That’s bollocks. We should pocket everything and reinvest it asap.
Yeah, it doesn't work anything like it does in any other league. It's pretty tightly controlled who is bidding for who, even the ones outside of PIF ownership are still owned by state ventures so there are no truely private clubs as such and they want a relatively even distribution of foreign talent across the clubs. They are investing a rumoured 17b or something in the footy progamme so they are taking no chances. As mentioned above its unlikely he is going there anyway, to much potential kickback for their massive investment.Out of interest what’s the deal with the Saudi league? I am guessing that as they are all state backed clubs, they would never get into a bidding war with each other. So it will be one Saudi club making a lowish offer rather than 2 or 3 competing for him?
Seems this lot disagrees with it being a minor detail and internal affair
They are women and obviously don't care about our assets and profits and finances, though, so you might be right.
Exactly. If anyone should be giving money to charity it should be Greenwood himself. This is on him not the club.
I’m not sure Saudi Arabia would want him, they’re building something brand new pretty much and will be very mindful of the PR involved in bringing him in.
The Saudi league has an element of sports washing to it and signing someone suspected of violent domestic abuse, whether he’s guilty or not, doesn’t fit into that.
Don’t be silly.Anyone hoping that the club get a good transfer fee for this guy should keep in mind that there will be pressure for the club to donate that money to causes for domestic abuse survivors. And frankly the club should be doing that.
So don't expect to get anything in exchange for him, from a footballing perspective.
Seems this lot disagrees with it being a minor detail and internal affair
They are women and obviously don't care about our assets and profits and finances, though, so you might be right.
Anyone hoping that the club get a good transfer fee for this guy should keep in mind that there will be pressure for the club to donate that money to causes for domestic abuse survivors. And frankly the club should be doing that.
So don't expect to get anything in exchange for him, from a footballing perspective.
Anyone hoping that the club get a good transfer fee for this guy should keep in mind that there will be pressure for the club to donate that money to causes for domestic abuse survivors. And frankly the club should be doing that.
So don't expect to get anything in exchange for him, from a footballing perspective.
I don't think there'll be that pressure given the statement from United.Anyone hoping that the club get a good transfer fee for this guy should keep in mind that there will be pressure for the club to donate that money to causes for domestic abuse survivors. And frankly the club should be doing that.
So don't expect to get anything in exchange for him, from a footballing perspective.
Adam Crafton is an idiot. Hostile is likely just corporate jargon against. He knows what he's doing by leaking that.
To the bolded: why?
Why are people expecting a fee?? He's been let go mutually, aka sacked.
The club will help him because it helps his family and we as a club have always been known to look after young players who leave but that is as far as it goes, we aren't selling him he is FREE to go elsewhere.
Seems this lot disagrees with it being a minor detail and internal affair
They are women and obviously don't care about our assets and profits and finances, though, so you might be right.
No, he's not let go yet. They've mutually agreed his future lies away from the club. He will leave, he has not left yet.Why are people expecting a fee?? He's been let go mutually, aka sacked.
The club will help him because it helps his family and we as a club have always been known to look after young players who leave but that is as far as it goes, we aren't selling him he is FREE to go elsewhere.
We should hire him to do our PR. Club legend for what he did by forcing the u-turn.
Profited? Whatever we sell him for will be a fraction of his actual value. And we had to continue paying him his full salary while he was sitting on his ass for the past 1.5 years. There is no way in which we are profiting here.It'd look really bad if we profited off of this situation
Disagree.It'd look really bad if we profited off of this situation
Why are people expecting a fee?? He's been let go mutually, aka sacked.
The club will help him because it helps his family and we as a club have always been known to look after young players who leave but that is as far as it goes, we aren't selling him he is FREE to go elsewhere.
Why do you think it got leaked though? Probably because it was simplifying a complex problem in a shitty binary model. Most stakeholder mapping is done on a quadrant anyway, in terms of interest and influence. Hardly a well thought out comms plan if you were either for or against, domestic violence charities came out on the side of against and they still came to the decision that they were going to bring him back - can't envision any PR issues there, can you?The club did a standard stakeholder analysis and comms plan to numerous potential outcomes using the standard terms for that documentation. It was then leaked to a journalist who reported without context implying they were somehow using the term “hostile” in a derogatory fashion and people are now unable to look past headlines and understand nuance.
It got leaked because someone at the club wanted to reverse the decision that was being made and it made Arnold and the club look bad. Fairly simple stuff really isn’t it?Why do you think it got leaked though?
Profited? Whatever we sell him for will be a fraction of his actual value. And we had to continue paying him his full salary while he was sitting on his ass for the past 1.5 years. There is no way in which we are profiting here.
That's beside the fact that the club is getting very little gratitude from the media, charities, or the general population for taking this decision - one that plenty of other clubs wouldn't have taken. If anything, the club is getting dragged through the mud worse now than it was before they took this decision. Womens Aid have literally reacted negatively to the club saying that they would react negatively if Greenwood was reintroduced! Feck 'em. Loan him out for a season and if he smashes it, sell him and reinvest.
Because multiple clubs will probably want him, so there is a chance of a bidding war to get some small feeWhy are clubs going to offer us a transfer fee if we're just going to let him go for nothing at the end of the window anyway? Am I missing something?
It got leaked because it's a shit process and decision. All the leak did was present to the public the decision and the process, the reaction is natural to such a poorly handled situation. If it was a sound and well thought out plan, why would leaking it be a problem and mean they have to roll back on it?It got leaked because someone at the club wanted to reverse the decision that was being made and it made Arnold and the club look bad. Fairly simple stuff really isn’t it?
United weren’t worried about Ronaldo either - MG is a totally different case.Don't tell them about Ronaldo then
But surely putting any of that small fee towards wages is going to be more beneficial to swaying the player at this point of the window.Because multiple clubs will probably want him, so there is a chance of a bidding war to get some small fee
Why are clubs going to offer us a transfer fee if we're just going to let him go for nothing at the end of the window anyway? Am I missing something?
Just saw a post in the tweets thread where someone mentioned it. To be honest I wouldn't expect it to be true because like I said it seems to remove any chance of the club striking a deal before the deadline at this point.Where did you read that we are going to release him for free? Not one credible source has said that and the statement says nothing about it.
Selective parts of the plan along with the decision were leaked. Some people at the club thought it was a shit plan and/or decision, leaked selective elements of the plan to a journalist with an agenda to stop the club bringing Greenwood back. You can agree with the decision and still realise that maybe the athletic and their sources only told the bits of the story to suit the narrative they were trying to run.It got leaked because it's a shit process and decision. All the leak did was present to the public the decision and the process, the reaction is natural to such a poorly handled situation. If it was a sound and well thought out plan, why would leaking it be a problem and mean they have to roll back on it?
