Rory Wilson

[DakotaVilla]

1 hour ago, Nigel said:

Sure enough no kids with any brains would join Chelsea currently. 

 

If they get paid circa 50k a week for 4/5 years or millions in signing on fees and that means the family is secure then it would be a brave kid to say no. No doubt his head has been turned by money being offered elsewhere. 

[mikeyp102]

No contract news still? And not playing u21s today

[AndyClarke]

He's sat watching today, turned up late mind. Maybe they are bored of him not signing a contract, one to sacrifice to the PSR God's if he stays anyway.

[AndyClarke]

Wrong thread.

Edited September 21 by AndyClarke

[MSvillain]

Could’ve been in the squad tonight but wants to play silly buggers 

[useless]

I doubt him not being in the squad has anything to do with his contract situation, he's probably just not deemed ready for the first team, I don't think I've even seen him train with the first team. Also wasn't in the U21 squad at the weekend, so might actually be injured. If he was causing an issue with his contract situation I doubt he would be playing as much as he is for the U21s or playing in the UEFA Youth League

Edited Tuesday at 19:03 by useless

[CVByrne]

On 24/09/2024 at 19:02, MSvillain said:

Could’ve been in the squad tonight but wants to play silly buggers 

Well he's just simply leaving. Hence not wanting to sign a new contract and that's basically that. We should just freeze these players out of the entire set-up. They can sit there for a year playing no football and then get their move. Need to be ruthless with them. 

[rodders0223]

13 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Well he's just simply leaving. Hence not wanting to sign a new contract and that's basically that. We should just freeze these players out of the entire set-up. They can sit there for a year playing no football and then get their move. Need to be ruthless with them. 

Yeah destroy an entire kids development for a year. I mean they're just PSR assets ain't it.

[Adam2003]

17 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Need to be ruthless with them. 

Yes that famously inspires loyalty. 

[Andy_10]

58 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Well he's just simply leaving. Hence not wanting to sign a new contract and that's basically that. We should just freeze these players out of the entire set-up. They can sit there for a year playing no football and then get their move. Need to be ruthless with them. 

I made a similar point elsewhere but somebody made the point that if we treat him like crap, one, its likely to remove the 1% chance (or whatever) to change his mind & get him to stay, & two, its not a great way of showing other young players that we have their best interests at heart. Which could potentially cost us one or two of them joining us.

Im sure they made their points more eloquently & more intelligently than I just did, because they made me rethink my position.

Don't get me wrong, if he's not signing then we shouldn't be pushing all of our resources into his direction, but we need to keep the communication lanes open & to continue developing him like any other ordinary academy player.

'IF', he then signs, we can divert more resources his way again like we would to a high potential prospect.

But most importantly, we send out a message to any other potentially interested young players that our academy is the best place for their futures.

And lets be honest, it shouldn't be a shock to us that a player who left his old club to sign for us, then wants to leave us to potentially sign for another club offering more financial incentives than we are prepared to offer.

[villa4europe]

1 hour ago, CVByrne said:

Well he's just simply leaving. Hence not wanting to sign a new contract and that's basically that. We should just freeze these players out of the entire set-up. They can sit there for a year playing no football and then get their move. Need to be ruthless with them. 

Or....we let the people at the club who actually know what's happening and talk to the kid decide what's best while we all just sit back and relax rather than throwing him under the bus and hounding him out 

We've been here before

[CVByrne]

3 hours ago, rodders0223 said:

Yeah destroy an entire kids development for a year. I mean they're just PSR assets ain't it.

He's destroying his own development. The club has invested time and money into him and he's giving us the middle finger and walking off for next to nothing. If we make this a reliable option for players we spend time to develop we'll see it happen more and more.

We need to make an example of him and show the consequences. If you want gone you go the way Chukwuemeka did for a sale. 

[CVByrne]

2 hours ago, Andy_10 said:

I made a similar point elsewhere but somebody made the point that if we treat him like crap, one, its likely to remove the 1% chance (or whatever) to change his mind & get him to stay, & two, its not a great way of showing other young players that we have their best interests at heart. Which could potentially cost us one or two of them joining us.

Im sure they made their points more eloquently & more intelligently than I just did, because they made me rethink my position.

Don't get me wrong, if he's not signing then we shouldn't be pushing all of our resources into his direction, but we need to keep the communication lanes open & to continue developing him like any other ordinary academy player.

'IF', he then signs, we can divert more resources his way again like we would to a high potential prospect.

But most importantly, we send out a message to any other potentially interested young players that our academy is the best place for their futures.

And lets be honest, it shouldn't be a shock to us that a player who left his old club to sign for us, then wants to leave us to potentially sign for another club offering more financial incentives than we are prepared to offer.

That seems a more balanced approach. But it is a double edged sword. If we are too nice and soft then more players will take advantage of that and walk away for nothing when it best serves them and not the club for the time and money invested. While being too harsh I agree might mean it impacts recruitment of young to talent 

[Alakagom]

35 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

He's destroying his own development. The club has invested time and money into him and he's giving us the middle finger and walking off for next to nothing. If we make this a reliable option for players we spend time to develop we'll see it happen more and more.

We need to make an example of him and show the consequences. If you want gone you go the way Chukwuemeka did for a sale. 

You realise we only signed him 2 years by tapping him away from Rangers? It's not like he's been with the academy for 10years+. The very fact he joined us is clear he is always looking for better options to further his growth..

[CVByrne]

20 minutes ago, Alakagom said:

You realise we only signed him 2 years by tapping him away from Rangers? It's not like he's been with the academy for 10years+. The very fact he joined us is clear he is always looking for better options to further his growth..

We bought him off Rangers yes. I've no issue if we sell him to someone else. 

[Andy_10]

1 hour ago, CVByrne said:

That seems a more balanced approach. But it is a double edged sword. If we are too nice and soft then more players will take advantage of that and walk away for nothing when it best serves them and not the club for the time and money invested. While being too harsh I agree might mean it impacts recruitment of young to talent 

It's a difficult balancing act, for sure. 

[AntrimBlack]

3 hours ago, Andy_10 said:

I made a similar point elsewhere but somebody made the point that if we treat him like crap, one, its likely to remove the 1% chance (or whatever) to change his mind & get him to stay, & two, its not a great way of showing other young players that we have their best interests at heart. Which could potentially cost us one or two of them joining us.

Im sure they made their points more eloquently & more intelligently than I just did, because they made me rethink my position.

Don't get me wrong, if he's not signing then we shouldn't be pushing all of our resources into his direction, but we need to keep the communication lanes open & to continue developing him like any other ordinary academy player.

'IF', he then signs, we can divert more resources his way again like we would to a high potential prospect.

But most importantly, we send out a message to any other potentially interested young players that our academy is the best place for their futures.

And lets be honest, it shouldn't be a shock to us that a player who left his old club to sign for us, then wants to leave us to potentially sign for another club offering more financial incentives than we are prepared to offer.

Exactly this.

[AntrimBlack]

If we were offered good money for a player, or it suited our interests to do so, we would move them on in a heartbeat.

It really cuts both ways.

They are entitled to look after their own best interests.

[CVByrne]

26 minutes ago, AntrimBlack said:

If we were offered good money for a player, or it suited our interests to do so, we would move them on in a heartbeat.

It really cuts both ways.

They are entitled to look after their own best interests.

Yes but that player is under contract. So if they want to stay they can if under contract. We can't force them to sign for someone else. 

When a player is 16 we should be able to agree a 2 year contract with a 2 year option then which triggers extension and preset pay bump. Instead they can only do max 2 years of whatever 

[villa89]

1 hour ago, Andy_10 said:

It's a difficult balancing act, for sure. 

It's not really,  he's a youth team player not even established yet. He can either commit to the club or go. 99% of these youth team prospects turn out to be duds, we can be ruthless with them.