Andreas Weimann

[PeterWithesShin]

Monetary wise there is no might be about it. We'll make a massive profit on him. Not just his transfer fee but how much staying up will be worth which his goals will have contributed to.

And what if the club wanted to sell him which according to you is okay when I asked about us signing young players from other clubs. Wouldn't we owe him any loyalty for him leaving his home country at 16 or does it only work one way?

As I said, I hope and want him stay. But not because I think he "owes us" to.

The club have offered him an improved contract so there's little to suggest they want to sell him. That particular augment is the reddest of red herrings.

I hope, and expect, that he sees things the same way as I do and will want to repay the club for the time, effort and support they've invested in him. However, this looks like another occasion when I'm out of step with modern football fans.
 

It was of course a hypothetical question, hence the word IF, but nice politician answer. And no need for the modern fan crap either just because someone has a different viewpoint.

[Chris Smith]

Monetary wise there is no might be about it. We'll make a massive profit on him. Not just his transfer fee but how much staying up will be worth which his goals will have contributed to.

And what if the club wanted to sell him which according to you is okay when I asked about us signing young players from other clubs. Wouldn't we owe him any loyalty for him leaving his home country at 16 or does it only work one way?

As I said, I hope and want him stay. But not because I think he "owes us" to.

The club have offered him an improved contract so there's little to suggest they want to sell him. That particular augment is the reddest of red herrings.

I hope, and expect, that he sees things the same way as I do and will want to repay the club for the time, effort and support they've invested in him. However, this looks like another occasion when I'm out of step with modern football fans.
 

It was of course a hypothetical question, but nice politician answer. And no need for the modern fan crap either just because someone has a different viewpoint.

But it's not a hypothetical argument as we don't want to sell, so it's a red herring that adds nothing to the debate. It's also an argument you wouldn't have heard from a fan 20-30 years ago so by definition it's a 'modern' thing.

As I said, we should agree to disagree. You're not going to convince me that a promising youngster, that we don't want to sell, clearing off after one half decent season is something that I should regard as acceptable. Similarly, I'm not going to win you round to my point of view.

[fredm]

Needs to work on his close control. At the moment this is not good enough for a place in one of the top teams and his decision making under pressure needs to improve but hopefully this will come with experience. Personally don't think a top club would come in for him at the moment.

[PaulWinch again]

He needs to work on his all round game, but he'll be a top player.

[PeterWithesShin]

I know it's not a hypothetical argument, it's a hypothetical question. If Weimann (or any player) wanted to stay but the club wanted to sell, does loyalty only work one way?

I also never said it was acceptable, you should stop putting words into my mouth. I'm debating the "he should stay because he owes us" line.

He owes us because he was injured for 5 months of his 5 and half years at the club. I don't agree with that.
He owes us monetarily, again he doesn't as we'd make a massive profit.
He owes us as he came through the ranks, which is what i'm debating part of which part is my hypothetical question regarding does loyalty work both ways.

And people have talked about a player owing them for more than 20-30 years. Look at how we still talk about h0dge owing us more 25 years on.

[Chris Smith]

I know it's not a hypothetical argument, it's a hypothetical question. If Weimann (or any player) wanted to stay but the club wanted to sell, does loyalty only work one way?

I also never said it was acceptable, you should stop putting words into my mouth. I'm debating the "he should stay because he owes us" line.

He owes us because he was injured for 5 months of his 5 and half years at the club. I don't agree with that.
He owes us monetarily, again he doesn't as we'd make a massive profit.
He owes us as he came through the ranks, which is what i'm debating part of which part is my hypothetical question regarding does loyalty work both ways.

And people have talked about a player owing them for more than 20-30 years. Look at how we still talk about h0dge owing us more 25 years on.

Your last line reinforces my point of view. The vast majority of fans think he's a twat because he fucked off at the first opportunity. Now, you'd get people arguing that we're getting decent money so it's fine.

I'm not putting words into your mouth, I'm trying to pin down your argument. I'm saying that him owing us isn't just a monetary issue, it's also about the time and effort we've put into his development.

Your argument about it applying to other youngsters is a reasonable one, but a club can only carry a limited number of players so if they haven't made the grade then they are released. We get nothing for many of them and if we don't get some playing in the first team, from those that we do develop, then you have to question the worth of investing in the academy against just buying players.

[PeterWithesShin]

H0dge is primarily considered a twat because of THAT game, not just because he wanted to leave. Same as a lot of people turned on Yorke for his performance at Everton rather than he just wanted to leave. And a lot lost respect for Platt when we found out he spent a year learning Italian while he was with us. So to me that isn't the same.

My argument is simple, what and why does he owe us that we wouldn't owe him if the roles were reversed. I'm not talking about releasing players who aren't deemed good enough, I mean players like Weimann. Young, looks as though he'll be good enough but if we decided to sell for whatever reason why is that okay but him wanting to leave isn't? I'm trying to find out if it's a double standard. And if it is do we overlook it because it benefits our club?

[Chris Smith]

H0dge is primarily considered a twat because of THAT game, not just because he wanted to leave. Same as a lot of people turned on Yorke for his performance at Everton rather than he just wanted to leave. And a lot lost respect for Platt when we found out he spent a year learning Italian while he was with us. So to me that isn't the same.

My argument is simple, what and why does he owe us that we wouldn't owe him if the roles were reversed. I'm not talking about releasing players who aren't deemed good enough, I mean players like Weimann. Young, looks as though he'll be good enough but if we decided to sell for whatever reason why is that okay but him wanting to leave isn't? I'm trying to find out if it's a double standard. And if it is do we overlook it because it benefits our club?

If we decided to accept a bid, while he's under contract, then he still has the choice to accept it or not. Both sides have options.

Him just refusing to sign a contract leaves us with few options, and all the time and effort we've put into his development is lost.   

I think throwing in lots of "what ifs" just clouds the issue. Each case has to be judged on its merits and I stand by my position as stated earlier.

[pauliewalnuts]

I hope he stays. I also think he needs to understand that he's far from the finished article yet, too, so has a fair bit of developing and improving yet to do.

He'll get pretty much constant first team football here, at how many of the clubs likely to be interested in him would he get that?

[jeowje]

if we sold him for say 7-8 million, how can this be seen as any sort of 'massive profit' in real terms? We would have lost potentially a top striker for far less than it would cost to buy a replacement, especially as many consider that his value will continue to increase as he develops his game over the next couple of years.

[PeterWithesShin]

H0dge is primarily considered a twat because of THAT game, not just because he wanted to leave. Same as a lot of people turned on Yorke for his performance at Everton rather than he just wanted to leave. And a lot lost respect for Platt when we found out he spent a year learning Italian while he was with us. So to me that isn't the same.

My argument is simple, what and why does he owe us that we wouldn't owe him if the roles were reversed. I'm not talking about releasing players who aren't deemed good enough, I mean players like Weimann. Young, looks as though he'll be good enough but if we decided to sell for whatever reason why is that okay but him wanting to leave isn't? I'm trying to find out if it's a double standard. And if it is do we overlook it because it benefits our club?

If we decided to accept a bid, while he's under contract, then he still has the choice to accept it or not. Both sides have options.

Him just refusing to sign a contract leaves us with few options, and all the time and effort we've put into his development is lost.   

I think throwing in lots of "what ifs" just clouds the issue. Each case has to be judged on its merits and I stand by my position as stated earlier.

I'm not clouding the issue as i'm not claiming that my question is at all current fact. All i'm doing is asking a pretty simple "what if" question that you don't want to answer for some reason.

[Shrek]

We wouldn't get more than 2-3 million for Weimann, so wether we stay up or go down, I say we keep him, if he doesn't sign, we lose him for free.

But just think what a player of his quality would cost in fees and wages for a one season loan.

Weimann will currently be on less han 10k a week I would have thought, so no matter what do not sell.

[PeterWithesShin]

if we sold him for say 7-8 million, how can this be seen as any sort of 'massive profit' in real terms? We would have lost potentially a top striker for far less than it would cost to buy a replacement, especially as many consider that his value will continue to increase as he develops his game over the next couple of years.

The same way that Platt, Yorke, Milner, Young, Barry etc are classed as massive profits. We sold them for far more than the club invested in them regardless of the cost of replacing them with a like for like player.

[PaulWinch again]

He should stay for his own personal development.

[PeterWithesShin]

He should stay for his own personal development.

Is what I think as well.