• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Richarlison

thfcsteff said:
What are you missing here mate?

The only thing I can see you're missing is that we disagree with each other as to who we each feel is mostly accountable in our provided scenarios. No amount of further exchanges will apparently change that.

It takes two to tango, but I remain firmly of the view that we should never have taken this belle to the ball in the first place if we knew we'd look for a better dancer, or if said-dancer didn't show themselves as reliable to our satisfaction.
Click to expand...

I’m genuinely trying to understand further, as I feel like the fact that he kept supposedly changing his mind is being under weighted here. How can the club account for that? There would have been a level of trust and good faith that was shattered when he said he wanted to move again, and then took to social media to explain how that Everton move wasn’t good enough because it was to benefit others (surely the club come into that) and not him.

I feel like you’re saying that the club should have anticipated that Richy was going to act this way. When I’m assuming they started from a position of good faith. Happy to keep him, and then happy to find a move when he said he wanted to go. If I’m incorrect on any of that because I don’t know something, I’ll hold my hands up. It seems like you are saying that we always had in mind we would sell him. But does that not cut against the idea that we offered him a new contract and asked for his commitment at some point in the summer?

Ultimately, deciding not to register a valued asset is a very deliberate, rational act. It’s a big business and sporting decision. Taking to social media is not a rational act, unless your aim is to draw sympathy away from the club and on to your own cause. But there is one side of this acting emotionally and irrationally, and I just don’t see how the club were supposed to do anything differently, if they had approached the conversation in good faith that they wanted to keep him at the beginning of the summer. Let’s say they did agree to sell him prior to the Australia tour - who’s to say Richy would have even accepted that move?

Am I understanding right that you are saying that because he came on the tour, he thought he was part of the crew and had a solid position at the club? And therefore the news of us wanting to sell him would have justified his actions? All fine but it seems like it doesn’t take into account the idea that he supposedly kept changing his mind as to whether he actually wanted to stay or not.
 
SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
I’m genuinely trying to understand further, as I feel like the fact that he kept supposedly changing his mind is being under weighted here. How can the club account for that? There would have been a level of trust and good faith that was shattered when he said he wanted to move again, and then took to social media to explain how that Everton move wasn’t good enough because it was to benefit others (surely the club come into that) and not him.

I feel like you’re saying that the club should have anticipated that Richy was going to act this way. When I’m assuming they started from a position of good faith. Happy to keep him, and then happy to find a move when he said he wanted to go. If I’m incorrect on any of that because I don’t know something, I’ll hold my hands up. It seems like you are saying that we always had in mind we would sell him. But does that not cut against the idea that we offered him a new contract and asked for his commitment at some point in the summer?

Ultimately, deciding not to register a valued asset is a very deliberate, rational act. It’s a big business and sporting decision. Taking to social media is not a rational act, unless your aim is to draw sympathy away from the club and on to your own cause. But there is one side of this acting emotionally and irrationally, and I just don’t see how the club were supposed to do anything differently, if they had approached the conversation in good faith that they wanted to keep him at the beginning of the summer. Let’s say they did agree to sell him prior to the Australia tour - who’s to say Richy would have even accepted that move?

Am I understanding right that you are saying that because he came on the tour, he thought he was part of the crew and had a solid position at the club? And therefore the news of us wanting to sell him would have justified his actions? All fine but it seems like it doesn’t take into account the idea that he supposedly kept changing his mind as to whether he actually wanted to stay or not.
Click to expand...

Mate...my position is very simple. And I will PM you as this is dragging out...
 
MartyFunkhouser said:
3 clubs interested at the end of the window suggests we would have had better luck starting the offload ALOT earlier
Click to expand...
You're assuming we didn't start offloading him early in the window and the 3 clubs that came in for him were not the same clubs that might have been in a long discussion to acquire him.
 
Bishop said:
You're assuming we didn't start offloading him early in the window and the 3 clubs that came in for him were not the same clubs that might have been in a long discussion to acquire him.
Click to expand...

Of course, given we took him on tour and he played against Brentford I think its a fairly safe assumption.
 
MartyFunkhouser said:
Late in the window. And with one club, its not even known if we accepted the other two deals

Surely this club knew Richy wasnt the one long term......oh no, actually we took him.on tour
Click to expand...

Here is what I am trying to genuinely understand. What if we *actually* wanted to keep Richy? What if RDZ’s whole thing was that he’d work with anyone that wanted to fully buy in? And what if the view of the club was that there are a dearth of available, proven strikers and so a solid bet was to continue on with someone that knows the club, the league, can score goals and be a strong character in the dressing room. If we accept that, why would we have sold him at the start of the window?

Leaving aside that elite athletes get traded at the behest of their teams all the time…I’m not sure why the end of the window thing matters so much. Or that the club needed to sell to buy? It is in the club’s gift to trade in the window as they see fit. They own the rights to the players and the players get paid handsomely for playing at this level, as well as earning contractually obligated loyalty bonuses despite being able to say they want to leave. It is what makes the whole market work. NBA players are constantly packaged alongside draft picks and sent to teams and places they have absolutely no say in, and have to move their families immediately. This happens across all elite sports. Richy is within his rights to turn down any move (even though he said he wanted to leave, so a move was found), but the consequence is he is not registered.

Leaving aside all of that, what if we actually wanted to keep him? And what if the club’s posture this summer was ‘we won’t screw about with you, so don’t screw about with us.’ Essentially they dealt with every player in a way that got them their desired move. They didn’t make a Berbatov, Modric or Bale situation out of anyone. They sold below market rates. They basically said, if you want to leave, we will help you leave. If you want to stay, we expect your full commitment. That seems fair enough to me.

If we actually wanted to keep Richy, why would we have sold him earlier in the window? It would make no sense. What if Richy kept changing his mind (which is exactly what RDZ said happened) and it meant that the club has to both keep restarting conversations about his sale, and also firing up conversations on a replacement. If he did this more than once, it would make it impossible to plan.

I can then see why, when the club had engaged in good faith with all players throughout the summer, letting anyone go who did not want to be here, that securing Richy a good move and then being blasted on social media for it was probably the final straw. I think it obviously completely unprofessional and there needs to be consequences for it. Richy clearly wanted to regain some agency (again, leaving aside that elite sports players have none or very little when it comes to player trading) and he definitely did that. He didn’t make any move he didn’t want to make. And now he’s not registered. That is the consequence for unprofessional behaviour.

I am not following why or how we should have anticipated a blasting on social media, or why we should have sold him earlier when we may not have even wanted to. I’m also not clear on exactly what move would have been good enough for Richy, or why it continues to be underweighted that he kept changing his mind, making it impossible for the club to plan. I think that the club acting in good faith with every player, probably alongside a desire to stop these Romero esque blastings on social media, plus a willingness to take a financial hit if it meant a boost to standards, have all contributed to this situation. And I’m just happy about it. We as a club need to be better, more professional, have higher standards. And we need to know we can plan a window in the future and that players will fall in line, especially when we deal with them in good faith.
 
JerusalemMan said:
Clubs interested at the end of the window are often not so eager or interested early in the window when there's less pressure to flex your criteria around who you bring in..
Click to expand...

I get that and I get that its also likely alot of last minute panic, but the point I am making is rather than letting him dictate the pace, which we seemingly have, maybe we should have. He would have found a home I am sure, all players do eventually, I don't buy the line that no one would have TBH, its often touted about over numerous players who eventually move
 
MartyFunkhouser said:
I get that and I get that its also likely alot of last minute panic, but the point I am making is rather than letting him dictate the pace, which we seemingly have, maybe we should have. He would have found a home I am sure, all players do eventually, I don't buy the line that no one would have TBH, its often touted about over numerous players who eventually move
Click to expand...
And loads of players who don't get their moves. It's not a one size fits all reality. Richy wouldn't be the first nor the last to over play their hand. It happens every summer and to some names more notable than his.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back