terms ?

I think Winston played a BLINDER there. His autobiography "This Negro Bows For No-one" is probably an interesting read...

 

[CHAPPERS]

Who's the prat - the player for sitting out his 4 year £40k a week contract (or whatever it was), or the pillock who signed him on those terms ?

I think Winston played a BLINDER there. His autobiography "This Negro Bows For No-one" is probably an interesting read...

Me too, I think he did very well. He still made himself available for selection and turned up for training every day he was fit. It's not his fault Chelsea signed him for so much.

The funny thing is how little football he actually played in his entire career. It was f*** all. 203 appearance in 16 years.

 

[sten_super]

Who's the prat - the player for sitting out his 4 year £40k a week contract (or whatever it was), or the pillock who signed him on those terms ?

I think Winston played a BLINDER there. His autobiography "This Negro Bows For No-one" is probably an interesting read...

Absolutely. It's a bit like those posters that slag off John Terry or Frank Lampard for earning £150k a week. I'd like to know how many of those people that criticise them have gone into wage negotiations and said "no £x is far too much, I'll work for you for £x/2 quite happily".

 

[Easy 10]

Me too, I think he did very well. He still made himself available for selection and turned up for training every day he was fit. It's not his fault Chelsea signed him for so much.

The funny thing is how little football he actually played in his entire career. It was f*** all. 203 appearance in 16 years.

And a grand total of 11 games for Chelsea.

 

[CHAPPERS]

And a grand total of 11 games for Chelsea.

40k a week for 4 years = £8,320,000

Over 3/4 of a million per game.