Tom Eaves

[Ackey]

Football's different in many ways, but given such an unlikely scenario I'd hope we could find an arrangement where everybody is a winner. As De La Vega or BigFinn pointed out, if I had ditched my company the day I recieved my degree then I'd have been contractually obliged to refund them the tuition fees they had payed out.

 

Will Eaves be liable for the £k's spent on his development, which the club consider an investment? No, largely as it would be difficult to structure an equivalent deal to what more typical employers such as mine did.

 

At least the F.A will ensure we get something for Eaves, even if it's from another club rather then Mr Big Boots himself. Shame they couldn't with Porter - perhaps he did nowt wrong either?

But whilst I understand your point of view the same logic can be used in the 'opposite' direction... contractually there is nothing to say Eaves should show 'loyalty'. You were contractually liable were you to leave. Eaves is not.

 

That comes back to morals. And Latics are in no position to take the moral high ground on matters such as this.

 

So that leaves Eaves to make the decision he thinks is best for him and in an 'industry' where careers can be painfully short I have no objection to him trying to get the best deal he can for himself at the highest level possible.

[Lookers_Carl]

But whilst I understand your point of view the same logic can be used in the 'opposite' direction... contractually there is nothing to say Eaves should show 'loyalty'. You were contractually liable were you to leave. Eaves is not.

That comes back to morals. And Latics are in no position to take the moral high ground on matters such as this.

So that leaves Eaves to make the decision he thinks is best for him and in an 'industry' where careers can be painfully short I have no objection to him trying to get the best deal he can for himself at the highest level possible.

 

Aye, Paul Warne will be the first to tell anyone that

[TheBigDog]

But whilst I understand your point of view the same logic can be used in the 'opposite' direction... contractually there is nothing to say Eaves should show 'loyalty'. You were contractually liable were you to leave. Eaves is not.

 

That comes back to morals. And Latics are in no position to take the moral high ground on matters such as this.

 

So that leaves Eaves to make the decision he thinks is best for him and in an 'industry' where careers can be painfully short I have no objection to him trying to get the best deal he can for himself at the highest level possible.

 

Surely Tom Eaves had a reasonable idea of what his likely first pro contract would be worth at a club like ours? He was quite happy to spend the two years of his apprenticeship at the club and having done well must have known that the contract offer would be a fairly standard one.

 

Loyalty does count for a lot in my book - he 'owes' the club that at least. I often wonder what part agents play in all of this?

 

If he does jump ship then that will be a kick in the teeth for Tony Philliskirk and the rest of the coaching staff who invested so much in the lad - he has hardly payed much of that back yet has he?

 

In my opinion he is being disloyal to the club that gave him a start if he goes elsewhere - simple as.

[Ackey]

Aye, Paul Warne will be the first to tell anyone that

Indeed, and he's simply a high profile case. I think it's a fair assumption the club (and many if not all other clubs) have used tactics which are morally questionable when negotiating a contract... some might look to the article about Eaves' stalling as an example of that - given he doesn't have a medium on which to present a repost to their comments...

[Zorrro]

Burn the heretic.

[Stitch_KTF]

But whilst I understand your point of view the same logic can be used in the 'opposite' direction... contractually there is nothing to say Eaves should show 'loyalty'. You were contractually liable were you to leave. Eaves is not.

 

That comes back to morals. And Latics are in no position to take the moral high ground on matters such as this.

 

So that leaves Eaves free to make a short-term selfish decision he thinks is best for him and in an 'industry' where careers can be painfully short I have no objection to him trying to get the best deal he can for himself at the highest level possible.

 

No it can't as, pretty much by definition, loyalty only comes into the equation once there is no binding contract.

 

 

Agree on your subsequent Warne comment. That was despicable. It seems we reap what we sow.

[Ackey]

Surely Tom Eaves had a reasonable idea of what his likely first pro contract would be worth at a club like ours? He was quite happy to spend the two years of his apprenticeship at the club and having done well must have known that the contract offer would be a fairly standard one.

 

Loyalty does count for a lot in my book - he 'owes' the club that at least. I often wonder what part agents play in all of this?

 

If he does jump ship then that will be a kick in the teeth for Tony Philliskirk and the rest of the coaching staff who invested so much in the lad - he has hardly payed much of that back yet has he?

 

In my opinion he is being disloyal to the club that gave him a start if he goes elsewhere - simple as.

I'm trying to think of a more suitable example than work...

 

Student A does a degree with University A and gets an excellent grade. At the end of their Bachelors degree they choose to extend their education and take on a Masters. Student A is offered the course by University A, but given their grade Universities B, C and D offer the course too.

 

Student A assesses their options and decides that in order of the best prospects offered University C is their preferred choice.

 

Is Student A being disloyal? Given that University A has invested three years (with teachers comparable to coaches) into Student A?

 

I'd say that's a fair analogy and Student A is well within their rights, both contractually and morally, to move to the institution offering the best prospects for the future.

 

It is only because people are unable to detach themselves from their love for the club that they instantly feel 'cheated' by someone like Eaves looking at their options.

[Stitch_KTF]

The interest between a uni retaining a post-graduate and a football club retaining a young striker they have developed and moulded into a saleable asset are hardly comparable, surely?

 

 

I totally accept your viewpoint is the 'real world', a 'real world' where people are greedy and exclusively out for themselves.

[Stevie_J]

Football's different in many ways, but given such an unlikely scenario I'd hope we could find an arrangement where everybody is a winner. As De La Vega or BigFinn pointed out, if I had ditched my company the day I recieved my degree then I'd have been contractually obliged to refund them the tuition fees they had payed out.

 

Will Eaves be liable for the £k's spent on his development, which the club consider an investment? No, largely as it would be difficult to structure an equivalent deal to what more typical employers such as mine did.

 

At least the F.A will ensure we get something for Eaves, even if it's from another club rather then Mr Big Boots himself. Shame they couldn't with Porter - perhaps he did nowt wrong either?

So you felt the same disgust with Dale Stephens and Chris Porter, when we signed them, I assume?

 

A footballer's career is short and decisions such as the one Eaves faces now can be crucial. I don't blame him at all and, to be honest, the club's approach is as cringemaking now as it was when Porter and Killen left.

 

The issue with Porter, by the way, wasn't about him leaving in circumstances where Latics received compensation but, rather, that he skipped the Border to share the money that would otherwise have come our way between himself and 'Well.

[Hometownclub]

Surely Tom Eaves had a reasonable idea of what his likely first pro contract would be worth at a club like ours? He was quite happy to spend the two years of his apprenticeship at the club and having done well must have known that the contract offer would be a fairly standard one.

 

Loyalty does count for a lot in my book - he 'owes' the club that at least. I often wonder what part agents play in all of this?

 

If he does jump ship then that will be a kick in the teeth for Tony Philliskirk and the rest of the coaching staff who invested so much in the lad - he has hardly payed much of that back yet has he?

 

In my opinion he is being disloyal to the club that gave him a start if he goes elsewhere - simple as.

That just about sums up my thoughts on the issue.

[Ackey]

The interest between a uni retaining a post-graduate and a football club retaining a young striker they have developed and moulded into a saleable asset are hardly comparable, surely?

 

 

I totally accept your viewpoint is the 'real world', a 'real world' where people are greedy and exclusively out for themselves.

I would say it's analogous.

 

A University invests in it's students for business reasons, the better the students' performance the more likely it is that students will select them in the future, thus upping the future investment, in the case of a Uni that's governmental funding, whilst it's a supporter/sponsorship in a football club.

[TheBigDog]

I'm trying to think of a more suitable example than work...

 

Student A does a degree with University A and gets an excellent grade. At the end of their Bachelors degree they choose to extend their education and take on a Masters. Student A is offered the course by University A, but given their grade Universities B, C and D offer the course too.

 

Student A assesses their options and decides that in order of the best prospects offered University C is their preferred choice.

 

Is Student A being disloyal? Given that University A has invested three years (with teachers comparable to coaches) into Student A?

 

I'd say that's a fair analogy and Student A is well within their rights, both contractually and morally, to move to the institution offering the best prospects for the future.

 

It is only because people are unable to detach themselves from their love for the club that they instantly feel 'cheated' by someone like Eaves looking at their options.

 

This example does not work and is in no way a 'fair' analogy. There is no 'apprenticeship' aspect to a degree course and there is certainly no prospect of the university offering a position to the student.

What we have with Eavesgate is an individual who has completed a two year apprenticeship in the hope of gaining a professional contract. The club has invested a huge amount in the player and now he is stalling on the offer.

 

We do not know the detail of the offer but I stick to my original view that it will be a standard offer for a club like ours and if Eaves does eventually leave then he is being disloyal and furthermore, whilst I believe he has the right to negotiate a better deal with Latics if he can, he also has an obligation to do his utmost to stay at the club and repay some of that investment.

 

If he goes then I will feel cheated and also I will feel sorry that his career in the game has started in such a way - it is his choice but I don't have to like or agree with it - I think that he is being poorly advised.

 

 

 

[Stitch_KTF]

So you felt the same disgust with Dale Stephens and Chris Porter, when we signed them, I assume?

 

Point taken, but did Bury feel the need to punish their players at any point?

 

They at least honoured professional deals before moving on - typical 'Bosman' transfers, with compo for being under 24.

 

 

 

That just about sums up my thoughts on the issue.

 

Mine too.

 

 

 

 

I would say it's analogous.

 

A University invests in it's students for business reasons, the better the students' performance the more likely it is that students will select them in the future, thus upping the future investment, in the case of a Uni that's governmental funding, whilst it's a supporter/sponsorship in a football club.

 

 

It's a rubbish analogy mate. Students aren't even employees - they pay for a service and recieve it. Whether they buy again there or anywhere is their perogative entirely.

 

The other analogy was fine.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Stitch_KTF

[RobOAFC]

Football's different in many ways, but given such an unlikely scenario I'd hope we could find an arrangement where everybody is a winner. As De La Vega or BigFinn pointed out, if I had ditched my company the day I recieved my degree then I'd have been contractually obliged to refund them the tuition fees they had payed out.

 

Will Eaves be liable for the £k's spent on his development, which the club consider an investment? No, largely as it would be difficult to structure an equivalent deal to what more typical employers such as mine did.

 

At least the F.A will ensure we get something for Eaves, even if it's from another club rather then Mr Big Boots himself. Shame they couldn't with Porter - perhaps he did nowt wrong either?

 

Yes football is different, BUT, it is still only a job, a relatively short career, therefore you must do what is best for you, and if it that is moving on to a bigger & better club, bigger wage package, then you are more likely to accept that offer, unless you dont get motivated by money.

Money speaks in most lifes, and am sure with Eaves it is no different.

[Hometownclub]

What really surprises me about this is that Eaves believes he is worth more than what I presume would be a standard contract for a club of our level and status.

 

He hasn't achieved anything of note yet to suggest to him or his agent that he would get more than a standard offer for his first contract.

 

0 first team starts.

0 first team goals.

 

I just can't understand were he and his agent think his bargaining postion is.

[Stevie_J]

What really surprises me about this is that Eaves believes he is worth more than what I presume would be a standard contract for a club of our level and status.

 

He hasn't achieved anything of note yet to suggest to him or his agent that he would get more than a standard offer for his first contract.

 

0 first team starts.

0 first team goals.

 

I just can't understand were he and his agent think his bargaining postion is.

It's in the fact that bigger clubs are interested. If he had no bargaining position, surely the club seem so 'concerned' about the situation.

[Hometownclub]

It's in the fact that bigger clubs are interested. If he had no bargaining position, surely the club seem so 'concerned' about the situation.

Are bigger clubs interested?

 

And if so why?

 

One rumour in a tabloid newspaper should not be turning his head at this stage in his career.

 

He has some potential, but that is all, he came on at half time against Southend and it was like pinball the ball was literally just cannoning of him in his attempts to control it, he has achieved nothing as yet to be making demands for more money.

 

He needs to get some first team starts and some first team goals under his belt before he starts thinking he's Ronaldo.

[Ackey]

Are bigger clubs interested?

 

And if so why?

 

One rumour in a tabloid newspaper should not be turning his head at this stage in his career.

 

He has some potential, but that is all, he came on at half time against Southend and it was like pinball the ball was literally just cannoning of him in his attempts to control it, he has achieved nothing as yet to be making demands for more money.

 

He needs to get some first team starts and some first team goals under his belt before he starts thinking he's Ronaldo.

Like you say, one rumour shouldn't be enough to turn his head and so I'd say it's fair to assume there's some truth to the claim that there's interest in him... as you point out, there would be no benefit to an agent convincing him that he's got better offers if he hasn't, as they both then stand to lose out.

 

I'd say bigger clubs are interested as he's shown immense potential at Youth and Reserve level and has the physical attributes needed to be a top level striker if you lack the 'genius' factor that players like Rooney or Messi has.

[Steve_R]

Am I the only one who couldn't care less if he signs or not? Like everyone else I've only seem glimpses of him, and what I have seen doesn't give me the impression that he's a certain star of the future.

 

In my opinion he's nowhere near first team material, and the only reason he's knocking on the door is because we are crap. He's only young and he may well make it in time. Then again he might not. He signs, he doesn't sign, I'm just not that bothered.

[BigfinLatic]

Surely Tom Eaves had a reasonable idea of what his likely first pro contract would be worth at a club like ours? He was quite happy to spend the two years of his apprenticeship at the club and having done well must have known that the contract offer would be a fairly standard one.

 

Ah, however I refer back to my earlier posts. I'm sure he was fully aware of the financial implications... however what he didnt know is that he would be playing for a tactical-retard like Dave Penney.

 

I state again. Why would anyone want to play as a striker in a team that doesnt attack? He didnt know how inept Dave was two years ago. Plus the club as a whole is two further years down the crapper.

 

Am I the only one who couldn't care less if he signs or not? Like everyone else I've only seem glimpses of him, and what I have seen doesn't give me the impression that he's a certain star of the future.

 

In my opinion he's nowhere near first team material, and the only reason he's knocking on the door is because we are crap. He's only young and he may well make it in time. Then again he might not. He signs, he doesn't sign, I'm just not that bothered

 

Pretty much sums it up! The only thing it does show (which I'm sure the close season will show too) - that if you have any aspirations to get ahead in football, you dont sign for a team managed by Dangerous Dave.

Edited May 4, 2010 by BigfinLatic

[Zorrro]

I'm sensing a touch of derision here, BigFin. Can't quite put my finger on it.

[BigfinLatic]

I'm sensing a touch of derision here, BigFin. Can't quite put my finger on it.

 

Wait until Saturday. I'll be a bundle of fun.*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Protest march - 1pm Town Hall... anyone?

Edited May 4, 2010 by BigfinLatic

[Zorrro]

Jeebus H...

 

I'm glad you're in the paddock!

[Senor_Coconut]

Ah, however I refer back to my earlier posts. I'm sure he was fully aware of the financial implications... however what he didnt know is that he would be playing for a tactical-retard like Dave Penney.

 

I state again. Why would anyone want to play as a striker in a team that doesnt attack? He didnt know how inept Dave was two years ago. Plus the club as a whole is two further years down the crapper.

 

 

Pretty much sums it up! The only thing it does show (which I'm sure the close season will show too) - that if you have any aspirations to get ahead in football, you dont sign for a team managed by Dangerous Dave.

 

 

 

Pav knew and was quite happy to sign for a Dave Penny team again

[BigfinLatic]

Jeebus H...

 

I'm glad you're in the paddock!

 

Where all the proper militants are.

 

 

 

God help Dave Penney if he is warming up a defnesive substitution at 70 mins.... The only latics related person who has ever had an eye-ball to eye-ball verbal barrage from me is Guy Branston. There could be a second....