Ross Barkley

[allen]

It's not about money it;s about credibility. There is no credibility fr a manager to demand of a player what he himself refused to do less than 12 months ago.

No, your argument isn't about the money because it collapses in the face of that particular reality. Squad building relies on transfer fees above all else.

The absolute equivalence you're looking for between a manager and a player's contract is simply not there.

 

[davek]

My boss

Ha Ha.

 

[nsno-chris]

It is. Twice that is a lot more. Lucky feller who gets that isn;t it? Can you think of anyone who does?

Yes £3.6m per year is more than you will see in a lifetime. But not good enough for a top blue to stay at the club

 

[allen]

And practically putting a player on the transfer list doesn't?

Whatever we'd get for Ross this summer is more than the zero we'd get next.

 

[davek]

You mean like dropping both Jagielka and Stek for long periods. That's more public than anything.

And those 2 aren't the subject of questions from the press. Context; he gets asked questions and he answers them, truthfully

Commented on them negatively in public time after time did he?

 

[bring the ghost on]

If he was even handed you might have a point. Koeman doesn't chew Baines or Jagielka or Stekelenburg out for their mistakes in public.

There are a number of reasons. Firstly, Koeman no doubt gets asked 30 x more questions about Barkley than he does about any of those players, hence why he ends up talking about him more. That is the same reason he talks about Lukaku all the time. The media dictate these things to a large extent.

But, I do agree he has singled Barkley out at certain times (when Barkley's performances have been consistently below standard) - he does it because Barkley has bags more talent than Jags and Stek and is not reaching his potential. Again, I don't see why players these days are so sensitive to bit of criticism.

 

[Tubey]

Whatever we'd get for Ross this summer is more than the zero we'd get next.

... yet less than we'd have got if we didn't hang him out to dry.

 

[nsno-chris]

Commented on them negatively in public time after time did he?

Did he get asked questions by the press time after time; no. But dropping the club captain for a long period is a statement enough

Another argument lacking any context. But it's just another knife to stick in Koemans back

 

[thebluenosebolt]

If he was even handed you might have a point. Koeman doesn't chew Baines or Jagielka or Stekelenburg out for their mistakes in public.

Treat everyone the same or keep your grid shut is the advice I'd give the Dutchman.

It's just been bullying tactics. Plain and simple. And like any bully the world over he picks his targets carefully

Deffo agreed there, A little bit like Baines was singled out by a manager not so long ago....your right it's not big or clever. I don't agree with how Koeman has handled it but I guarantee what he has said is the truth. Perhaps the club have instructed him to out Barkley so if he doesn't sign... the club wont be lambasted the same as when Rooney left.
Make it about Barkley's decision...not the clubs.

 

[allen]

... yet less than we'd have got if we didn't hang him out to dry.

Well the point of this theatre isn't to sell him, is it? It's to force the issue. It needs resolving.

 

[kenada_blue]

Thought he was a top blue though. A player not associated with Everton I'd understand, not a so called top fan.

He hasn't even had the decency to tell the club his plans; hes leaving them in a situation which will force their hand. Even Lukaku told the club he won't be signing, at least you can plan for that

But he's got talent. He's not Osman or Hibbo who'd be there if we were playing in league 2.

It's modern football. The only reason why Gerrard stayed at the RS was because he was getting bullets in the post but was also actually winning goblets with them.

And Rom spouted to all the press he could, his agent is a snake, and dragged us along the whole season thinking he'd 99% sign.

Ross ain't done that. But when Rom does that's okay.

 

[alanbuzz]

Take the offer off the table, replace it with what he's on now and wait. Noone will come in

 

[bring the ghost on]

Take the offer off the table, replace it with what he's on now and wait. Noone will come in

....Until 12 months from now when they can sign him for free.

 

[Thomasc]

... yet less than we'd have got if we didn't hang him out to dry.

So if they keep quiet and he leaves, they get the blame for letting our boyhood blue leave and they get completely slated.

They let the fans know exactly what is happening and they get for that slated too.

Sound!

Looks like whatever the club do is wrong in this situation.

 

[davek]

No, your argument isn't about the money because it collapses in the face of that particular reality. Squad building relies on transfer fees above all else.

The absolute equivalence you're looking for between a manager and a player's contract is simply not there.

You cant see that one person saying he prefers to go into the last season of his contract and that it's no big deal, but then condemning another person for doing the same and claiming it is a big deal is not an act of incredible hypocrisy?

Unreal.

The money dimension is besides the point. Southampton would have been in the position of scrambling about waiting on making their plans for the following season and with a possible lame duck manager on their hands if he'd have said he didn't wish to stay half way through that final season. How is that not the disruption that he says Barkley would have had us in?

Sorry, its indefensible. And it cant be finessed away with claims of 'difference'.