|
|
Post by B Block Blue on Jan 31, 2017 20:53:19 GMT
I've heard that they were interested. |
|
|
|
Post by garoldblue on Jan 31, 2017 21:03:37 GMT
Will be a shame if it goes to a tribunal with Sam, didn't it take until November for the Kingsley James transfer to officially go through? It would be frustrating to not be able to spend any of the transfer fee in the summer
|
|
|
|
Post by MPW on Jan 31, 2017 21:12:38 GMT
A QPR fan on Twitter said that QPR and Fulham were interested in Sam.
Be great to see him stay and sign a new deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rio Doherty on Jan 31, 2017 21:13:43 GMT
I can see him staying, unless something mad happens. Great bit of business.
|
|
|
|
Post by rainfordblue on Feb 1, 2017 7:56:31 GMT
Sam and James Alabi probably already know where they're going, how long for and how much they'll be paid - no fee in the summer means higher wages and a bigger cut for Mr 15%
|
|
|
|
Post by Firestick Frank on Feb 1, 2017 7:59:29 GMT
It's only great news if they accept a contract extension...
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Feb 1, 2017 8:02:22 GMT
I've heard Sam hughes could agree a pre contract agreement with another Club for a move in the summer but we will still get a fee for him and it's up to both Clubs if they can agree a sell on clause etc...
|
|
|
|
Post by Rio Doherty on Feb 1, 2017 8:19:43 GMT
Our next bit of business is TO encourage our assets to sign a new deal before the summer.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicksonmatt on Feb 1, 2017 8:53:07 GMT
The best thing possible for us is that they accept a year's extension and then we get the maximum fee. Would be good for them to repay the loyalty shown by Macca. But this is football and like other forms of life they will be looking to get the most for themselves. Can't really blame them for that.
Just hope the tribunal fees take everything into account and we manage to negotiate decent sell on percentages.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2017 11:13:38 GMT
The best thing possible for us is that they accept a year's extension and then we get the maximum fee. Would be good for them to repay the loyalty shown by Macca. But this is football and like other forms of life they will be looking to get the most for themselves. Can't really blame them for that. Just hope the tribunal fees take everything into account and we manage to negotiate decent sell on percentages. Agreed. I wonder if the clubs sniffing around have decided that Sam is not quite ready to make the step up yet AND/OR are biding their time knowing his contract status AND/OR stalling because he hasn't played recently and they can't assess him further. In any case, the vultures will still be circling because there's no doubt he's destined for a higher level. End of season is the crunch time - by then we need to have him signed up in some sort of commitment to the club to force a fee AND make sure that a Heneghan situation doesn't arise (wasn't there some sort of deadline re. contract offer that put us at a big disadvantage?) I'm sure, however, that Macca and the Board are well aware of the situation with Sam (and others) and, maybe, we should just trust them to do their best |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2017 12:29:53 GMT
dave powell has just tweeted
Dave Powell @_DavePowell 1m1 minute ago
As just tweeted out, Chester rejected a 'substantial' bid for Sam Hughes and a 'derisory' offer for James Alabi.
|
|
|
|
Post by Al on Feb 1, 2017 12:53:53 GMT
Have we officially offered Sam Hughes an extended deal?
In order to avoid a similar Ben Heneghan situation we would have had to had offered Sam a new deal yesterday?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2017 12:59:33 GMT
Named them as Barnsley on the Chronicle article.
|
|
|
|
Post by Krankie's Ghost on Feb 1, 2017 13:18:28 GMT
Really surprised we rejected a 'substancial' fee for Hughes.
|
|
|
|
Post by uptonblue on Feb 1, 2017 13:33:09 GMT
Really surprised we rejected a 'substancial' fee for Hughes. Thinking the same however the chronicle have quoted it as a substantial bid whereas the way Maguire has spoken makes it seem less so with them confident of getting more through a tribunal. Be interesting to see how much we actually get! More worryingly if Alabi goes in summer we won't get a penny... |
|
|
|
Post by Sealking on Feb 1, 2017 13:37:16 GMT
Really surprised we rejected a 'substancial' fee for Hughes. Thinking the same however the chronicle have quoted it as a substantial bid whereas the way Maguire has spoken makes it seem less so with them confident of getting more through a tribunal. Be interesting to see how much we actually get! More worryingly if Alabi goes in summer we won't get a penny... Unfortunately we will miss out on some money but if he did go we'd be lefted with one striker who currently isn't firing on all cylinders |
|
|
|
Post by Al on Feb 1, 2017 13:47:40 GMT
So looks like we're going down the road of a tribunal then.
I would make Hughes Captain before the end of the season. If he does go in the summer we will get more money in the tribunal if we can show he's developed all the way from x level to first team captain - at just 19...
Tranmere did a similar trick with Max Power when they knew he would be leaving.
|
|
|
|
Post by Billy W on Feb 1, 2017 13:52:40 GMT
I wonder whether Alabi is happy that we rejected an offer for him. As a Londoner, he may have preferred that we accept Barnet's offer, however derisory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Si on Feb 1, 2017 19:09:15 GMT
Must admit I was surprised to hear that a substantial offer for Sam had been turned down. Either Mark McGuire is confident that we'd get more for him in a tribunal (unlikely) or perhaps he's being convinced that another season working with Macca and developing in an environment he's comfortable is best for his development, thus signing a new contract and we'll get more money for him further down the line. Ben Heneghan stayed an extra season with us, which earnt him a move to Motherwell, an example to Sam that jumping ship too soon in his development might not necessarily be the best move.
I totally agree with the decision to reject offers for Alabi. He's too important to us to let go due to our limited options upfront and I'd only consider inflated offers for him at this stage of the season. If we sold him now and had just Kane Richards as our striking option then that would have a hugely deflating impact (no offence to Kane, but he needs James with him). Its Alabi's first season of proper football and I imagine that he's the sort of guy who'd rather stick out the season with us rather than deserting us at this stage, especially for peanuts.
Either way, its good to see we've got a chief exec who's not afraid to play hardball and refuse to be bullied by bigger clubs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2017 19:17:07 GMT
Unless Sam has verbally agreed to a contract extension (again, a risk), I think it's mad that we've turned down a 'substantial' offer.
I have no faith that we will get a good deal with a tribunal
|
|
|
|
Post by nicksonmatt on Feb 1, 2017 19:24:16 GMT
As has been said above, this is now where we need to get a bit more savvy. Check what the incremental increases are within a tribunal situation. For example if someone who has been captain gets more we need to make him captain at some point over the remainder of this season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Feb 1, 2017 20:11:26 GMT
I think tribunals can work for you or against you depending on the circumstances. For a player who’s only been with you a year and moves to a club in the same league or only one above (Kingsley James) I think you’re then scratching around for what you can get to be honest. For a player who’s been at the club for a number of years, come through the youth system who you have developed and moving to a club a few leagues higher, I think you can expect a much better deal. The sell on percentage is the most important aspect of it, unless I’m mistaken I believe the tribunal ruled us a small percentage on James’ next move. So assume we picked up a few hundred quid when Macc paid a small fee for him in the summer?
In my opinion, the club have made the correct decision here.
|
|
i was born on the sealand end
Guest
|
Post by i was born on the sealand end on Feb 1, 2017 21:54:49 GMT
It's not so much the sell in clause that can be the most important ,it's the appearance fees that get the club the money in say Sam signs for a championship club 50,000 fee then 50,000 after 25 games and another 50,000 after 50 games and so on that's how you make your money
|
|
|
|
Post by Firestick Frank on Feb 2, 2017 14:35:33 GMT
Lower league clubs get screwed in tribunals. If the offer was as "substantial" as the club say it was then we should've accepted it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2017 14:43:31 GMT
It's not so much the sell in clause that can be the most important ,it's the appearance fees that get the club the money in say Sam signs for a championship club 50,000 fee then 50,000 after 25 games and another 50,000 after 50 games and so on that's how you make your money Sell ons are all well and good if the player spends several seasons with the club and has success. If it doesn't work out and he is released after 2 years then we get nothing. See Antoni Sarcevic. Ideally, Sam signs an extension, has a belter of a start to next season and we get another substantial offer next January. |
|
