| Simpson - bridges burned? 11:43 - Jul 4 with 5210 views | dirtyboy |
Anyone have any insight on this?
Is his time here well and truly done? McKenna doesn't strike me as the sort of person to cut his nose off to spite his face, but you'd think a lad with a £0.5m(ish) price tag is worthy of some consideration.
I've not seen him play, so not sure on his quality/ability, but interested if a few more knowledeable types have any idea whether it's a given he'll now leave?
I just find it hard to say good riddance to any youngster when they're ultimately only listening to agents. |  | | |  |
| Simpson - bridges burned? on 16:04 - Jul 4 with 589 views | STYG |
| Simpson - bridges burned? on 15:34 - Jul 4 by clive_baker |
It's ridiculous really. It's very rare that I have sympathy for footballers in terms of earnings, but he's on peanuts. And I mean peanuts. He's not asking for the world in the grand scheme of things by way of a raise, and it feels like this 'we won't be pushed around' hard stance from the club might have a little bit of ego to it as much as anything else. The bigger picture surely is that we have a potentially promising player that we could realise significantly more value from if he stays and develops here. If we treble his wages, what's an extra £500 a week in the context of our spend. I get that you can't give every youngster a punt on that, but he's not every youngster given he's had a few very good months in L2 at a young age and albeit very raw, does seem to have something unique about him in terms of his physicality and pace. |
Do we know what he asked for though?
Example figures only - but if he's on £800 a week and Swindon's top earner is on £2k and he's come back to us asking for that, when maybe that's what some of our regular bench options are on then I can see why we said no.
If the lowest earner in our 18 is on £2k and Simpson has asked for an increase from £800 to £1.3k then I'd agree it seems ridiculous we couldn't agree anything.
But given the fact we've not reached an agreement, but secured Wolf and Humphreys and shown we will protect assets, it makes me inclined to believe that what Simpson was asking for was well above his current level because if it was fair I have confidence we'd have tied him down too. |  | | |
| Simpson - bridges burned? on 16:14 - Jul 4 with 560 views | PhilTWTD |
| Simpson - bridges burned? on 14:39 - Jul 4 by itfcjoe |
Players are the talent, losing them over a couple of hundred pound a week which is what is happening when you have players earning a couple of grand a day is careless and bad contract management.
Gibbs was basically done under the previous regime, and Simpson needed to be sorted in a summer when 19 transfers coming in so maybe both fell to back of queue - but we have to as a club learn from them.
Selling young players up the food chain when you could have had them stay is not a good idea |
I think there was certainly an element of Gibbs being well down the list. His deal was up at the end of the month the CEO took over and there was obviously a lot of other stuff going on. His agent wasn't spoken to until a week or so before his contract was up, by which time there were offers from a number of other clubs, several in the Premier League.
Developing players to sell on is part of the ethos of the ownership, so surprising that players with potential are being allowed to move on before they have had a chance to fulfil their potential. |  | | |
| Simpson - bridges burned? on 16:24 - Jul 4 with 524 views | STYG |
| Simpson - bridges burned? on 16:14 - Jul 4 by PhilTWTD |
I think there was certainly an element of Gibbs being well down the list. His deal was up at the end of the month the CEO took over and there was obviously a lot of other stuff going on. His agent wasn't spoken to until a week or so before his contract was up, by which time there were offers from a number of other clubs, several in the Premier League.
Developing players to sell on is part of the ethos of the ownership, so surprising that players with potential are being allowed to move on before they have had a chance to fulfil their potential. |
Could it not be the case then that Simpson and the agent got it badly wrong?
January came, 6 months left on his deal and they thought that we'd be prepared to offer them money well above what he's worth as it wasn't much to us and we'd want to keep an asset like Simpson.
So they then take the mickey, the club said no, told them we'd take up the option and keep him to sell him and that was that?
Given we've secured Humphreys, I just can't see us not working something out with Simpson if what he asked for was fair. Which leads me to believe they tried to hold us to ransom as the cards were stacked in their favour and we've not taken kindly to it. | | | |
| Simpson - bridges burned? on 16:31 - Jul 4 with 519 views | clive_baker |
| Simpson - bridges burned? on 16:04 - Jul 4 by STYG |
Do we know what he asked for though?
Example figures only - but if he's on £800 a week and Swindon's top earner is on £2k and he's come back to us asking for that, when maybe that's what some of our regular bench options are on then I can see why we said no.
If the lowest earner in our 18 is on £2k and Simpson has asked for an increase from £800 to £1.3k then I'd agree it seems ridiculous we couldn't agree anything.
But given the fact we've not reached an agreement, but secured Wolf and Humphreys and shown we will protect assets, it makes me inclined to believe that what Simpson was asking for was well above his current level because if it was fair I have confidence we'd have tied him down too. |
Appreciate that was an example, but he's on a lot less than £800 a week, although its quite an uncomfortable subject to talk about really.
What you're saying is right in that everyone has a price, and everyone is capable of pricing themselves out of deals, and it's certainly all relative. I think nudging a young prospect up from £20k a year to £40k, although in % terms a big jump, isn't a lot of money when you consider the potential future return and the wages relative to senior players.
Of course nobody has a crystal ball, we might not regret it at all and there were probably people scratching their heads when Josh Carson, Jaime Peters and Shane O'Connor left, who have done little to prove those decisions wrong. But I can't help but feel his returns at Swindon and the fact there's higher league interest in him somewhat derisks the 'punt' IMO. I do also understand the concerns of the club, contracts need to be earned. |  |
| |
| Simpson - bridges burned? on 16:34 - Jul 4 with 508 views | STYG |
| Simpson - bridges burned? on 16:31 - Jul 4 by clive_baker |
Appreciate that was an example, but he's on a lot less than £800 a week, although its quite an uncomfortable subject to talk about really.
What you're saying is right in that everyone has a price, and everyone is capable of pricing themselves out of deals, and it's certainly all relative. I think nudging a young prospect up from £20k a year to £40k, although in % terms a big jump, isn't a lot of money when you consider the potential future return and the wages relative to senior players.
Of course nobody has a crystal ball, we might not regret it at all and there were probably people scratching their heads when Josh Carson, Jaime Peters and Shane O'Connor left, who have done little to prove those decisions wrong. But I can't help but feel his returns at Swindon and the fact there's higher league interest in him somewhat derisks the 'punt' IMO. I do also understand the concerns of the club, contracts need to be earned. |
Agreed.
Like I say, my gut feeling only (worth very little) is that if the negotiations were handled professionally and what he asked for was reasonable then it would absolutely have got done for the reason that he's an asset with interest elsewhere.
So the fact we got to this stage inspite of that interest, potential and so on, makes me think the expectations must have been really riduclous. | | | |
| Simpson - bridges burned? on 16:35 - Jul 4 with 506 views | PhilTWTD |
| Simpson - bridges burned? on 16:24 - Jul 4 by STYG |
Could it not be the case then that Simpson and the agent got it badly wrong?
January came, 6 months left on his deal and they thought that we'd be prepared to offer them money well above what he's worth as it wasn't much to us and we'd want to keep an asset like Simpson.
So they then take the mickey, the club said no, told them we'd take up the option and keep him to sell him and that was that?
Given we've secured Humphreys, I just can't see us not working something out with Simpson if what he asked for was fair. Which leads me to believe they tried to hold us to ransom as the cards were stacked in their favour and we've not taken kindly to it. |
From what I gather they're not after silly money. Terms were offered, they turned them down, club wasn't willing to bend to their demands, player informed them he wanted to move on. Situation could have been avoided if a contract had been offered previously, of course. | | | |
| Simpson - bridges burned? on 16:47 - Jul 4 with 472 views | FrimleyBlue |
| Simpson - bridges burned? on 16:35 - Jul 4 by PhilTWTD |
From what I gather they're not after silly money. Terms were offered, they turned them down, club wasn't willing to bend to their demands, player informed them he wanted to move on. Situation could have been avoided if a contract had been offered previously, of course. |
But then you're offering a contract extension to someone who at the time hadn't done anything of note to warrant a new contract. At that time he'd played football for 2 seasons.. without any raving reviews.
It's easy to say we should gone early on a contract because he subsequently went on loan and did OK. But there wasn't anything there to get excited about before. |  |
| |
| Simpson - bridges burned? on 16:51 - Jul 4 with 463 views | PhilTWTD |
| Simpson - bridges burned? on 16:47 - Jul 4 by FrimleyBlue |
But then you're offering a contract extension to someone who at the time hadn't done anything of note to warrant a new contract. At that time he'd played football for 2 seasons.. without any raving reviews.
It's easy to say we should gone early on a contract because he subsequently went on loan and did OK. But there wasn't anything there to get excited about before. |
He'd done well enough for Swindon to take him on loan. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Simpson - bridges burned? on 16:52 - Jul 4 with 458 views | ArnieM |
| Simpson - bridges burned? on 12:17 - Jul 4 by clive_baker |
Based on what I heard a big part of it is that he's paid a pittance and has an agent in his ear reminding him of that fact. They tried to negotiate a pay rise but it couldn't be agreed. Think MA thought they were taking the p1ss, and equally Simpson and his agent think he's being mugged off and was punished by being recalled from a loan spell he was enjoying and flourishing in. It's not good all round, I can't see it ever coming back from here, TS admittedly young and naive but he's not backward in coming forward with his thoughts on it all.
it's just a case of who is prepared to give us the most money for him now. Huddersfield would be a good move. |
So in essence we don’t pay our U23’s ( the supposedly next in line for the senior squad), enough moneys in todays market!? |  |
| |
| Simpson - bridges burned? on 16:57 - Jul 4 with 451 views | FrimleyBlue |
| Simpson - bridges burned? on 16:51 - Jul 4 by PhilTWTD |
He'd done well enough for Swindon to take him on loan. |
Loans to league 2 happen all the time. Its not then an automatic reason to offer a new deal when you still have 1 year plus an option year left on the current one. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
